The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Retirement Discussions / Retirement-Soon or Done

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/quotit-seems-that-the-trinity-study-has-left-out-14444758.aspx

Subject:  Re: Safe withdrawal rates Date:  2/28/2001  1:20 PM
Author:  telegraph Number:  131 of 169

"It seems that the Trinity Study has left out a couple of very important parts. That being, before one retires he or she should have enough money set aside to carry themselves through a prolonged bear market. Historically that has been five years. Past that point stocks are an will always be ones best investment and to have one money any place else is a waste of time.
Now I'm well aware that this approach can be unsettling especially if one is a novice or a beginner in stock investing. If one can put aside a minimum of five years money (in mmf or CD's)so that one doesn't have to rely on his or her stock portfolio for support.
This is my take that will work for me. Yours I'm sure is good for you."
_____________________________________________________

Glad it works for you, but I disagree strongly.

The Trinity Study (and all the other studies that followed - see www.scottburns.com and the Retire Early homepage), showed that having all your assets in stock gave you less ability to withdraw money....lowered your 'safe' withdrawal rate significantly.

You might find Bernstein's The Asset Allocator (recent best seller) an excellent reference.

Not only to you not want to be 100% in stocks (and apparently you aren't since you have five years worth of CDs, and didn't indicate what percentage of portfolio these five years were), you want to be reasonably diversified.

You apparently are already not 100% in stocks...for example, if your living expenses are $30K/yr, and you have $150K in CDS, and also $600K in stocks, you ARE 20% allocated to CDs/Bonds and 80% equities.

As to 'historically', from 1929, it took over 20 years for stocks to 'recover' to the level they were in 1929..... and we are talking the INDEX.....many individual stocks listed in 1929 weren't around by 1940...worthless...so if you only held a few stocks, you too could have been wiped out by the depression of 1929.

In the past 30 years, the time to recover has been closer to under 2 years.

I would suggest one reads up on Asset Allocation and Indexing....both are proven, risk-reducing means of insuring the ability to withdraw from a portfolio and a given rate.



Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us