Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 7
Interesting paper that extends the concept of Safe Withdrawal Rates (i.e., the maximum inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate that survived all 30-year pay out periods) The author looks at a 30-year accumulation period followed by a 30-year payout period and asks "What percentage of my salary must I save to provide a nest-egg equal to 12.5 times my final salary?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Very interesting, thanks for posting it.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Interesting post. Only one quibble. He talks about excess savings rate in the context of a person saving more than needed. While isn't talked about, that excess savings rate can buy you a shorter "work life" and longer "retirement life".

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've got to read it again

1. It is correct (as mentioned in the comments) that it doesn't account for SS or pensions, unless I suppose if you annuitize them.

2. While I dislike Kitce's conclusions from his study (to save later) I think he is right that most family careers and their resulting salaries have fairly sharp deviations from average with children, unemployments, and other factors. It's not so linear.

3. I'm not so sure a worst case scenario SWR can be equated to a worst case scenario accumulation rate. Again, I'll have to re-read it.

The accumalation and decumulation phases are getting more research. That's a good thing. Thanks for this!!!!

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I found it interesting but superficial. The SWR doesn't account for a lot of life changes, but then (except for the last couple years, where medical might take a big chunk) a retiree's life is generally a fairly smooth ride.

On the savings side, that happens very differently: people (generally) start off at very low salaries which increase over their 40 year career. They have kids, who take a lot of money just for growing, clothes, college, and so on. So the "savings rate" could be vastly different for a 28 year old than a 48 year old, and is much more highly dependent on "life circumstances" than a simple straight line formula or calculation might suggest. I'm not saying it doesn't pay to "start early", just that employing the marginal utility of money concept, you probably have a lot more to save later than you could ever hope to earlier.
Print the post Back To Top