Afford Anything - The Father of the 4% Rule Finally Sets the Record Straight

Episode Date: November 22, 2024

#560: Bill Bengen, the former rocket scientist who discovered the "4 percent rule" of retirement planning, joins us at the Bogleheads conference in Minnesota. Bengen clarifies that calling it a "rule" is misleading since it doesn't fit everyone's situation. The 4 percent figure came from studying the worst-case scenario since 1926, when someone who retired in 1968 could only safely withdraw 4.2 percent annually. Out of 400+ retirees in his database, that was the only one who had such a low safe withdrawal rate — most could take out much more. Recent research has pushed the "safe" withdrawal rate closer to 5 percent. But Bengen identifies eight key factors that affect how much you can withdraw, including how long you'll be retired and whether you're drawing from taxable or tax-deferred accounts. For early retirees planning for 50-60 years, Bengen says the safe withdrawal rate asymptotically approaches 4.2 percent — meaning even with an infinite time horizon, it won't drop below that. He thinks the common advice to use 3 percent for early retirement is unnecessarily conservative. Bengen shares what he calls the "four free lunches" in retirement planning: 1. Using an equity glide path (reducing stocks at retirement, then increasing later) 2. Diversification across asset classes 3. Regular portfolio rebalancing 4. Slightly overweighting higher-returning assets like small-cap stocks When it comes to market drops versus inflation, Bengen has clear advice: Don't panic during bear markets — they typically recover. But if you hit extended high inflation early in retirement, it's time to "head for the bunkers" and cut expenses drastically. Beyond finance, Bengen shares his excitement about space exploration as a former rocket scientist who graduated from MIT just months before the moon landing. He hopes to live long enough to see humans reach Mars and believes space tourism helps people appreciate Earth's beauty and fragility. The interview ends with a light-hearted discussion about whether Pluto should still be considered a planet (Bengen still calls it one, out of habit) and speculation about future tourism to Saturn's moon Titan once the sun's expansion makes it warmer in a few hundred million years. Timestamps: Note: Timestamps will vary on individual listening devices based on dynamic advertising run times. The provided timestamps are approximate and may be several minutes off due to changing ad lengths. 0:00 Paula introduces Bill Bengen, creator of the 4% withdrawal rule 2:19 Bengen explains how the 4% rule represents a worst-case scenario from 1968 10:14 Bengen warns against using a fixed percentage withdrawal method, as it could lead to dangerously low income in down markets 17:32 Discussion of the "smile" pattern in retirement spending - high at start, dips in middle, rises at end for medical costs 23:22 Bengen shares the four "free lunches" in retirement planning, including equity glide path and diversification 34:25 Conversation shifts to bonds and stocks no longer being inversely correlated in 2022 35:44 Deep dive into Black Swan events and how to prepare for unpredictable market crashes 42:14 Bengen advises when to panic (inflation) and when not to panic (bear markets) during retirement 49:20 Analysis of spending categories that rise faster than inflation, like healthcare and housing 51:27 Bengen discusses graduating MIT in 1969, just before the moon landing 51:56 Conversation turns to current space exploration and plans for Mars missions 53:39 Bengen speculates about future tourism to Saturn's moon Titan 54:17 Light-hearted debate about Pluto's planetary status Resource Mentioned https://affordanything.com/377-how-i-discovered-the-4-percent-retirement-rule-with-bill-bengen For more information, visit the show notes at https://affordanything.com/episode560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You've heard of the 4% withdrawal rule, which is within the financial independence community, a cornerstone of how we think when we think about retirement planning. Well, I'm here today with the guy who discovered the 4% rule. He is an MIT graduate and former rocket scientist and now has some more nuanced things to say about it. Welcome to the Afford Anything podcast, to the show that understands you can afford anything, but not everything, every choice carries a trade-off. And that applies not just to your money, but to your time, your focus, your energy, your attention, to any limited resource that you need to manage.

So, what matters most, and how do you make choices accordingly? Those are the questions this podcast is here to explore. We cover five topics. Financial Psychology, Increasing your income, investing, real estate, and entrepreneurship. It's double-eye fire. I'm your host, Paula Pant. I trained in economic reporting at Columbia. I help you prioritize, and I'm sitting here with Bill Bingen, the creator or discoverer, I should say, of the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule.

Welcome, Bill. Thanks for inviting me. Glad to be here. Thank you for joining us. My first question is, can you tell us your license plate? Oh, yes. I just made a recent change. To a certain extent, I've been fighting the term 4% rule for the law for.

30 years and I finally said, can't fight City Hall, I'm going to own it. So I converted my old license plate to MR4PCT, Mr. 4%. And I'm driving around Arizona with that license plate right now. Mr. 4%. Yeah, that's right. That's fantastic. So this is your second time joining the Afford Anything podcast. On your first appearance here as a guest, you talked about the discovery of the 4% rule. So I won't ask too many questions about that, because if our listeners want to hear that, they can go back to that original episode, and we'll drop a link to that episode in the show notes. But I'd like to ask you, in what ways is the 4% rule misunderstood or misapplied today? Yeah, absolutely. I think the term rule is inappropriate because it

gives the impression that there's one formula that fits everybody. And of course, if you're a financial advisor, working with clients, it's something not the case. Every client has different needs. how it all came about, rolls from that paper I wrote 30 years ago, where I discovered that the worst case scenario had been one retiree retired in 68 and I had to live with a 4.2% withdrawal rate. That was the worst. Now, in my database, there are over 400 retirees, and that's the only retiree that could take out only that 4.2%. All the others had higher rates and some double digits in some very, very fortunate cases.

So it's important just to recall that it depends upon your individual circumstances and the market circumstances when you retire to what's your number eventually will be. Now, we're just going to jump right into the criticisms. Sure, let's do it. I want to read a quote from a prominent retirement researcher named Dr. Wade Fow, who I know is a good friend of yours. Yeah. And your friends are always the harshest critics. Yeah, that's good. He's a good guy, though.

I really respect what he's done. So go ahead to hear. I'm quoting here from Christine Benz's book, which is How to Retire. Oh, I should mention for those of you who are listening by audio who can't see us in video, we're sitting here at the Boglehead conference. So you and I are in Minnesota right now, hanging out with people who are super into index funds. Indeed. All right, here's the quote, and it comes from Dr. Wade Fow.

When Bill Bengen developed the 4% rule, it was a research simplification to say that the spending would always adjust for inflation and not respond at all to market performance. That aspect of it creates the most sequence of returns risk, and that in turn causes the safe withdrawal rate number to be the lowest possible. Yeah, and he's absolutely correct, and I think I spoke to that a few minutes ago. It is a worst-case scenario. The circumstances in late 60s were awful for investors. investors. Investor retired in late, let's say October of 68, faced two bear markets, 6970, 7374, nasty bear markets, and then probably even worse than that,

faced about a decade of high inflation, where if you're following the COLA kind of withdrawal, on which the 4% rule is faced, you're increasing your withdrawal, dollar withdrawals, every year with the inflation amount, with no opportunity for having come down. I mean, how often do we expect the deflation? We haven't had a significant time of deflation of falling inflation since the 1930s,

and I'd suspect we won't for a long time. So that it is just a worst case scenario. It applies to a very, very limited number of individuals and circumstances, and shouldn't by itself be used as a basis for one's planning. You have to look at other factors. I want to hold on that. It shouldn't be used by itself as the basis for one's plan. planning because so many people, and particularly in the financial independence retire early community,

very simply say, I just need to save 25x my annual expenses. And once I have 25x my expenses, I can 4% it and live happily ever after. Well, good luck with that. And I really mean you're going to need good luck with that. First, I think the odds are high that you're going to limit yourself. You probably could have spent a lot more than that. My recent research, and I'll be publishing a book next year, which I'll be talking about, that it says closer to 5% is really the worst case scenario. Since that rule, the so-called rule, was developed back in the early 90s, you know, I expected my research, it made more sophisticated, added more acid classes, and all those changes have been gradually raising the so-called safe rate, so we're pushing 5% now. But I've also

identified eight elements or variables that you have to study first, such as the length of time, you're planning horizon how long you live, whether you're drawing primarily from a taxable count, a tax-deferred account, and a number of other factors. If you change any one of those factors, the slightest bit, you're going to change your withdrawal rate up or down. And you have to look at each of those eight before you can come up with a number. Otherwise, you're just simply playing the lottery. I want to talk about one of those eight factors that you just named, which is the length of time that you will be retired. because there are plenty of people who are listening to this who have the ambition of retiring early. Okay.

Many of them will have some supplemental source of retirement income. But putting that aside, if a person were to retire at 45 and live to 100, the original 4% rule, of course, was modeled on a 30-year retirement. That's right. What we often hear in buyer forums, people will say, well, because the 4% rule was modeled on a 30-year retirement, 30-year retirement, and you're planning on having a 50-55-60-year retirement, just spend less, just draw down 3% instead of 4%. What would you say to that? Well, I think they're correct in that the withdrawal rate, when you're looking at a very long time horizon like 50, 60 years, should be lower than whatever withdrawal rate would have been otherwise. I think if we were

looking at a worst-case scenario, which might be 5%, then for the 50 or 60 year, it might be 4.2 or 4.3, 3% is an awfully low rate. I can't imagine the set of circumstances that would force you into 3%. If we got there, I'd be scared of more about some other things than it would have been withdrawing for retirement. But it's accurate. The long of the time horizon, the less you can withdraw, although it's the kind of thing where it doesn't keep dropping, it approaches a bottom line of around 4.2 or 4.3% and doesn't get much much lower than that. Yeah, you were saying that it asymptotically approaches 4.2.

Oh, yes. As life extends to infinity. That's right, exactly. There's a lower limit to it, exactly. Yeah, that as your lifespan extends to infinity, the safe withdrawal asymptotically is 4.2% is what you found. Exactly, yeah. So 4% then does sound like a very conservative number.

Yeah, I think 4% itself. Once again, it depends upon all those eight elements I talked about. If you're drawing from a taxable account, for example, we're talking up to this point, all the conversations we've had have been in this underlying assumption of me. You're drawing from like an IRA 401k. If you're drawing from a taxable account, you're in a high tax bracket. You may be below 4%. Possibly.

If you also considering another factor, let's say you didn't want to have a zero balance at the time you die, which is the presumption under all these discussions. Let's say you wanted to have a couple hundred thousand dollars left in the account for errors, that will also further reduce withdrawal rate. That's why I got to look at each those eight factors before you come up with a number. It could be a lot lower or could be a lot higher than you might expect otherwise. Now the model, so one component of the 4% model as Dr. Fowell said in the quote that I read, is that by virtue of tying your withdrawal to 4% in year one and then 4% adjusted for inflation every subsequent year, you're doing that regardless of.

of what's happening in the market. And so as he pointed out, you therefore are exposed to maximum sequence of returns risk. Okay. What could a person do to offset some of that sequence of returns risk? And if a person did some things in the first few years of retirement to offset that risk, could they then spend more after year five of retirement, let's say? That leads to an interesting discussion. When I first did my first work, and we knew we were dealing with a worst-case scenario, we know the worst-case scenario only applies to a very, very small investor. And that other retirees have been able to take much higher rates return. The question is, how do we get people from the worst-case to a higher withdrawal rate in a rational, kind of semi-scientific way, at least?

I struggle with that for years, decades, actually, in this research. In fact, one of the first charts I drew was a probability chart. It says that if you take out the worst case rate, which was 4.2%, 100% of retirees could do it. If you went to 4.3%, maybe 90% percent, 5%. And if you want to 5%, maybe 85% of retirees would be successful and so on, draw that chart all the way out, and give that to a client. all I could see in terms of guidance. And you think about it, how does a client make a determination what probability is appropriate for them? Is 85? It's 80, 75, good enough, 90. I always felt that when I gave

my clients that chart, I was sending them off to Vegas with one of those blackjack charts and say, good luck. I can't do the best you can. I can't figure out. It wasn't until three summers ago, I made a huge breakthrough. And we knew from Michael Kitz's work in 2008, that there was a correlation between stock market valuations at the start of retirement and the withdrawal rate. He drew this fabulous chart, and very clearly, when stock valuations are low, withdrawal rates are high. When stock violations are high, your withdrawal rates are corresponding low.

I moved in opposite directions. And it was a great-looking chart. I said, maybe this is the answer. And I studied, and unfortunately, the correlation just wasn't strong enough. you could still pick out two different periods which had the same stock market valuation and their withdrawal rates were still too far apart. Then three summers ago I was sitting there saying, I know inflation has got to be in there somewhere because inflation forces your withdrawals up

and the worst case scenario happened during a period of high inflation. So how can I work inflation into this picture? and I kept drawing charts where I would try to sort all the inflation rates with withdrawal rates, and it just didn't work. And then I said, oh, my goodness, what if we made inflation the most important thing? Set up six inflation regimes, high, low, middle. I went deflation aside, three more, high, low, middle, and then sort the withdrawal rates within it.

The minute I did that, I said, oh, my goodness, I've got something here, because instead of maybe 75% correlation, now I'm not. I'm up to 90%. And I was actually able to develop charts where if you look at the chart, has the Schiller Cape, where the Schiller cyclically adjusted PE ratio is a measure of stock market valuation.

I was able to set up charts for each of those inflation regimes where you could look at the chart, pick out what the current PE is at the time of retirement, and that gives you your withdrawal rate. And it has a very high correlation historically with what's happened. That's solved that problem to larger.

extent. You still have a certain percentage of cases where something weird happens for retirement, but then you can make an adjustment. You can in mid-course correction like they do on the flight to moon or Mars, you know? You can adjust. But I believe that particular method that I developed now gives me enough for assurance to know that we have a good striding point. We know what it should be and that we can deal with corrections as retirement moves along. Right. You talked about modeling for deflation, which is something that, really something that most of us don't think about. Can you elaborate on what the average individual listening to this should do as they're thinking through retirement planning in a deflationary environment?

Probably not much, because I think the odds are we probably won't see a deflationary environment like we had in the 1930s. The 1930s had the worst bear market in the last hundred years. The market lost 90%, but it's not the worst case. You still could have withdrawn about five and a half percent during the Great Depression. The 1960s that came along with had inflation, which caused a real problem. It compounded the effects of the bear markets early retirement. But deflation for investor is probably a pretty good effect because it can turn terrible bear markets into livable experiences.

Their costs go down. And for retirees, I always say the great. threat for retirees is extended high inflation. You know, bare markets come and go. They recover. They're temporary phenomenon. Once you get big inflation increases in retirement, it's probably going to live with it for the rest of your life.

Right. On that note, we've just had a, relative to, you know, the last 30, 40 years of history, we've just had some fairly high inflation. We know that this has affected retirees. We saw Social Security's COLA increase. It was 8.2% not last year, but the year before. Yeah. Which is the biggest COLA increase in 40 years.

What would you say to people who are now dealing with what will be the lifelong effect of the fact that prices are high? How should we pivot? It's an interesting question. Fortunately, the inflation event we just experienced was not very long. We're returning to more normal levels from inflation, historical average, somewhere about 3%. over the last 100 years. There's not much you can do, unfortunately, with inflation,

other than look at your expenses carefully and control them. I don't think you necessarily need to panic because we've had relatively short period of this high exposure to inflation. But I think you just want to look at your expenses, make sure your plan looks like it's on track. If it's still on track,

just let it go on for a few more years and see if what happens to inflation. Hopefully it still continues to come down. I'm a little concerned on that area, but I'm no sure. I don't try to forecast those things. Almost impossible to do that. But you control what you can. Right. I want to go back to the 4% rule. That is what you are most known for, whether you like it or not. I don't have any choice that either. That's right. I want to actually circle back to something else that Wade Fow has talked about. He says that the logic of the 4% rule is to mitigate sequence risk by spending conservative.

but that is one of multiple ways to mitigate sequence of returns risk. That same risk can also be managed by spending flexibly, so adjusting spending to reflect market performance. That's a second option. A third option is to mitigate the volatility of the portfolio with a bucketing approach. And the fourth option is to have buffer assets, where you have some types of assets that outside of the portfolio that you can tap temporarily during major downturns. What do you think about those as sort of supplements to a withdrawal strategy that is modeled similar to the 4% rule in that it's based on year one and is agnostic to portfolio balance, but then also is mitigated by some of those other options?

Yeah, those options are available. The 4% rule was based upon a spending or withdrawal. model or a draw scheme, which I would call the COLA scheme. That's not the only way you can draw money, obviously. It seemed like it would appeal to a lot of folks because most weeks folks have a standard of living. They like to maintain possibly through retirement, but it's not the only way to spend. I have analyzed other ways of spending. For example, I've taken a look at a model where people spend more heavily early in retirement to reflect maybe heavier travel expenses and then decide to cut back after 10 years and mid-retirement.

and that has certain withdrawal rates associated with it. I've looked at withdrawal rates based on a percentage portfolio. I've looked at a fixed annuity kind of arrangement. If you can reduce your spending model to mathematics, I can model it with my spreadsheets. I just have to know what that spending model is. All those points are valid, and there are ways to use them. I haven't analyzed all of them, so it's hard for me to comment on the specifics.

It's one thing I've learned in this research. Don't assume anything because you're dealing with some phenomena. That can be counterintuitive and really can surprise you. For example, I had to analyze you using the COLO approach, which gives you a fixed stock allocation during retirement. You rebalance it to keep it like that. And then I took a look at the question of, what if we reduced our stock allocation during retirement,

as some people recommend, get more conservative. And that was a bust. it lowered your withdrawal rate. I never thought, actually, of taking a look at what happens when you increase your stock allocation to retirement. Turned out two researchers, Michael Kitsy's, and Wade Fow looked at that and determined that is a superior way to go about it in terms of asset allocation. So that was a very humbling experience for me.

It's good to have multiple researchers in the field doing great work like they're doing. Right. So they call that the, what, the equity glide path where you reduce your equity allocation right at the time that you retire in order to mitigate sequence of returns risk. Yeah. And then after a few years, you then increase your equity allocation again. Yeah, and it almost seems like something like that shouldn't work because you're starting with a lower allocation, maybe 40% instead of 60.

But like you said, it mitigates sequence of returns. If you get hit with a bad bear mark in early retirement, you're going to be very happy. You're at 14 instead of 60. Right. And then, of course, you're going to be raising it into the recovery, which is highly desirable. That's why apparently works. It's one of those counterintuitive things that just, thank goodness they looked at it. You just outlined what would happen if somebody retired into a bear market.

If you retire into a bull market and the market just continues to grow gangbusters in your first few years of retirement, if you were to take that equity glide path, you would be kind of selling, then there'd be a run-up. then you'd be buying again but at higher prices. So would that be worse then? No. It works across the entire spectrum. All 400 of my retirees would have benefited using the glide path. They get a significant increase in withdrawal rate,

like a quarter of a percentage point or more. It's one of the four free lunches that I see in this field. Okay, I want to ask about the other three free lunches in just a second. Sure. Before we get to the other three free lunches, I want to go back to spending the most in your first few years of retirement and then decreasing spending after that. And I've actually heard the analogy of this as a smile because it's high at the start, then it dips, but then towards the end of your life, it goes high again because of medical

costs and end of life costs. So it kind of takes on the shape of a smile. When I looked at, it wasn't a smile, probably more like a cliff where you just throw up. I would call, and he's screaming all the way down to the bottom. I haven't modeled that smile thing. I'm going to take a look at that when I get back because I've seen that in the literature lot, and I like to just test new stuff all the time. But the cliff approach where you basically, let's say you want to take 10% above the safe rate initially, and then after 10 years, you come bring your expenses down to put you

back on the safe curve. You just have to be aware of the fact that the reduction you may take after 10 years may be pretty significant, depending upon how exotic you were in your original spending. If you're only, let's say, 10% spending above the withdrawal rate at the start of retirement, it's not going to be too bad. Maybe you just have to reduce your spending by 15 or 20% or 20% but if you want to spend 20% or 25% about the safe rate, you may be looking at very large reductions in spending to get yourself back on a safe curve after 10 years. You just have to know that in advance. So you're aware of it. built into your plans.

Well, let's go back then to the other three free lunches. So you said that modeling around an equity glide path, which means that you decrease your equity exposure when you retire, keep it low for a few years, then increase it again. That's one of the four free lunches. That's right. Another one, of course, is when everyone is aware of diversification, which is the stand.

You know, that goes way back. There was a no prize given for that. Very, very important. and then investors have a well-diversified portfolio because you never know what asset class is going to do best. I did a chart from my book where I looked at the last 100 years and asked the question for each of these retirees, 400 retirees,

if they could pick an asset allocation at the start of retirement that would last them for 30 years and given the highest withdrawal rate, what would it be? Well, there's no one answer to that. It's all over the map. Some years, small-capped stocks dominate, sometimes large cap, sometimes international stocks dominate the allocation, sometimes bonds dominate the allocation.

And no one really knows what that will be. That's the problem. That's why asset diversification, I guess, is the price we pay for our ignorance. We don't know which asset classes will be outperforming the future. We just know that we stand in the road and we want to be able to get the best from the cars going by. We're going to have to hold all those assets and a reason we're going to be. proportion. Another one is rebalancing. Very, very important. If they're following fixed-ass allocation, now Glyde-Pat, they're just going to go, make 1% a year and 2% a year, whatever it is.

They're never going to rebalance. The rebalances, you're going to feel a fixed allocation or is a definite benefit for most retirees to rebalance their portfolio every six months to a year, bring it back. Reason why that's so successful as that, uh, is that, uh, is a lot of the If you've gone through a year and some of your assets have done very well and some have done less well, you'll be selling the assets who have done well and probably are about to do less well and replacing with assets who have done less well and are probably about to do better. Because investing is sickly to a certain extent. So that covers a versification and rebalancing glide path.

On the fourth is when you establish your allocation, let's have a fixed allocation, you might be a tendency to give each of your assets an equal amount. Well, my research indicates that if you slightly overweight those acid classes with the highest returns, let's say like small cap stocks, microcap stocks, just slightly. How much is slightly? Well, let's say you had five acid classes, stock with 11% each. If you went on a small cap and micro, maybe to 14% each, and then reduce the others proportionally, that also gives you a boost about a quarter of a percent.

That's why we're starting to get up to 5 percent and maybe a little bit beyond. So those are the four free lunches, at least the ones I've discovered so far, you know, in the field, which gives you higher withdrawal rates without any additional risk. Fifth Third Bank's commercial payments are fast and efficient, but they're not just fast and efficient. They're also powered by the latest in payments technology, built to evolve with your business. Fifth Third Bank has the big bank muscle to handle payments for businesses of any size. But they also have the fintech hustle that got them named one of America's most innovative companies by Fortune magazine. That's what being a fifth third better is all about.

It's about not being just one thing, but many things for our customers. Big bank muscle, fintech hustle. That's your commercial payments of fifth third better. The holidays are right around the corner and if you're hosting, you're going to need to get prepared. Maybe you need bedding, sheets, linens. Maybe you need servware and cookware. And of course, holiday decor, all the stuff to make your home a great place to host during the holidays. You can get up to 70% off during Wayfair's Black Friday sale. Wayfair has Can't Miss Black Friday deals all month long. I use Wayfair to get lots of storage type

of items for my home, so I got tons of shelving that's in the entryway, in the bathroom, very space-saving. daybed from them that's multi-purpose. You can use it as a couch, but you can sleep on it as a bed. It's got shelving. It's got drawers underneath for storage. But you can get whatever it is you want, no matter your style, no matter your budget. Wayfair has something for everyone. Plus, they have a loyalty program, 5% back on every item across Wayfair's family of brands. Free shipping, members-only sales, and more. Terms apply. Don't miss out on early Black Friday deals. Head to Wayfair.com now to shop Wayfair's Black Friday deals for up to 70% off. That's W-A-Y-F-A-I-R.com.

Sale ends December 7th. I'm glad you brought up small cap because one of the things that I hear people talk about a lot these days is look at the performance of large cap. And of course, there's recency bias in this, but look at the performance of large cap, look at the magnificent 7, all over the market gains are being driven by large cap. And in addition to that, some people would argue that AI has ushered in a new era. such that the productivity gains that come from AI will so overwhelmingly benefit the largest companies, alphabet, meta, Amazon, that large caps are the new small caps, basically, that the growth is going to come from large caps, and that's going to be the outperforming asset class.

That's interesting, because that argument sounds very much like your argument. I remember about 25 years ago we're in the dot-com boom. Yeah. I had very much the same kind of approach of things. And for a while, I'd work. And then we know what happened. And if you take a look at that bear market, which lasted over two years from 2000 and 2003, there are three areas you could have invested in which would have helped in stocks.

Reits outperformed, aversion of market equities, and small cap values. I'm not ready to accept that. Once again, that's kind of predicting the future. based on very limited information, I'd be very cautious about minimizing the effect of certain acid classes just because they have not performed well recently. Usually my experiences, that means they're about ready to go crazy. Right. Just like an example, emerging markets.

I mean, China pushes a switch. What happens for emerging market funds? Boom. Right. Up 3% a day, every day. So, yeah, be careful. Yeah, international equities are generally kind of underperform. They've been a disappointing asset class for 15 years now.

Yeah, and it's really hard for investors to hang in there and follow all the diversification advice, but if you look it over the very long term, it's been wise to do that. Okay, so the four free lunches, equity glide path, diversification, rebalancing, and... Slight overweighting of the higher returning asset classes. A slight overweighing of the highest returning asset class. those are the four. I have a follow-up question about rebalancing. Sure. Many people mistakenly assumed that equities and bonds were inversely correlated, and then

2022 happened, and we all had a bit of a shock. Are equities and bonds still, should we be rebalancing one versus the other? Is that still a good way of getting some universally correlated assets in our portfolio? Yeah, I feel over the long term, yes, did not always negatively correlated. You're right. 2020 was a good example. I think we even had an example over the last year where they were moving together at the same time. So it's not always going to work, but historically it's shown bonds were a great diversifier for stocks. So once again, I wouldn't be panicked out of that strategy by recent results. So in other words, it's directionally accurate, even if it's not 100%. Yeah, just you can't depend on. Nothing will work in investing.

all the time. That's a rule I probably I could survive to. Yeah. On that note, so Black Swan events, when we've seen the last few major market collapses, they were all triggered by things that no one really predicted. The pandemic,

we haven't had a pandemic since 1917. No one was really anticipating that. The subprime mortgage crisis, no one was really anticipating that. How do we anticipate the unanticipated? well, that's the thing you really can.

Was it? Mark Twain once said predicting it is difficult, particularly about the future. Yeah. And I think that's a fair statement to make. That's why you arm yourself with diversification. You never really know what's going to happen. You'd probably want to have some inflation hedges in your portfolios, such as gold, precious metal commodities at all time,

a little bit of everything, and you should be able to get through some pretty rough conditions. have in the past. Yeah, it's hard to emerge unscathed from something like the 70s. I hope we never see anything like that again. But even there, diversification proved a value to investors. You're talking about the hyperinflation of the 70s. Yeah. Yeah. What do you think of cryptocurrency? Well, opinions vary on that. I know Warren Buffett and his partner didn't think much of that. Other people are pretty high on it. I don't see any harm having a small portion to what you probably buy a fund and cryptocurrency fund in your portfolio, maybe one or two percent, I honestly don't know where they're going. That may mediate over time, moderate. So just seems to me maybe a small

percentage of portfolio and that wouldn't hurt as a diversifier. I want to play you a question that we got, when we recorded episode, we got this question from an audience member. Okay. I was myself and Brad Barrett, who is the host. of the Choose FI podcast, the Choose Financial Independence Podcast. We were both co-hosting episode 500, and we were live on stage, and neither of us, we were kind of trying to workshop this question out loud. Both of us were saying, you know what, we need Bill Bagan here. I think he could answer this. So, I want to play this question for you. Sure. And hear your answer. Thank you. Very philosophical episode so far, so I'm afraid I'm going to be a bit prosaic. Throughout both of your podcasts,

the 4% rule has been discussed ad nauseum. I was just wondering your thoughts on fixed percentage withdrawals. Because to my mind, you take your 4% every year without adjusting for inflation based on your fund balance. As long as you can deal with the income volatility, you remove sequence of return risk and you mathematically at least never run out of money. Rather than adjusting your amount for inflation, you're adjusting it for market returns. Yeah. I think it's the easiest way.

But the 4% is based on the balance at year one, correct? And then that is adjusted in line with inflation from that point forward. I don't know if that's ever been studied. Like intuitively it makes sense, but I haven't modeled it out on a computer screen to know what that would look like. You have modeled it. I have. I've studied that. That's one of the four or five different withdrawal schemes that I've looked at.

In some cases, it's worked very well. and that's usually cases where you start out with a nice bull market for a long run early in retirement, and you might be able to get away with it. With other cases, it's a disaster. You run into a terrible bear market, and you're taking percentage of your portfolio. It's also difficult for retirees because, let's say, in 2008 bare market, some, a lot of people found their portfolios dropped by 25, 30%. If they were using this approach, that means they'd have to reduce their expenses.

by 25 or 30%. Most retirees don't have that much flexibility. They have a lot of fixed expenses. So that's going to create real difficulties for folks. My goal is to try to find something that will work for people, given a certain set of circumstances, and it's a very high probability. I can't be assured that that approach will work,

a high enough probability of time to recommend it. There's a substantial risk of failure, So I, in my book, I'm going to say no. I hit the buzzer, no. How do you define failure in this context? Well, the portfolio starts to collapse and your withdrawals now start becoming far less than you started with. They might drop 60%, 50, 40. You know, once you get that level, that's a huge adjustment.

And most people are unable to handle it. I'd rather keep withdrawals in some sort of a moderate range. so that people can adjust their lives, lifestyle to it. So when you say the portfolio starts to collapse, the portfolio collapses due to market conditions. But you technically never run out of money because you're always drawing down 4% of current balance. It's just that you start off with 500,000 and there's a 50% haircut. Now you're drawing 4% of 250,000. That's right.

And that's just not enough to feed you. Exactly. And at some point, he just keeps declining because it's been damaged so badly by the initial circumstances. There's just no recovery. And that's what I try to avoid in my work and recommending to folks. I don't want to put them in that position. I want to avoid that. We want to get as much as we can, but not more than we can safely do so.

What might harm a portfolio in retirement? That's really a good question, and that really falls on a category of managing your plan. It's one thing to have a plan. a withdrawal plan, let's say, just as with an estate plan or an investment plan or an insurance plan. You have a starting point. You have certain goals with that plan. But it's important to manage that plan, and there are two important functions to manage. One is to monitor it, and once you discover a problem, make an adjustment. It's what they do. You know, and they send a spacecraft off to Jupiter, which takes six years to get there, okay? We all understand the rules of gravity and the forces of

effective, but it's just so complicated, unexpected things can happen. So you have to be ready to make adjustments, and you have to recognize what it is time to make an adjustment. I can give you a couple examples. I've done some studies of plans that look like they might be failing. Let's start for an example with a plan where an investor has gone through all the analysis, all the elements, come out with this withdrawal rate, which seemed appropriate based upon inflation and stock market valuations at the start of retirement, and then he gets hits with an unexpected big bear market early in retirement. He's tracking what his draw weight would be, and you set up a template showing what it probably should be according to the plan year by year, so he has something to track his

progress again, and it's scary because it shows that, at least for the time being, his withdrawal rate is much higher than he would have expected. If he started out with 5.5%, maybe it's risen to 7 or 7.5. have. It would be easy to panic in that circumstance. But when I did that analysis, the best course of action is to do nothing because most bear markets have a beginning and an end. They do their damage, but then they start a market recovery. And if you panic and, let's say, reduce your withdrawal rate, you may have lost. You'll find out that if you had done nothing, the market would have returned to higher levels and you're back on track with your plan. That's the result in most cases, in fact.

So my recommendation, if you come to an unexpected bare market, don't panic, wait a few years and see what happens to you withdrawal rates. My guess is they'll probably return to where they should be. Completely different circumstance with inflation. If you hit an extended period of high inflation, early in retirement, it's time to panic. I'm talking if you have four or five years of six, seven, eight percent or more, and you didn't build that into plan.

You didn't anticipate a high inflation regime. You probably need to make cuts in your spending and steep cuts because the situation will worsen as time goes on with inflation. I don't like the bear market, which is over and you get a recovery. You've been permanently damaged by this high inflation, and you have to find shelter. So you bring your withdrawals down. and how much depends upon how much inflation you have.

I ran a model where you had to cut your expenses by 35% immediately, or else you were going to have to have another 35% cut five years down the road. So the lesson there, bear markets, maybe do nothing. High inflation, it looks like it's going to last a while. Head for the bomb shelters. In summary, I'd say that if you encounter an unexpected bare market early in retirement, don't panic, while the recovery to proceed, most likely is that your withdrawal rate will normalize and you'll be fine. However, if you encounter a period of extended high inflation early in retirement,

it's time to panic, time to head for the bunkers, time to cut your expenses drastically, because if you don't cut them now, you're out to make even bigger cuts later if that inflation continues. Yikes. Okay, fair market, don't panic. inflation do panic. Yeah, that's right. What happens when there are certain categories of spending that rise at above the level of inflation? We've seen this historically with healthcare, which of course, when you're a senior, that's a very different conversation than when you're in your 30s or 40s. We've seen health care rise at much higher than the rate of inflation. we've seen the cost of higher education rise at much higher than the level of inflation,

and we've seen housing prices. In fact, housing is the one category as inflation generally right now in 2024 trends downward. Housing is the one category where it continues to rise. How much should you panic if inflation as a whole is relatively low, but there are very specific spending categories where prices just keep climbing higher and higher. Let's say that you are a retiree and a renter, but rent just keep climbing and climbing and climbing.

Yeah, I haven't done a lot of analysis of it, but I have some thoughts on this. I use CPI in the COLA method of withdrawal because that's an available statistic. The fact is, each individual has his own individual personal inflation rate, and I think it would be a good idea if individuals to take whatever the CPI is and adjust it to suit their circumstances, there may be

people, for example, I have a mortgage with a fixed payment, which reduces their inflation rate. Others may be more sensitive to medical expenses, medical expenses, and the other areas talked about, and they should probably expect higher numbers and building into their model when they calculate what their safe withdrawal rate will be. That's Kailor making the plan to the individual, I think that's useful to do that if find a circumstance or applies. Hmm. Okay. So individually panic.

Don't panic, do panic, and individually. That's right. Exactly. Idiococratically panic. Yeah, I want to vast panic. Yeah, exactly. Well, excellent. Is there anything else that I haven't asked about?

Yeah, you've done a wonderful job covering the field. Oh, wonderful. Very exhausted. All right. Well, in that case, I'm going to switch the subject and ask about a, because, you know, you're a former rocket scientist. Yes, former, Ephra Sun Palmer. When did you graduate from MIT?

1969. 1969. Two months before the moon landing. Oh, wow. What are your thoughts, feelings, observations about all of the new activity in space today and particularly the push to go to Mars? It's wonderfully stimulating. I wish we had Elon Musk 50 years ago.

We might be on Mars by now. It looks like he's planning to be putting people on Mars within five years, and I hope I live long enough to see that. I'm watching my diet, taking my vitamins. Would you go? I don't think I'd be a good candidate particularly for the fight, but I think it would be a wonderful adventure to step foot on another real world where the moon is, you know, it's not a very interesting place,

but Mars, I think, would be fascinating. And it's mankind. We've been around as a species for a couple million years, but we're still very, very young. We're still at the beginning of our journey, which I hope will last for a long long time. We have a lot to learn, a lot of wonders to discover about the universe and about ourselves. I'm just glad we're getting started. We're really doing it, you know. What are your thoughts, you know, as of the time that we're recording this, recently,

we saw the very first civilian spacewalk, non-trained astronauts, doing a spacewalk for the first time? What are your thoughts on increasing space tourism? I think it's great. I think somebody once who, I think it was an asteroid who had been out space and said that the view of Earth from space is something that everyone should experience because it will change their lives forever to appreciate this beautiful, fragile world we live on and how important it is that we'd be stewards of it, because we're going to be living on Earth for a long time and value what we have.

It'd be great, I think, if every one. Everyone would get out to space and see that. It would be wonderful. Do you have a favorite planet? Earth's pretty nice. Jupiter will crush you with the gravity and mercury you'll burn up and you suffocate on Venus. Titan is an interesting world. I'd like to visit too.

It's for a very interesting program. You know, the sun over time is going to get hotter and hotter and bigger and bigger. Eventually you turn the earth into crisp. But Titan, in a couple hundred million years, eat three. very cold now may start to warm up as the sun expands and its possible life may develop there. And that might be the place to go for your next vacation. Wow. Titan tourism. Yeah. It could be. Maybe a long way off, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Well, will you validate my argument that Pluto ought to still be a planet? I'm very disappointed by what's happening. I lived grade school. There used to be a dinosaur called Bronosaurus, and now I have a other aim for. I think it's apoptosaurus. There used to be nine planets, and others eight. Eight, yeah. And they've done a lot of other things. Yeah, there's a movement of what to bring Cluel back in the fold. I understand the scientific reasons. Why, that's a crazy orbit. It's so different. It appears to belong to another group. But I wouldn't mind if they call it a planet again. I call it a planet. Oh, excellent.

It's force of habit. All right. Well, thank you for joining us and sharing your thoughts on everything ranging from cryptocurrency to whether or not Pluto is a planet. My pleasure, I was read it immensely. Thank you to Bill Bangan, the discoverer of the 4% Rule, for joining us again on the Afford Anything podcast. What are three key takeaways that we got from this conversation? Key takeaway number one. The 4% rule represents a worst-case scenario, not a universal guideline. it's meant to reduce the risk that you will run out of money in a worst-case scenario. In fact, the study found that out of over 400 historical retirement scenarios analyzed since 1926,

only one circumstance, which is a retiree who retired in 1968, would need to limit withdrawals to 4.2% to make their portfolio last. And that's because if you retired in 1968, then you'd, you'd, face uniquely challenging conditions. Two bare markets in 1969, followed by a decade of high inflation throughout the 1970s. Retiring in 1968, historically speaking, is the worst-case scenario. All other retirees in the study could have safely withdrawn more, in fact, with some even reaching double-digit withdrawal rates, not that we're recommending that, but that is simply how far the range extends. Now, Bengin's recent research suggests that 5% might be a more suitable,

worst-case baseline, but he emphasizes that withdrawal rates should be personalized based on a variety of factors, including time horizon and your tax considerations. I think the term rule is inappropriate because it gives you impression that there's one formula that fits everybody. And And of course, if you're a financial advisor working with clients, it's something not the case. Every client has different needs. How it all came about, rolls from that paper, I wrote 30 years ago, where I discovered that the worst-case scenario had been one retiree retired in 68, and I had to live with a 4.2% withdrawal rate.

In my database, there are over 400 retirees, and that's the only retiree that could take out only that 4.2%. All the others had higher rates and some double digits in some very, very fortunate cases. And so that is the first key takeaway. Key takeaway number two, bear markets and inflation require different responses in retirement. While market downturns can be frightening for everyone, Benin advises against panicking during bear markets. Of course, I mean, nobody's going to advise, yes, panic. But, you know, Now, don't panic during a bare market because normally they recover. But that being said, sustained high inflation does require immediate action.

If there's anything to worry about, it's not a bare market, it's high inflation. And that's because the damage compounds over time and that damage becomes permanent. Unless we enter a deflationary market, once prices rise, they stay up. The rate of inflation might slow down. but the prices have normalized at a new, higher level. So in high inflation scenarios, retirees, Bengin said, might need to cut expenses by 35% immediately in order to avoid even deeper cuts later.

And on top of the general economic inflation rate, every retiree also needs to consider their own personal inflation rate based on their own personal specific expenses like health care and housing. That's just as important as the general CPI. If you hit an extended period of high inflation, early in retirement, it's time to panic. I'm talking if you have four or five years of six, seven, eight percent or more, and you didn't build that into plan, you didn't anticipate a high inflation regime.

You probably need to make cuts in your spending and steep cuts because the situation will worsen as time goes on with inflation. I don't like the bare market, which is over and you get a recovery, you've been terminally damaged by this high inflation, and you have to find shelter. So you bring your withdrawals down. And how much depends upon how much inflation you have. I ran a model where you had to cut your expenses by 35% immediately, or else you were going to have to have another 35% cut five years down the road. So that is the second key takeaway. Finally, key takeaway number three.

There are four, quote-unquote, free lunches in retirement planning where you can boost your returns without additional risk. And these four strategies are, number one, using what's called an equity glide path. I don't really like using that phrase because glide path is a whole bunch of financial advisor jargon. What they're talking about is lowering your exposure to equities early in retirement in order to kind of safeguard against sequence of returns risk. and then boosting your exposure to equities later on in retirement. So your equity exposure, it's like an inverted bell curve. It goes down and then it goes right back up. It's like a giant letter U, I guess is the less nerdy way of saying that.

See, this is how far I'm going to not use the jargon glide path. Anyway, that, the strategy of reducing equity exposure at the beginning of your retirement and then later on boosting it back up again. So that's one of the four strategies that can increase your rate of withdrawal without adding risk. A second strategy is simply staying diversified. A third strategy is regular portfolio rebalancing. And then the fourth is just slightly overweighting the higher returning asset classes, like slightly overweighting towards small cap stocks.

Another one, of course, when everyone is aware of diversification, which is a stand-y-ass, That goes way back. There was a no price given for that. Very, very important. That investors have a well-diversified portfolio because you never know what asset class is going to do best. I did a chart from my book where I looked at the last 100 years and I asked the question for each of these retirees,

400 retirees, if they could pick an asset allocation at the start of retirement that would last them for 30 years and given the highest withdrawal rate, what would it be? Well, there's no one answer to that. It's all over the matter. some years small-cap stocks dominate, sometimes large-cap, sometimes it's a national stocks dominate the allocation, sometimes bonds dominate the allocation. And no one really knows

what that will be. Those are three key takeaways from this conversation with Bill Bangan, the guy who discovered the 4% rule, Mr. 4%. Thank you so much for tuning in. If you enjoyed today's episode, please do three things. First and foremost, share it with the people in your life, with friends, neighbors, colleagues. That's how you spread the message of financial independence. Number two, subscribe to our newsletter, afford anything.com slash newsletter. And number three, make sure you're following us in your favorite podcast playing app. In fact, make sure you're following us in all of your favorite podcast playing apps, plural, so that you don't miss any of our amazing upcoming shows. And while you're there,

please leave us a review. Thank you again for tuning in. My name is Paula Pant. This is the Afford Anything podcast and I'll meet you in the next episode.