Afan,afan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:39 pmWith all due respect, this reflects a distinctly narrow view of the world. It starts by assuming that everyone shares the goal of spending up to their capacity and saves money only to guard against running out. It ignores the possibility that a growing portfolio can be a consequence of careful saving and investing while spending below ones means.MnD wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:04 amIt's fairly common that maintaining the "portfolio/pile/number" becomes the end and not the means to enhancing retirement income. This phenomena also injects a lot of bias into overall investment planning. I think the race to the bottom on what constitutes a safe withdrawal rate, ultra-low expectations of future returns and the chaining together of other numerous negative assumptions in calculating how long to work and how much to save are all related to a desire to never stop growing ones portfolio and certainly never see it diminish even a little bit. The portfolio, which should be a servant to enhance ones retirement has become the master for many.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:43 amWhile it is not my particular bent, I do somewhat admire the conviction of most BH not to increase spending just because they can afford to. That said after watching my parents who had sufficient pension and SS income plus covered healthcare not spend any of their modest nest egg to do any of their bucket list because seeing the number gave them an additional sense of security I hope not to follow that path.afan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:37 am If a portfolio is largely or completely composed of stable value assets then there will be little or no risk of down years. If your income needs are covered by SS, pensions and annuities then there would be no need to withdraw anything from the portfolio.
If there is no need to draw anything from the portfolio then one could have it aggressively invested, tolerate down years, and live on reliable income.
Growing the portfolio may be a goal in itself, but the above quote implies that this can never be a legitimate goal.
I spend the money I need to live a comfortable life. Yet some assume I should spend much more money, on things I don't want, simply because I could. My retirement will be just fine at a level of spending below what the portfolio will support. I should spend more anyway? Why?
Imagine for a moment that not everyone shares your goals. Once you realize this, you see how absurd it is to state that everyone's portfolio "should" be for the same purpose.
Okay, so here is what I think your situation is ..... please correct me if I have this wrong.
1) You have a relatively low cost lifestyle.
2) But you have a job/career that covers your lifestyle with a fair bit left over.
3) Therefore you are accumulating assets (which will happen unless you give the money away of course)
4) You don't plan to increase your living expenses once you retire
5) Therefore you expect to have a bunch of money "left over" when you die.
Have I got that right?
If so, I would argue there are quite a lot of BH's with that philosophy ... at least it seems to me when I read the threads on safe withdrawal rate a lot of posters sound kinda like that.
And presumably there is some plan for the money when you are gone.
None of that sounds odd.
The spouse and I didn't make those choices; we choose to spend more, though less than many with our income. But we still expect, barring pretty bad luck, to have money left over when we are gone. And do we contribute to charities every year, etc.