Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2014, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 5,437,392 times
Reputation: 10111

Advertisements

Right that's why I said, "Living in a life"..... that's the key. Same as "if you live a life of drugs" then you have a problem. The drugs aren't the problem if you want to get technical about it. Credit is equally as addicting as drugs, but its the lifestyle that's the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2014, 08:15 AM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,654,795 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123 View Post
It's not debt that's a problem at all. Technically it's negative equity or net worth. Simply but, when you owe more than you own, you have a problem. Debt is just half of the equation and by itself, can be a very useful tool. Even credit card debt has a time an place. If I'll be getting my bonus in 2 month and need to fix my car today, paying one month of interest is still justifiable if I'm going to lose my job before my bonus without a working car.

My opposition is to people who draw the hard and fast line of Debt = Bad. Owing $1000 at 0% and having $1000 in the bank is exactly the same as not having any cash or debt. You only have a problem when you owe $1000 and have $500 in the bank.
Agreed. Still, I don't think "debt=bad" is a horrible message for DR's target audience. It is better than continuing to spend far more than one earns year after year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2014, 10:57 AM
 
18,550 posts, read 15,626,944 times
Reputation: 16240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
Throw them in and....what? William Bengen's research concluded that adding small caps to a portfolio increases safe withdrawal rate to 4.5%. International stocks do not increase expected return. Their value lies in diversification (less than perfect correlation).

William Bengen's research was published in the 1990s in The Journal of Financial Planning, in four different articles.

What research have you read which leads you to conclude adding small, mid, and international makes 8% a sustainable withdrawal rate?
Again, it depends on what you mean by 8% withdrawal rate. I agree that that is not sustainable when it has no adjustment to portfolio value going forward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2014, 11:19 AM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,654,795 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Again, it depends on what you mean by 8% withdrawal rate. I agree that that is not sustainable when it has no adjustment to portfolio value going forward.
It can mean whatever DR means.

Being willing to adjust to 8% of current portfolio value does help prolong the life of the portfolio. But the odds are the high withdrawal rate will cause the portfolio to grow smaller over time. While the cost of living rises, the annual withdrawals shrink. This is a problem for those who need that money to cover basic expenses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2014, 04:14 PM
 
18,550 posts, read 15,626,944 times
Reputation: 16240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
It can mean whatever DR means.

Being willing to adjust to 8% of current portfolio value does help prolong the life of the portfolio. But the odds are the high withdrawal rate will cause the portfolio to grow smaller over time. While the cost of living rises, the annual withdrawals shrink. This is a problem for those who need that money to cover basic expenses.
The real issue I think is living for more than 30 years after retirement. An 8% WR in that case is likely to turn into poverty if any really big expense comes up along the way.

Of course if you retire near the peak of a market bubble, you suffer a huge hit very quickly.

And of course the WR must be reduced by any mutual fund costs, so 8% after fees of 1% is only gives you 7%WR of purchasing power.

If you're willing to accept less income uncertainty, of course the WR needs adjustment. I think a practical case might be willingness to take up to a 25% hit, combined with 1% fees. Under these conditions your SWR is probably just under 5.5%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top