Sentences with phrase «based on the safe withdrawal rate»

I'm going to assume it's not passive since 800k couldn't reasonably generate that much based on a safe withdrawal rate.

Based on the safe withdrawal rate of 4 %, I could retire on a $ 300,000 nest egg instead of the $ 1,000,000 or so I would need if I remained in Europe.

The final amount is the figure you need to work towards before you can quit your job and still pay your bills, be aware though, it's all based on a safe withdrawal rate of 4 %

Based on the safe withdrawal rate of 4 %, I could retire on a $ 300,000 nest egg instead of the $ 1,000,000 or so I would need if I remained in Europe.

Not exact matches

The 4 % safe withdrawal rate (based on the so - called Trinity University study from 1998), is only one of several rough guidelines and has been widely criticized by other academics, as well as revisited by its original authors.

This calculation comes from the thorough Trinity Study, which defines the safe withdrawal rate based on historical returns, that will allow your portfolio to never dry out.

One of the most important lessons I learned from my Safe Withdrawal Rate research (jump to Part 1 of the series here) is that the safe withdrawal calculations are best performed on a one - by - one baSafe Withdrawal Rate research (jump to Part 1 of the series here) is that the safe withdrawal calculations are best performed on a one - by - Withdrawal Rate research (jump to Part 1 of the series here) is that the safe withdrawal calculations are best performed on a one - by - one basafe withdrawal calculations are best performed on a one - by - withdrawal calculations are best performed on a one - by - one basis.

Yes, dividends can get cut but at least they are tied to the real business fortunes as opposed to safe withdrawal rate studies that are purely based on historical data, and thus probabilistic in nature.

It is important to remember that this SWR Translator calculates a Safe Withdrawal Rate only if its input (the annualized total return of the portfolio at a specified number of years) is a mathematical calculation based on information up to a specific date but not later.

Almost all of our Safe Withdrawal Rate information is based on REAL dollar amounts.

Gummy's equations tell us to use Safe Withdrawal Rate numbers that are based on NOMINAL dollar amounts.

We have successfully brought the Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) up to the long - term return of stocks, based on today's valuations.

I was unable to identify a usable adjustment to earnings growth and Safe Withdrawal Rate equations based on these data.

I normally construct Safe Withdrawal Rate calculators based on 1923 - 1980 data.

We look at safe withdrawal rates from many perspectives, each based on historical data, but each with its own emphasis.

Most research into safe withdrawal rates has been based on traditional stock and bond portfolios, but Bengen is a staunch advocate of using annuities if finances start to get tight.

Because that is based on the 4 % safe withdrawal rate.

Please remember that the safe withdrawal rate of 4 % in the States and 3.5 % in the Netherlands is based on a stock and bond combination.

Better yet, a mechanically varying allocation based on valuations lifts today's 30 - Year Safe Withdrawal Rate above 4.5 %.

Keep in mind that the savings rate calculations so far have been based on certain assumptions about Social Security retirement benefits, the real rate of return you can expect on your investments, and a safe withdrawal rate from your retirement savings.

The established safe - withdrawal - rate rules of thumb are based on long periods of time in which yields were higher than they are today and stock valuations were lower.

You would determine a safe withdrawal rate, based on your expenses and asset base, and then start to slowly bleed your portfolio dry.

My good friend Mike Piper has written an article («Investing Based on Market Valuation») at his Oblivious Investor blog exploring my finding that the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies get the numbers wildly wrong (promoted recently by my other good friend Todd Tresidder) and the research done by my other good friend Wade Pfau showing that Valuation - Informed Indexing has for the entire 140 years for which we have market data available to us provided far higher returns at greatly reduced risk.

The sentence reads: «Given that safe withdrawal rates are based on historical worst - case scenarios, and given the information we have about how bad those historical scenarios have been, we can begin to understand how bad returns would really have to be, from here, to lead to a safe withdrawal rate that is worse than anything seen in history.»

Valuation - Informed Indexing # 127 by Rob Bennett My good friend Mike Piper has written an article («Investing Based on Market Valuation») at his Oblivious Investor blog exploring my finding that the Old School safe withdrawal rate studies get the numbers wildly -LSB-...]

I thought that was a good way of pointing out how lame the arguments are that are used by defenders of retirement planning tools based on the findings of conventional - methodology safe withdrawal rate studies.

But as of today, based on everything I have seen go down during the first nine years of The Great Safe Withdrawal Rate Debate, I believe that I am under an obligation to my many good friends in all the communities to try to get the possibility of honest posting on SWRs and many other important topics opened to us again.

In fact, as we look at realistic extrapolations for portfolio survival based on today's valuations, TIPS consistently produce higher Safe Withdrawal Rates.

They cut so against the typical investing wisdom (which is generally based on an incomplete understanding of how safe withdrawal rates work) that most people have a very difficult time believing it can possibly be true.

After all, as the chart below indicates (from Spending Flexibility and Safe Withdrawal Rates by Michael Finke, Wade Pfau, and Duncan Williams from the March 2012 issue of the Journal of Financial Planning, and based on the Social Security Administration period life table for 2007), the probability of a joint life expectancy of 30 years for a 65 - year - old couple (to age 95) is already as low as 18 %.