Comments on: Saving For Retirement

By: The Secret to Replacing Your Income

The Secret to Replacing Your Income — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:00:54 +0000

[...] We pay all our bills using this income, and with the little left over, try to put away some savings for retirement and spend a little on things to distract us from the realization we have to go back to work on [...]

By: Gary Pierce

Gary Pierce — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:56:25 +0000

If you are interested in alternatives to “normal” retirement, that my wife and I have experienced, without any investment advice you may find my site of interest.

I am 63 and have been retired for 14 years by living frugally.

Hopefully a reader will get some ideas about how they can still retire despite the mess we are in now.

By: Tuh Dee Pont

Tuh Dee Pont — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:03:11 +0000

Excellent points, MITBeta and marci! I was down about 20% at the worst, and this latest bounce has (temporarily I fear) replenished my coffers a bit, but irrespective of these short term ups and downs, I have set my allocation to what seems sensible and appropriate to my own long term needs and risk tolerance, and so I plan to do what Bogle coaches — “set it and forget it.”

By: marci

marci — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:41:17 +0000

I’m old enough to retire – and mine’s at only 8% down… and I was laughed at about how conservative I was! Not bothering me in the least – it will either come back or it won’t.

I learned early on – never ‘gamble’ what you can’t afford to lose. Therefore, very very conservative ‘safe’ stuff.

By: MITBeta @ Don't Feed The Alligators

MITBeta @ Don't Feed The Alligators — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:41:46 +0000

A number of people in this comment thread have suggested that people near or in retirement have lost 50% of their assets. That may be the case, but anyone who is properly managing their portfolio should be down 25% AT MOST. If they were 100% vested in stocks, they I say they deserve what they get.

By: Ataloss

Ataloss — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:42:19 +0000

From what I can tell Rob’s issue is that although 4% worked historically and in Monte Carlo it isn’t guaranteed to work in the future. He calls this an analytic flaw. I think only fortune tellers are confident about the future.

Rob “hocus” Bennett is the #1 poster at a site called “Hocomania” where he explains this all in great detail. More than here believe it or not.

By: Pev

Pev — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:33:01 +0000

Yes frugaldad – in college we were taught to take big risks when we’re young and go conservative when we’re older and near retirement.

By: Tuh Dee Pont

Tuh Dee Pont — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:40:06 +0000

Any chance of you putting a cap either on total number of replies per thread per user, or total words per reply, or both?

Some people seem to just want to see their name in print and so they go on and on without really saying anything, except looking for something to argue about.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:56:35 +0000

I guess I struck a nerve but the inaccuracies I mentioned are not exclusively Rob’s. If I had not already read the Trinity Study, I would have been confused about what Trinity said after reading this blog and the collected comments.

If you’re still many years from retirement, I wouldn’t worry too much about it and just shoot for 25 times your annual expense needs to retire at 65 and more like 30-35 times if you want to retire significantly earlier.

If you’re close to retirement you can probably get a copy of Trinity from any good CFP. I would suggest a fee-only Certified financial planner. There are a lot of other studies out there, especially on the internet where anyone can post anything and if you are a math and stat geek, you can tell the good ones from the bad ones. If you are not a math and stat geek, or you find this stuff boring, then find a CFP who keeps up with it.

By: Rob Bennett

Rob Bennett — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:33:52 +0000

If you’re interested in this stuff, please carefully read the actual original studies such as Trinity. Second and third hand talk about these studies on the internet is often wildly inaccurate.

Thank you for saying that, Dave. Those are important words.

I ain’t God. I have never studied investing in school. I have never managed any big funds. I have been known to make a dumb mistake or two or three hundred in the course of my days. If there is anyone giving thought to the idea of changing his or her investing strategy solely because of something they heard Rob Bennett say, I would like that person to understand that I think that he or she is an idiot for giving even tentative consideration to such an idea. No!

If my words serve to inspire a few people to look to the actual studies and examine them with some care, my words will have served a good purpose. The studies were important studies. Bill Bernstein said that that Old School SWR studies were “breakthrough research” and I strongly agree. Read the studies and and think through what the studies say. It’s by doing that sort of thing that we all learn.

We agree re this one, Dave! My strong hunch is that over time we will come to discover that we agree on a whole big bunch of other stuff as well.

Rob