UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 169  
Subject: Re: Safe withdrawal rates Date: 2/28/2001 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"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.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread

Announcements

Pencils of Promise - Back to School Drive
"Pencils of Promise works with communities across the globe to build schools and create programs that provide education opportunities for children."
Managing Your Wealth
Our own TMFHockeypop from Rule Your Retirement fame on the TV show Managing Your Wealth.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Deranged Monkey Criticism

RadioShack Afloat on a Sea of Financing
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement