BiggerPockets Money Podcast - 120: Are FIRE Naysayers Bad at Math? Yes. with Michael Kitces

Episode Date: April 13, 2020

Michael Kitces joins us today to talk about Early Retirement - and how the recent stock market movement affects the FIRE Community and the 4% rule. We spend a lot of time on the 4% rule - including this graph which illustrates what Michael discusses - basically, there is an ultra-high probability that you will come to the end of 30 years with MORE money than you started out with, and an extremely LOW chance you’ll spend it all. In fact, only one time does the retirement fund hit zero - and even that isn’t until year 31! Since the FIRE Movement is based on the 4% rule, we wanted to hear from Michael, the Research Nerd Supreme, what he feels about it. “...historical safe withdrawal rates aren’t based on historical averages. They’re based on historical worst case scenarios.” Yes, we’re seeing some pretty big movement in the market, and yes, it can make you think. This episode provides some pretty powerful reassurance that “every little thing, is gonna be all right.” If you are worrying about your financial future, if you have money or want more, this powerful episode is a can’t miss, absolutely-must-listen edition of BiggerPockets Money. In This Episode We Cover: The origin of 4% rule Three different time periods that trigger the 4% number Safe withdrawal rates Different 4% rule scenario Bucket strategy Key assumptions that start crapping up on modeling or evaluating the short term cash bucket The right time to start looking at bonds Constant mid-course adjustments What a retirement red zone is Bond tent strategy Safe withdrawal rate research Guardrail strategy Smart money moves during this market Dollar cost averaging And SO much more! Links from the Show FinCon Determining Withdrawal Rates Using Historical Data Software Solutions To Calculate Safe Withdrawal Rates Online Data - Robert Shiller The Ratcheting Safe Withdrawal Rate – A More Dominant Version Of The 4% Rule? Yield Shield - Millennial Revolution How Has The 4% Rule Held Up Since The Tech Bubble And The 2008 Financial Crisis? Mr. Money Mustache BiggerPockets Money Facebook Page Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Bigger Pockets Money podcast, episode 120, where we interview Michael Kitsis from Nerds-Eview blog and the XY Planning Network. The problem where the place where I think we get ourselves into trouble is when we focus so much on the retire or the retire early, we create this binary state. I'm working until I have enough and I never have to work again. And we don't think of it from what I think is a much better framework of the FI framework, which is I'm going to accumulate enough money to get to the point where what I decide to do with my time is no longer dependent on money, which is very, very different than saying I don't have to

work anymore. Hello, hello, hello, and welcome to the Bigger Pockets Money podcast. My name is Mindy Jensen and with me as always is my laugh in the face of sequence of returns risk co-host Scott Trench. I don't know. I'm going to have to be pretty withdrawn in response to that. Oh my God, I quit. Okay, from episode 120. Now, Scott and I are here to make financial independence less scary, less just for somebody else, and show you that by following the proven path, you can put yourself on the road to early financial freedom and get money out of the way so you can lead your best life. That's right. Whether you want to retire early and travel the world, just navigate this coronavirus market crash and maybe recession, or go on to make big time investments in assets that's like real estate.

will help you build a position capable of watching yourself towards your dreams. Welcome to the show today, Scott. I am super excited for Michael Kitsis to be on because I have been following him for quite a few years. I saw him speak at FinCon like FinCon 14 or something. I'm so excited to have him. And I'm super, super excited to introduce you to him because you really seem to enjoy his writing. I really enjoyed this episode. This dude is an absolute master of the craft of early retirement, retirement withdrawal rates.

He has done the original research. He has written about it at length. He's got 20 years of experience putting it into practice with clients. I mean, we just sat back and let him go. And good God, he was amazing. So this is one of my favorite episodes of all time, I think. But I think that Scott's introduction of him doesn't really do him justice because not only does he have all of those things, he also can translate it into easily digestible

information. He's not using all this like jargon and industry specific terms that nobody else understands. He uses regular words. He talks about concepts that make sense. You can't listen to him and say, ah, he's lying. That's not really real. That's not going to work. It works. He's living proof that it works. He has a client roster of people that it. works for. This show is fantastic. And if you think, oh, I'm not sure if I want to listen to it, yes, you do. And by the way, for those of you don't know, we do also put these shows on YouTube. So if you want, you can see my slightly messy home office studio and horrible haircut and Mindy's mattress and dinosaur on the YouTube channel. Just type in bigger pockets and will be one of the

recent videos. Yes. Scott and I are recording from home, different homes, Scott and I don't live together. I am recording from my home office, which also doubles as my guest room. So, yeah, that's the mattress behind me. We have a beautiful new studio that we moved into a week before. We spent months building out our new office, and we opened it. And that week is when we have to close it. Oh, well, yeah. Yes.

So someday we'll be back together in person in our brand new studio. But for now, we're just recording from home. The tax season is one of the only times all year when most people actually look at their full financial picture, including income, spending, savings, investments, the whole thing. And if you're like most folks, it can be a little eye-opening. That's why I like Monarch. It helps you see exactly where your money is going, and more importantly, where your tax refund can make the biggest impact. Because the goal isn't just to look backward, it's to actually make progress. Simplify your finances with Monarch.

Monarch is the all-in-one personal finance tool designed to make your life easier. It brings your entire financial life, including budgeting, accounts and investments, net worth, and future planning together in one. dashboard on your phone or your laptop. Feel aware and in control of your finances this tax season and get 50% off your monarch subscription with the code pockets. What I personally like is that Monarch keeps you focused on achieving, not just tracking. You can see your budgets, debt payoff, savings goals, and net worth all in one place. So every decision actually moves the needle. Achieve your financial goals for good with Monarch, the all in one tool that makes money management simple. Use the code pockets at Monarch.com for half off your first year. That's 50% off at Monarch.com code pockets. I love

of man, said no one ever. Nobody starts a business thinking, you know what would make this more fun? Calculating quarterly estimated taxes. But somehow, every small business owner ends up doing it. Your dreams of creating, selling, and growing, get replaced by late nights chasing receipts, juggling invoices, and wondering if that bad sushi lunch with Scott counts as a write-off. Change all that with Found. Found is a business banking platform built to take the pain out of managing money. It automatically tracks expenses, organizes invoices, and even preps you for tax season, without you doing the heavy lifting. You can set aside money for business goals, control spending with virtual cards and find tax write-offs you didn't even know existed. It saves time,

money, and probably a few years of life expectancy. Found has over 30,000 five-star reviews from owners who say, Sound makes everything easier, expenses, income, profits, taxes, invoices even. So reclaim your time and your sanity. Open a found account for free at found.com. That's f-o-u-und-d.com. Found is a financial technology company, not a bank. Bank. Banking services are provided by lead bank, member FDIC. Don't put this one off. Join thousands of small business owners who have streamlined their finances with Foun. Audible has been a core part of my routine for more than a decade. I started listening years ago to make better use of drive time and workouts, and it stuck.

At this point, I've logged over 229 audiobook completions on Audible alone, and I still regularly re-listen to the highest impact titles. Lately, I've been listening to Bigger Leen or Stronger for Fitness, the Anxious Generation for Parenting Perspective, and several Arthur Brooks' audiobooks that have been excellent for mental well-being. What makes Audible so powerful is its breadth. Beyond audiobooks, you also get Audible originals, podcasts, and a massive back catalog across business, health, parenting, and more, all accessible in one app. If you're looking to turn everyday moments into real progress, Audible has been indispensable for me over over 10 years. Kickstart your well-being journey with

your first audiobook free when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash BP Money. Michael Kitsis is the co-founder of the fee-only CFP directory called the XY Planning Network and the brains behind the nerds eye view blog. Michael, welcome to the Bigger Pockets of Money podcast. I'm super excited to have you today because we are going to talk about some things that are very, very pertinent to our listeners. Fantastic. I'm looking forward to it. Thank you, Mindy, for having me out.

I'm excited about the conversation today. So, Michael, I have a question for you. Is the 4% rule broken in light of the coronavirus and the recent market drop? and do we have to completely reimagine retirement in general as a result of all this? No. From episode 120. Great joining you. No.

I mean, obviously, this is the topic of the conversation that's out there, right? We're watching market declines. We're watching portfolios going down. People who have already retired or pulled the trigger on fire are watching the portfolio going down. Maybe they even started at 4%. Now they're looking going like, okay, I started. of four. Now it's five plus because the market went down so the denominator of my fraction moved against me. And some of these questions start cropping up. Like, is this broken? Is this wrong? Am I going to have to

change? Am I going to have to go back to work? If I was getting close to fire, do I have to go back to the drawing table and not look at this the same way again? So, I mean, they're all great questions to ask. So the starting point to this that I think often gets missed in the discussion around things like the 4% rule is just to understand where the number actually came from in the first place, which I find isn't often well understood. And even the, you know, I know the fire community talks a lot about the Trinity study, which came out in the late 1990s, which came into all these different Monte Carlo analyses and came up with this number that seems reasonably safe. And I'm a big fan of that sort of analytical framework, but it's not very helpful for us intuitively. Nobody knows how to mentally visualize a

98.7% probability that a 4% rule works. So here's where it really came from. The first time the 4% rule came forward was actually in a study back in 1994 from a gentleman named Bill Bengin. Bill was a aerospace engineer turned financial advisor, aptly appropriate given his field of study and what he ended out doing research on. It is rocket science. It is rocket.

It was created by a rocket scientist, but it doesn't actually have to be rocket science. So you have to look at this in context. So when Bill was doing his work in the early 1990s, we were more than a decade into a raging bull market. Stocks had been going up double digits for well over 10 years. There was a horrific crash in 1987. Within 12 months, the market was higher than it had been before the crash. So it was basically just a blip that people hardly paid attention to, certainly from the long-term spending perspective.

So the market was raging upwards. And if you pulled out industry or even like consumer publications at the time, you would find discussions that would say things like a reasonably safe conservative spending rate is 7 to 8% of your portfolio. That was viewed as safe. Because again, the market had been doing like 12 to 15% a year for 10 years. So when the market's doing 12 plus, us, eight is like, well, that seems absurdly conservative, but okay, I guess maybe I'll do that.

And so in that backdrop, where everyone's talking about 7 to 8%, including there's a famous article where Peter Lynch Magellan's talking about 7% as a conservative rate because he was a conservative investor. In that backdrop, along comes Bingen. And what Bangen said is, look, I can put the math into a spreadsheet and show you, if markets average 10 to 12%, you can spend 7 or 8% adjusting for inflation and it does fine. The problem, though, is even if markets average that over long periods of time, they don't necessarily do it in straight lines. They bounce up and down and they do sometimes bad stuff

followed by good stuff. And so what Bangin says, look, I'm going to take this rule of thumb where everybody wants to spend about 7% or 8%. And I'm going to look historically at what would have happens if you actually started out your retirement, spending a number like 7%, and then got the actual sequence of stock and bond returns that happens through your 30-year retirements and adjusts you spending for the actual inflation that occurred. And what he found was it works on average, but when you actually looked at all the different 30-year periods in the 1900s, you know, kind of through the century, it turned out it failed quite frequently. And so the question then became, well, okay, so seven works on average, but it doesn't work if you're

if you get a bad sequence, right? Like you retire on the eve of the Great Depression, and it works on average, but you run out of money before the good returns show up. How much lower do you have to ratchet it in order for this to work? And so what Bill ended out doing, and where the origin of this 4% number actually came from, Bill created a chart that said,

I'm going to look at every single 30-year retirement period, going all the way back to the early 1900s, and I'm just going to see what withdrawal rate would have worked for every single 30-year period we've gotten our market history. Some of them are high, some of them are low, some of them in the middle. And so if you want to pick a safe withdrawal rate,

which was what Bill's goal, if you want to pick something that should be sustainable, pick the lowest bar on the chart. That was it. Look at every single 30-year spending rate that's ever worked, take whatever the literally the worst one was

we've ever seen and pick that. And so if you make that your number, one of two things happens. Either we get another scenario that's bad as anything we've ever seen in history, in which case you should still make it through just barely, because that's where the number came from, or you'll get anything better than the worst case scenario in history, in which case one of two things happens. Either A, you die with a bajillion dollars left over, or B, in the real world. At some point, you sit down and say, okay, we're ahead of what we actually expected. I think we can raise our spending. And so when Bill looks at all these different rolling 30-year periods throughout history, what he found was the worst-case scenario

was a withdrawal rate of about 4.15%. Bill rounded it to 4.1. We collectively rounded it to 4. And that's where the 4% rule came from. It was the one rate that worked in the worst historical market sequence we could find. And when was that market sequence, just for reference, if people are interested? So this has evolved a little bit. The original data, that Bangen used, the worst case scenario was retiring essentially right on the eve of the Great Depression in 1929. Now, there's a couple of different data sets out there that have market history. Bill was working with what was the Ibbotson data set, which is now owned by Morningstar, that basically goes back to the early 1920s. He couldn't look earlier than the 1920s, and he actually

couldn't look later than the 1960s because if you want to run a 30-year time period and Bill was running the study in 1994. He couldn't tell you what happened if you retire in the late 1960s because we didn't have 30 years yet. So we've replicated this study since and done it with broader data sets. If it's got a bigger, it's data set. Schiller publishes a data set that a lot of people use. There's one or two others out there as well. And so when we do it with broader data sets, you actually find there's really three different time periods that all come in with a number remarkably close to this 4% number. One is retiring on the eve of the Great Depression. 1929. The second is retiring right before the financial crisis of 1907. Big economic boom,

the growth west of the country, big real estate boom, big growth to the economy. Then all of a sudden there was a shock to the system. We had a financial crisis. The financial crisis actually started in small towns and it caused small town banks to fail. This was the era of bank runs, like where people literally ran on the bank, pull it all the money before the bank failed. the small banks caused the mid-sized banks to fail. The mid-sized banks called the large banks to fail. And so it was very similar to 2008, a full-blown financial crisis in the system. The only difference was the 1907 version started on Main Street and rippled up to Wall Street. The 2008 one started on Wall Street and rippled down the Main Street. So we had these three periods, right before the financial crisis of 1907,

where we had this 15 to 20-year period with mediocre economic growth, terrible market returns, really low bond returns, the eve of the Great Depression in 1929, and then retiring in 1966, which was a bear market year in the market. And ultimately, so in 1966, the Dow was approaching 1,000 for the first time. It had a pullback went sideways. In 1973, it hit 1,000 for the second time. Then the 73, 74 bear market came. It took until 1982 to materially break 1,000. So if you retired in 1966, you spent 15 years waiting for the stock market to get back to the day that you retired on top of double-digit inflation in the 1970s. And so that became the third time period that triggered a 4% number. The average of the whole historical series is about 6 to 6.5.

So for anyone who wonders, like, what's the average safe withdrawal rate that would have worked in history? It's about 6 to 6.5. But the point of Bangen's framework was if you want to pick a quote, safe one, start with the worst ones and work up from there. And so it was essentially this three-way tie between 1907, 1929, and 1966. Nice. And you have personally replicated this study. Is that right? Is that what I'm understanding? Correct. Correct. So Bill originally did it with the data set that only found the 1929 year. We replicated it originally with the Schiller data and then have actually done it with some other data sets as well. We all generally come back to about the same number. it wobbles by maybe 0.1 or 0.2%, just depending on what particular stock and bond proxies you use,

because we don't have the most robust market data back in the 1800s and early 1900s. So there are a few assumptions that have to be made for some of the really early data. But everybody that replicates this tends to converge back on a very, very similar number right in this 4 to 4.5% range. Okay, so you're saying 4 to 4.4.5%. I've heard three and a half to four. I've read Bank and Study. That was mind-blowing. And we're going to include a link to the actual study as published, I think, in Life magazine in the show notes today, which can be found at biggerpockets.com slash money show 120. We're also going to include a link to your article called How Has the 4% Rule held up since the tech bubble and the 2008 financial crisis, which you published in 2015. There's a graph in there. that is mind-blowing. It's called terminal wealth after 30 years of following the 4% safe withdrawal rate,

all historical years. And if you are a visual learner, this puts to rest all of the, oh, does it work? Are you sure it's going to work? There's like, and my eyes are terrible, so I can't, I'm having a hard time seeing this one little thing at the end. There's like very few times where you don't have the same amount of money that you had when you started. it's mostly you have significantly more, in some cases, nine or ten times what you had. And then there's one case that goes close to zero, but doesn't look like it hits zero. And that's where the safe withdrawal rule comes from.

So, you know, for those who obviously can't see because we're listening, you're just envision a chart that's got about a hundred different squiggle lines because we literally just said, let's look at every historical 30-year period we've ever had for retirement. and we'll just, we'll do 4% in all of them and see what happens. You know, there's about 100 different squiggles. We started someone with a million dollars just to make the math nice and round and easy. Obviously, it's a 4% rule, so you can do 4% of whatever, whenever you want. But we started people with a million dollars.

They finished with as much as 9 million. On average, so the, or it's like to say them 50% of the time, the median value is more than double their wealth, almost 3x where you started. So 50% of the time you start at one, you finish with almost three on top of a lifetime of spending. 96% of the time you finish with the original million. And once, one line, one little tiny squiggle cruises down to zero at the very, very end.

If you had a 31st year, you would have gone below the zero line. And that's why we have the 4% rule, because that one last squiggle would have run short so it wouldn't have worked in all the historical sequences if you didn't protect against that one worse swigle. Can you explain the portfolio that you're assuming for this? Sure. So these are very simple, straightforward portfolios, large cap U.S. stocks, intermediate government bonds. Got it. Like, that's it. You know, you can pick, you know, Vanguard total market would actually

be more diversified than these studies and a total bond index would actually be more diversified than these studies. This was just U.S. large cap. And, you know, intermediate government bond. And we do find when you look at some of the follow-up studies that have been done, like there's no question. I mean, today's marketplace, we are more diversified than this, right? We own large caps and small caps. There's a lot of bond types. We've got domestic. We've got international. We can buy alternatives like gold and commodities and real estate. You can buy real estate directly. Like, none of that was even in these original studies, primarily because sort of being like, I'm half financial advisor, half research nerd. So the research,

Schneurton me says, I don't have any good data to go back on. Like, I can't tell you what the 100-year safe withdrawal rate would have been if we had been buying reits 100 years ago, because I didn't have rates 100 years ago, and I don't want to just make up the data. So when we look at sort of these questions, like what happens with modern diversification relative to the historical numbers, what we find is the withdrawal rate is clearly higher, debatable how much. Most folks that I know that, do research in the space, including some of the work we've done, we tend to come to numbers more like four and a half to five percent with a little bit of fuzziness. Even banging, like the guy who

made four percent rule, he was also a practicing financial advisor through the financial crisis, through the tech crash. He didn't use four percent with his clients. He used four and a half. He's four and a half. He was four and a half because he was actually the first one to publish, gee, even when you just put small cap stocks in, so you get a little bit more diversification from the small companies over the large companies, your withdrawal rate actually lifts up closer to four and a half than four. Something that Mr. Money Mustache said is it's not like you're going to go to sleep one night and be fine and then wake up the next morning with nothing.

If the market is going to go down, you're going to get some sort of warning. If your portfolio is going to go down. And, you know, looking at your back to your graph, the one time that it goes down to zero, they had warning around. Oh, like 15 to 20 years worth of warning. I mean, the reality, even for how these play out, look at, I mean, as much as we talk about these numbers, like, you're spending four. So if there's a terrible market crash and your portfolio takes a big hit, like, now you're

spending five. Okay. If I'm going to spend down at a 5% rate of 100% of my principle, like this is pretty straightforward, five into 100. It takes me 20 years to actually run out. So you have a bit of runway to realize, like, oh, maybe we should make an adjustment here. And so, like, absolutely true. This doesn't come as a surprise. I mean, I know in real-time, bare markets always feel surprising. I've been through several of them through my career.

This one was certainly more dramatic and faster. I mean, technically, we still haven't even gone down as of when we're recording as much as the financial crisis pulled the market down. But the financial crisis did over 18 months. This is why, one's run over about 18 days. So certainly it feels a little more colorful and dramatic. And we'll see how much the terrible unemployment ripples through the rest of the economy. We may or may not be done with the turmoil, at least economically market-wise. But you're still only spending 4% or maybe five because it's a larger percentage of your smaller number. You're not actually moving your dollars that much from year to year. There's a whole lot of time for you either A to recover,

is why at the end of the day, we can have these terrible drawdowns be spending of 4% and still be fine because 96% of the money didn't get spent every year and was still invested to grow and recover. And even if you end out going down more of a dangerous track, it doesn't happen fast. It actually happens pretty gradually. So your spending rate is four and it's four and a half and it's five. And there's a market pullback and it's five and a half. And then it kind of gets to six plus. And even at six plus, you got 16 years before it runs out. But you can at least look at that and say, okay, now this probably is not a good idea. Maybe I need to make some kind of adjustment

to handle the next 15 or 20 years. And you're talking about 4% of scenarios is where this discussion begins to take place even, right? At 96% of the time, you're not even having this discussion because you're ahead of the curve. I'm going to end like the... Correct. Now, to be fair, 96% of the time we finish ahead of the curve after the 30-year cycle is run,

we dip below the line more than 4% of the time. Right, because we can get some lousy timings like this. I mean, if you just retired at the beginning of the year, it's not feeling great right now. You are certainly below the line, but from where you started. Same thing if you retired in 2008. Same thing if you retired in 2000. But we published some studies around that as well.

Like what happened if you retired in 2000 on the eve of the tech crash? You're doing just fine. Your withdrawal rate actually looks better than it did in any of the 4% scenarios. Even through what we've been through, you're so far ahead because you were only spending a few percent in the market recovered pretty quickly at the end of the day. If you retired on the eve of the financial crisis

in early 2008, you were still trending far ahead of any of these 4% scenarios over the first 10 years of your retirement. Yes, the drawdown was dramatic, but even at 4 plus percent of spending, more than 90% of your portfolio was still left when we got through the crisis

and a giant 10-year growth cycle came for the decade of the 2010s. So I think we sometimes under, estimate how little of your portfolio you're actually spending from year to year, which is actually the point as to why the 4% rule survives, even when markets can go down 40 plus percent in a bare market, A, diversification, B, you're not actually pulling that much in any particular year. Yeah, it's like another way of looking at it is 4% is you're spending 1 25th of your portfolio in a given year, right? So if you just meet inflation, it's going to last you 25 years, right?

It's so close to that that it's remarkable there. And there are scenarios that come out. I mean, one of the versions of what do you do if you actually are on the decreasing path, like you just kind of pull the rip corn and say like, heck, we're just going all into bombs. We're going all into trade or inflation protected securities. Like, I ain't get more growth, but I can do the exact math of how much inflation-adjusted spending.

I can go from here. And if that covers my, you know, 10 or 20 or 30 years left on Earth, God bless. Now, it gets a little bit harder, though, and probably worth reflecting, and getting back to Mindy's comment later earlier, it does get a little harder if you retire younger, right? Because our time horizon gets longer. And certainly the simple math of it, like the 4% rule as Bingham did it,

that was a 30-year retirement. Because Bangon worked mostly with retirees who were 60-something, so 30-years seemed like a good reasonably conservative number, fine assumption and baseline. But if you have the opportunity to retire earlier or much earlier, you're kind of immersed in the fire movement and we're much, much earlier, we're not talking about 30-year time periods. We might be talking about 40, 50, 60-year time periods.

And to be fair, that does pull the safe withdrawal rate down, not as much as you'd expect. What we find even when you start pulling out to 40-year time periods, you essentially go from a 4% rule down to a 3.5% rule. So getting back to your earlier number, Mindy, of 3.5, that's largely where it comes from. If you're going to stretch out the time period, you do need to spend a little bit less, because if you get a bad sequence, you do need a little. bit more buffer so that if you get a bad start, you've still got enough money left for when the good sequence finally shows up and then that carries you through for the long run.

Okay, well, let me pose a different scenario. So last week, we interviewed a set of five guests at various stages of their early retirement, including somebody who retired in January. And when we asked him, you know, is there anything you would have done differently? He's knowing now what you know then. He's like, I would have done it sooner. Oh, okay. That wasn't what I was expecting at all, so I thought that was lovely. But one of the groups that we interviewed, one of the couples was Christy Shen and Bryce Leung from Millennial Revolution, who are self-proclaimed the most pessimistic people on the planet. They decided that when they were going to go for a financial independence, they were not going to trust the stock market, even though their story is fascinating.

They like tested it for three years and saw that it worked while they were still working. So in addition to their nesting of a million dollars to cover their $40,000 a year spend, they have what they call a cash cushion of five years of expenses in a savings account. And instead of selling, because they retired in 2015, right when they're Canadian, so the Canadian stock oil crash or whatever. So right when they retired, they had to start dipping into their cash cushion right away. They've since recovered, of course, because it's been five years since that. And now they also have something called the yield shield, which I don't really understand nearly as much.

but they have higher yielding assets like preferred shares, corporate bonds, reeds, and dividends stocks. And by doing so, they raise their portfolios yield from two and a half to three percent, so they can avoid selling in a down market. Do you think five years of cash expenses is too little, just enough, too much? And what do you think of their yield shield? We have these conversations routinely. As I said earlier, like half of my world is doing this nerdy research and publishing about it. We write about it on our site.

But I'm also in an advisory firm. I mean, we do this for our retired clients live in practice, including having these conversations and folks who have read about strategies like cash buckets. Our industry broadly calls these bucketing strategies, right? Just kind of carving up my money. Here's the long-term money. It can be aggressive, so I'm not to touch it for a long time. Here's my short-term spending money.

I'm going to put that aside in cash because you don't want volatility in your near-term money. So I'd answer this two ways. There's the psychology answer, and there's the hard math answer. So the hard math answer is at the end of the day, it hurts more than it helps. Five years of cash hurts more than it helps. The growth and yield and return that gets lost when you've got five years of cash, which for a lot of people in just hard dollar terms, I mean, if I'm spending three and a half, four percent of my portfolio, like five years worth of cash could be 20 percent of my assets

in cash. So holding 20% in something that generates no return for the once or twice a decade market pullback is too much of a drag for what you give up relative to the actual buffer value that you get. So there's a couple of studies out there. We can actually give one in the show notes. Someone wants to look at some of it. We've recapped some of this research. What you find in practice is anything more than about a two-year cash bucket,

you start dragging more in just the low return of cash, then you get back in the buffering effect. And the primary reason for this, or I guess sort of the asterisk that I would put to this, this presumes you otherwise have a diversified portfolio in the first place. If you are a very aggressive investor and everything is in stocks and real estate and growthy oriented stuff, cash buckets definitely help. they do help the buffering. But for folks that hold, I'll just talk home, broadly diversified portfolios, like I got some stocks, I got some real estate, I got some bonds. The truth is, the bonds already do the heavy lifting of this, what happens if the market goes down. And specifically

here we're talking about good old fashioned government bonds, the things people buy when there's a flight to safety, when scary stuff is happening, like, you know, the past few months, 2008, 2009, 73. Like, there's an extremely consistent pattern. When recession is on, the Fed cuts rates, we stimulate the economy, it drops rates down, it causes government bond prices to rise. And basically every recession, like clockwork, number one performing asset class when you're hanging into the recession, is government bonds that virtually always end up, usually up quite

significantly. And so the truth at the end of the day is, Wes, Lollinger. as long as we've got a diversified portfolio, I don't need to go dip into my cash. I don't need to build up a bunch of cash and then dip into my cash in order to do this. I can do it with my good old-fashioned government bonds that, granted, for the past five to ten years have been lousy returns, but so is cash. And in the past couple weeks, they've done really well, to your point. And that's the point, right?

Like once every five to ten years, when everything else is going horribly, government bonds end out with these shining moments. the longer term the bonds, the better because they benefit more from interest rate cuts for all those familiar with the dynamics of bond math. And so when we get these long duration government bonds in there, it becomes the thing that goes up when everything else goes down, which means I don't actually need to hold zero return cash. I can at least hold, well, these days like two or three percent government bonds, but two or three percent government bonds for the past. 10 years with a big chunk of my portfolio, suddenly is like 20 to 30 percent of additional

cumulative growth I would have had that I didn't actually need cash for, that I give up by using cash, but I still get all of the benefit of, oh my gosh, what am I going to sell when I need to sell something in a down market? The answer is the bonds. That's actually why we have them. And even the second caveat to that is, it's also actually okay to sell stocks. You still have 96% of them invested, you don't actually lose that much, even if you had to sell the stocks. But once you've got a diversified portfolio in there with the bonds, the reality is the cash doesn't actually help. It produces more drag than benefit because the bonds already do the heavy lifting work that you needed in this scenario. And while they don't give you much of a

return the rest of the time, that's kind of the point. If your biggest problem is government bonds are giving you a terrible return, it's probably because everything else to your portfolio is growing, in which case you don't have a 4% rule problem. You're going to be spending 5, 6, 7, 8% in the first place. Absolutely love it. Now, I got a question on the cash cushion. Suppose I do have a two-year cash cushion. Have you ever done any modeling around how that impacts the 4% rule? Does that drop it from 4 to 3.8? So here's what happens when you start modeling the kind of the shorter term cash buckets. from an aggregate sort of safe withdrawal rate impact, it's basically a wash. You don't see a

material lift. You don't see a material decline. What ends out happening just like wearing my research nerd hat, it becomes almost entirely dependent on exactly what your assumptions are for the cash. There are ultimately kind of a few key assumptions that start cropping up just when you try to model this and evaluate it. The first is what are you. your transaction costs to buy and sell stuff or raise cash in the first place. Now, this has gotten easier in a world as like trading commissions have collapsed down to zero, but it wasn't that long ago when I was going to pay $5, 10, $15, $20 a trade. And so there came a point where as I'm doing my ongoing spending, accumulating a cash bucket actually helped, not actually because it was a buffer

in the bear markets, but because it reduced how often you were generating transaction costs in the first place. So if I built up six months or 12 months or two years of cash, either because I started collecting my dividends and interest and I wasn't reinvesting them, or I was pulling capital gains distributions from mutual funds or like once every two years I did a big sale. So I wouldn't have to do a bunch of little sales along the way. You could actually see a bit of a lift in sustainable withdrawal rates, but not actually because the cash buffer was helping you in the bear market, because it was buffering your trading costs. Again, less of an issue now that we're sort of dropping to zero commission world, but that was a factor for a while, as well as just what you're getting

on the cash still has a bit of an impact, right? We've seen this, I think, particularly highlighted over the past few years, depending on what money market funds, ultra short-term bond fund, bank, online bank I use. Like, I could get a yield anywhere between about 0.1 and almost 2%, just depending on where I move my cash around the economic system. And that won't make or break your retirement. but it is actually a material factor. And so being able to cash shop your yield up, look, if you can figure out how to put the cash somewhere that generates almost as much

as your government bonds we're getting anyways, it helps. It's still not as good as your government bonds because your government bonds don't just give you the yield. They go up when everything else goes down and there's a flight to safety, so you don't quite get the same diversification effect. So the extent you can clip up a little bit more yield on your cash,

it certainly helps as well. Tax season is one of the only times all year when most people actually look at their full financial picture, including income, spending, savings, investments, the whole thing. And if you're like most folks, it can be a little eye-opening. That's why I like Monarch. It helps you see exactly where your money is going, and more importantly, where your tax refund can make the biggest impact. Because the goal isn't just to look backward, it's to actually make progress. Simplify your finances with Monarch. Monarch is the all-in-one personal finance tool designed to make your life easier. It brings your entire financial life,

including budgeting, accounts and investments, net worth, and future planning together in one dashboard on your phone or your laptop. Feel aware and in control of your finances this tax season and get 50% off your Monarch subscription with the code pockets. What I personally like is that Monarch keeps you focused on achieving, not just tracking. You can see your budgets, debt payoff, savings goals, and net worth all in one place. So every decision actually moves in Edle. Achieve your financial goals for good with Monarch, the all in one tool that makes money management simple. Use the code pockets at Monarch.com for half off your first year. That's 50% off at Monarch.com code pockets. just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast?

Easy. Just use Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. That means you can stop struggling to get your job notice on other job sites. Indeed's sponsored jobs helps you stand out and hire the right people quickly. Your job post jumps straight to the top of the page where your ideal candidates are looking. And it works. Sponsored jobs on Indeed get 45% more applications than non-sponsored posts. The best part? No monthly subscriptions or long-term contracts. You only pay for results. And speaking of results, in the minute I've been talking to you, 23 people just got hired through Indeed worldwide. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at

Indeed.com slash bigger pockets. Just go to Indeed.com slash bigger pockets right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash bigger pockets. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring, Indeed is all you need. When you want more, start your business with Northwest Registered Agent and get access to thousands of free guides, tools, and legal forms to help you launch and protect your business all in one place. Build your complete business identity with Northwest, today. Northwest Registered Agent has been helping small business owners and entrepreneurs launch

and grow businesses for nearly 30 years. They're the largest registered agent and LLC service in the U.S. with over 1,500 corporate guides, who are real people who know your local laws and can help you and your business every step of the way. Northwest makes life easy for business owners. They don't just help you form your business. They give you the free tools you need after you form it, like operating agreements, meeting minutes,

and thousands of how-to guides that explain the complicated ins and outs of running a business. And with Northwest, privacy is automatic. They never sell your data, and all services are handled in-house, because privacy by default is their pledge to all customers. Visit Northwest Registeredagent.com slash money-free and start building something amazing. Get more with Northwest Registered Agent at Northwest Registered Agent at Northwest Registered. agent.com slash money free.

The game begins in three, two, one. Ready or not two, here I come. Only in theaters March 20th. After surviving one deadly game, Grace and her sister Faith must now face off against four rival families in a fresh round of blood in games filled with more action, scares, laughs, and combustions.

Starring Samara Weaving, Catherine Newton, Sarah Michelle Geller, and Elijah Wood. Ready or not two, here I come. Only in theaters, March 20th. Get tickets now. Okay, so I am fairly anti-bond. I don't feel that I'm old enough to be in bonds.

And Scott is even younger than I am, and I don't feel like he should be in bonds either, but I'm not the boss of him. At what point do you start looking at bonds? Like what age range or income level or level of financial whatever? So I'll answer this two ways, because it also actually gets back to the piece we didn't talk about of the second reason why you do hold even things like two, three, five years cash buckets. So when I look at this of this sort of question of how much do I hold in stocks and bonds, to what extent do I own bonds? Ultimately, this is kind of a risk tradeoff.

And so I'd encourage you, think of risk in two dimensions. So the first is what I'll call your risk capacity. So how much capacity do you have, given your current financial situation, to own risky stuff where something bad might happen and it might take a while to recover. So our capacity for risk is primarily driven by our time horizon and the need we actually have to use the money. So if I've got a really giant time horizon and I'm not retiring for a long time

or maybe I am retired but I withdraw very, very little off of my portfolio, I don't need much in bonds because I've got enough, in the truth sense, capacity to just ride this stuff out. at some point, my capacity begins to change. My time horizon gets shorter. Maybe I'm in retirement. I'm withdrawing materially in retirement. Certainly when we get older in retirement and our time horizon shrinks a little bit more. That mixture starts to change. We often talk about this with clients as, I call this a retirement red zone. So as we're building up, as we're leading into retirement,

we hit this red zone. It's about five to 10 years before your retirement transition. until about five to 10 years after your retirement transition, where your portfolio will be the largest, right, because we've been building it up for this moment, which means bad markets hurt the most and become the most prone time where if a bad market comes and you are within a few years of retirement, you just got a few years into retirement, I can materially derail the timeline of your planned retirement. And so when we get into those retirement red zones, we may look at a little bit more of a buildup of bonds or even cash, but not necessarily as a permanent shift. So I call this the bond tent strategy. So as I'm approaching retirement in the red zone, I'm going to build up an

extra allocation of bonds, like a little TP tent over my head. I'm going to build up the bond allocation as I approach retirements. I'm going to then work the bond allocation back down as I go through the first 10 years of retirement because one or two things is going to happen in the first 10 years of retirement. Things go badly, and I'll be thankful I had the bonds, or things will go so well that I'm already so far ahead of the 4% rule that I don't actually worry about what happens here. I don't need a bond buffer anymore. So it's not necessarily a permanent cash bucket, but we can't actually take shelter in the bond tent as our capacity for risk changes. Now, that's the first dimension. The second I want to touch on is our tolerance for risk.

Sure, the truth is that. We throw around the world risk tolerance a lot, but most of the time when we talk about risk tolerance, we're actually talking about risk capacity. We say things like young people have a lot of risk tolerance because they have a long time horizon. It's actually not true. You have a lot of risk capacity because you have a long time horizon. Some people just don't like risky stuff. And so if you don't like risky stuff, I don't care whether you're 72 or 27. Don't own risky stuff because you're not going to enjoy the ride. life is short, and this kind of gets back to the comments early about the five-year cash bucket, do I need that mathematically to make my 4% rule work? No, technically it probably actually drags it down a tiny bit. But if I don't have the tolerance to ride the waves that it takes to push a 4% rule with the moderate growth portfolio and I have to own something more conservative because that's where my comfort with risk is in the first place, then yeah, you're going to own a cash bucket. I might dial my withdrawal right back to three and a half instead of four because you're just not owning as much growthy things in the first place. But if that's where your comfort is with risky

tradeoffs in the first place, that's where your comfort is and with risky tradeoffs. My grandparents retired and they had a wonderful comfortable retirement solely based on their savings. And my grandfather refused to ever buy a stock in their household because his uncle lost all his money in the great crash of 1929. And he's still retired. They built their money in CDs and bonds. They probably had to save a little more. They might have had a little bit more dollars in retirement

if they'd be willing to take some risk because it did work out. But they lived their lives. They built their conservative portfolio. He never owned a stock in his life. They still retired. He had his home in New Jersey in a little place in Florida. And they enjoyed their lives. So you don't have to ride the roller coaster.

You do get some potential to build more wealth, right? risk generally gets rewarded with some speed bumps along the way. But you have to be view these through both lenses. So the capacity answer is there is a case to be made for building a bond tent when you're in the retirement red zone, 10 before until 10 after. From a tolerance perspective, own what you need to own to sleep at night or you're not going to enjoy your retirement anyways. When I think about the 4% rule, most of the people listening to our show, I think are

probably going to be more than 10 years from traditional retirement age, hopefully less than 10 years from retirement. But, you know, when I think about this, when I think about the 4% rule, I imagine, and I'm thinking back to an old Mr. Money Mustache article here that kind of shows, hey, it assumes that you don't have any cash. It assumes that you don't have other types of income like social security coming in. It assumes that you don't change your spending, because obviously we're all hopefully spending much less, given that we're all quarantined. now than we did a few months ago and we can go out and about and do things, right?

It assumes no substitution for goods. It assumes no inheritance. It assumes you don't spend less as you age and get older. And it also assumes you don't have a cash cushion. And it assumes you don't get bored and start doing something and end out with a side hustle that makes you some money. That's right.

So you actually don't need to spend as much of the first place. Just kind of walking through that, How do you think about this for someone who is 35 and has gotten to the 4% rule? How do they need to be thinking about the situation where, hey, you just say it's a 3.5% rule, but what in practice, like what's a helpful way to frame this for someone in that situation who's worried about a situation like precisely what we're going through right now? So there are a few things that I would give to think about. First, I do think at least when you're just going to conservative baseline, if we're starting

there, I would pull my 4% number down to a three and a half. At least just run fewer kind of the math of what it takes to run super long time periods where stuff like this does happen pretty much about once a decade like clockwork. We manage to inflict a recession on selves once every 10 years and we've managed to inflict a really bad one on ourselves once every 30 years or so. So this stuff happens and we do need some cushion to be able to deal with that. But there are a couple of levers. So I kind of think of this like levers. In fact, we did a recap study on this a couple of years ago. I'll make sure you guys get it in the show notes as well of just all the different levers that you can actually pull to move that 4% rule number up and down. So one of them

is time horizon. If I'm going to go 40 plus years, it's really more like a 3 and a half rule. If I'm already in my 70s and I'm just praying I got 20 years left on earth, it's really actually a 5% rule, not a 4% rule. Diversification gives us a bit of a lift. Taxes give us a little bit of a drag. Fees and expenses give us a little bit of a drag. Spending flexibility gives us a little bit of a lift. So there's actually a lot of different levers that we can start pulling to move this number up and down, at least if you're using a safe withdrawal rate framework. So we'll give your listeners just a copy of some of the research of how much you can pull those levers. They're basically all sort of half a percent to one percent

levers in either direction. Here's the key point that I would give, though, particularly in the fire context, the part that I see that most often is not fully understood and appreciated, including by folks we actually work with in our firm who are living their retirement and living their early retirement. The first is we basically give ourselves no credit at all in the research for the ability to adapt our spending. You know, you sort of highlighted it earlier in the discussion that even in these bad scenarios, you may literally see this 15 years out that your spending rate is 6 plus percent. This probably isn't going to be sustainable. But the save withdrawal rate research, for better or worse, assumes that like a blind lemming, you will keep marching for the next

16 years straight off the cliff that you could see from miles away and never once make any kind of change or adaptation. And I'm not saying that to knock the researchers. I'm publish some of this. But, right, we have to start with some simplifying assumptions if we're going to publish a research study. But it doesn't reflect real life, which is at some point, things change, and we start making adjustments. Now, the longer we wait, the more dramatic the adjustment is, the faster we change, the smaller the adjustment is. And so if you view this not as, I got to pick the right number to march out for the next 60 years because if something goes wrong, I might fall off the cliff in the 58th year out of 60.

If you instead assume this more like a flight plan, like I'm in D.C., I'm going to California. I'm fairly certain I need to go west. If you just point the plane towards San Francisco and walk away, when you come back in a couple of hours, you're going to be in like San Francisco, plus or minus about 500 miles in either direction, depending on where the wind blew you.

So you filed a flight plan. It was important. But if you actually want to end up in San Francisco, you're making constant mid-course adjustments as the wins hit you throughout. And the same withdrawal rate research gives us no credit for making adjustments as the winds knocks us back and forth. And as it turns out, it doesn't even take much of an adjustment to get back on track. As little as, hey, you know what, rough year, I'm going to not take my inflation adjustment

this year, which sounds like a ridiculously small thing. I don't see very many people in practice who say, like, well, I used to spend $5,000 a month, but since inflation was 1%, I'm going to start spending $5,050 month instead. We hardly even notice these adjustments in practice. But if I commit that I'm not lifting my spending up for inflation, right, just I keep withdrawals coming to my account, same thing they were last year. And that becomes my new baseline. That doesn't just trim a couple percent on my spending this year.

That trims a couple percent on my spending every single year. for the rest of my life because it becomes my new baseline. So I can actually trim huge portions of lifetime spending with give-ups that are so modest you hardly notice it from year to year and actually get us back on track. So the most straightforward thing that we get is you just start making adjustments and they don't have to be huge, right? The pilot doesn't like fly all the way out until we're crossing the Nevada border

and then make like a hard left to get back on track towards San Francisco. Every couple of miles, we're tweaking the steering wheel to make sure that we're on track. And the more regularly you make small adjustments, the more manageable they actually are. They're minimally disruptive, and it keeps you on track. Okay, you just said constant mid-course adjustments to stay on track. How frequently in this just 30-year time frame, how frequently are you recommending that people look at their portfolio? One of the favorite things that we say here is the person with the best returns or the dead people who never touch anything.

Yeah. So the framework that I like to look around, look at this is what I call guardrail strategies. So I've got little kids. So you think of like going to the bowling alley where you get the guardrails, you get the bumper lanes. At least when I was growing up, they were inflatable bumpers. Now it's like metal guardrails that pop up out of the alley and go back down again because everything's mechanized. but when I go bowling with my kids, and my little one goes up there and rolls the ball down the lane,

one of two things happens. She rolls it fairly straight, rolls down, hits the pin. She does her little dance all excited. Or she rolls it, it goes slightly askew, hits a bumper, bounce off the bumper, goes back to the middle of lane. She is equally happy because it hits the pins at the end and she walked. So we can put guardrails in place. It's not like she goes down the lane,

like walking next to the ball and taps it with her hand every time is drifting off, right? I just need some guardrails to keep from going so far off track that I land in a gutter. So, like, straightforward way to think about this is you can monitor your ongoing withdrawal rates for your portfolio as a series of guardrails. So great, you're aiming at 4% as a baseline rule. Okay, if your spending goes above five, take a haircut. If your spending goes below three, you're actually so far ahead, give yourself a race. And so as long as I'm reasonably in the zone, I don't need to get overly active here, but I want to look fairly frequently. As we look at this in practice with a lot of clients, usually we'll look annually. I think once a year

is sufficient. Like, again, we're only talking about making what might be a couple of percent spending change. Like, hey, I'm not going to take my inflation adjustment. Or maybe I'll trim my spending by 5 or 10% for a few years. These are not ultra-traumatic things where I got to go in there like the day the market declined and immediately cut my spending. Because if I'm spending 3.5% a year, like I'm spending 0.3% a month. You do not need to make adjustments for withdrawals that small when 99.7% of your portfolio remains invested every month.

It's so important to keep the context of where these numbers, come from, how much you really need to move them, how long it really takes before you're materially off track, how much room you have to make adjustments. It doesn't mean you can fly blinds. You do need to look and be prepared to make some adjustments. But it turns out, like, even the adjustments are much more modest than most people realize to stay on track. Now, if you want to start spending 7 or 8 percent, you're going to have some bigger adjustments if things go the wrong direction. But the whole point of the research is that it ameliorates that risk. I mean, strictly speaking, from a purest perspective,

three and a half percent supposed to work if you literally never make an adjustment. And you could have retired on the eve of the Great Depression coming out of the gate at three and a half percent and gone for 50 years, and you still had money left over at the end. So even these kinds of mid-course adjustments are kind of conservative,

because, hey, there's always a risk that the future will literally be worse than anything it's ever been in the past, right? These are not guarantees. These are just, we're ratcheting down to worst-case, scenarios is our baseline. So one of the things, an observation I have, and I don't know if I know it's a question, but I have interviewed a lot of people in the fire movement over the years. I've been obsessed with this. I've met lots of people, maybe not quite as many as Mindy, but I have never,

ever met someone who has retired, fired early in life on the 4% or even the 3.5% with no cash cushion, no expectation of other earnings, and no other types of buffers. So why do you think it is that in spite of all of the research that you just nailed over the course of the last hour in great detail, people still don't trust it? I've never met a single person that is relying exclusively on the math that you just defended in a very detailed way here. And have you met someone who relies exclusively on that in early retirement? No social security, no pension, no other buffers, no cash? And why do you think it is that people aren't doing that? So, I mean, at the end of the day, I think the answer is pretty simple and straightforward.

It's freaking scary to pull the cord and say, like, I'm tapping out on all income potential for the rest of my life. So it's pretty natural to want to start building in buffers. I mean, we even see this with people just, I'll call it normal retirement. They're just, they're coming into this in their late 50s, 60 something. You know, they're like it's often Social Security. many of them will plan for Social Security, the ultimate buffer that we even see almost all retirees plan for.

The dollars are always there and it's never in the plan, the equity in the home. Right? Like at last resort, I can take out a mortgage. I can get a reverse mortgage. I'm very happy I played off my house. I can go back and get some debt and extract some equity out of that.

We don't put it in the plan. It usually sits there in reserve. I think part of it, you know, there's just some, it's scary. So it gives us some comfort, right? These sort of dynamics of our tolerance for risk, and just our comfort for risk. Like that stuff's real.

You know, our species has learned that there are two types of people, those who are prudently conservative and those who don't procreate. Right? They're like natural selection works pretty good over enough years that the people who are persistently not prudent at some point kind of get weaned out of the herd and the ones who make some, you know, prudent, conservative bets

from time to time usually last long. Or they have too many. No, my dog. Yeah. some other problems. Another discussion. So, right, just it is part of how our brains are wired. I mean, just at the most basic level to, right, these things, you know, don't put all your

eggs in one basket. We go back like the Talmud 5,000 years ago, like you will spread your wealth between business land and cash. Like it was essentially was the diversified portfolio 5,000 years ago. And it hasn't changed much since then. We hold maybe a little bit less cash now and a little bit more stocks. A little less cattle. Little less cattle, but, you know, unless that's your business and then you own more of it.

These dynamics are, I think, are just part of what's hardwired in our brains around finding some level of comfort with don't put all your eggs in one basket, have a buffer, have a cushion, have something to fall back on. And so it just becomes natural for us. And so the way we tend to get there, like, how do I pull the cord? Like, okay, I'm pretty darn confident in the numbers. But just in case I know that the Social Security is, out there and I actually am not even counting on it. So if that shows up, that'll be my extra

thing. Like, I might not even be that I'm discounting Social Security, but I kind of know it's the extra safety valve, or it's the equity in my home, or it's my ability to adjust my spending, or it's my ability to go back and work more. Like, I could work at some point in the next 50 years if I had to. My concern, actually, and particularly for a lot of people in the fire movements, and I've even seen this just for more traditional retirees that we work with as well, I think there's a secondary challenge that we've, the sort of problem that we've created for ourselves, that to me, the retirement in general and the fire movement is an extension of it,

has become too much RE and a not enough FI. So retirement, like idle life, this sort of like dream of like retirement of luxury where I never do anything, have any obligations for the rest of my life, is not the natural state of human beings. beings. We need a reason to get up in the morning. What we see in practice when people retire, isolationism increases, depression increases, divorce rate increases after retirement. It's actually

all sorts of bad stuff that happened after retirement. And it's not because retirement's bad. I'm not trying to scary one away from retirements. It's because not having purpose and a reason to get up in the morning is not actually good for most of our mental states. And eventually that gets expressed in our physical states as well. And so there are a subset of people who find ways to occupy themselves and can be totally happy puttering around the house because they've got a purpose when they wake up in the morning. It might not be a money or anything. They just, they've got a purpose. My father retired early. He's been doing it for a long time. He is the family genealogist. He wakes up every day to do genealogy. That's his thing.

But the problem where the place where I think we get ourselves into trouble is when we focus so much on the retire or the retire early, we create this binary state. I'm working until I have enough and I never have to work again. And we don't think of it from what I think is a much better framework of the FI framework, which is I'm going to accumulate enough money to get to the point where what I decide to do with my time is no longer dependent on money, which is very, very different than saying, I don't have to work anymore. And what concerns me about it, and the pattern I've seen play out with just one retiree after another, having done this for 20 odd years now, is they spend years and years doing the work,

saving up the dollars. For many of them, the last few years, are not particularly enjoyable work. They're done. They're ready to be done. They don't like their job anymore or their boss or whatever it is, but they stick with it because we got to get to that number. I don't have to work anymore. And then they retire. They're like, this is amazing. I get to play golf all the time and do all the things I wanted to do. So they go play a whole bunch of golf.

And then they come into my office, six months into retirement. And he says, I can't stand it anymore. I'm playing golf with my same four buddies three days a week. I can't stand Joe's stories anymore. He tells the same three stories every week. I'm bored out of my mind. And I need to find something to do. and then he ends out going back and work in his old industry or a new one or starting up a business.

I travel extensively because a part of my world is speaking at advisor conferences and teaching this to other advisors. The number of Uber drivers I end out riding with who are retirees who were bored at home and did it because they needed something to do every day. And the key to this is not just that it's really important not to underestimate that you might still find you want to do some things with your time and that you might even end up making some money at it. It's that if you knew and your plans for the fact that you were going to make money at it, could have done this a long time ago. So that brings me up with the next question here, it was on my mind, which is,

given all that we've discussed and just how conservative the 4% or 3.5% rule truly are, how great your odds are of accumulating excess wealth with those things, and in a practical sense, the fact that basically, everyone who retires or actually implements and stops relying on their major source of income has multiple backup strategies outside of the three and a half or four percent rule. Are we as a group in the fire movement doing a disservice to the community by using that as the rule of thumb because it is too conservative? I don't know that I would necessarily frame it as doing a disservice because look,

yeah, yeah, well, I was going to say the worst case, sir. So the second worst case scenario of this is turns out you save more than you need. The markets don't blow up. You accumulate more than you needed. And you have the great misfortune of spending more money than you ever expected for the rest of your life. Not the worst problem to have. Right. And I think that's part of why we tend to anchor to conservative numbers anyways, right?

Like if this goes badly, I should be okay. And if this goes well, I'll figure out how to spend the extra money. I'm okay with that problem. So I don't think it's a disservice because I think getting people to a point where they're comfortable to make the transition and their worst case scenario is maybe I'll end out with more money to spend later. It's not a horrible thing. We're pretty adaptive to the upside as well. You'll figure out how to spend the extra money. The part of this that just bothers me as someone that sits across some clients and has these conversations are the people who spend way longer than they should have doing work they can't stand. in a place that they're miserable because they're trying to build up to this moment where they'll never have to do that work again and can retire.

And in essence, the problem that occurs is we confuse in our heads, I can't stand this job and I need to never do it again. And I don't want to ever work again. Right. If you spend long enough in a job you hate, you actually forget what it's like to be in a job that's kind of cool that you enjoy. And particularly in a retirement context or a fire context or what to me is really just mostly the FI part, right? We're really just talking about financial independence to do whatever you want

with your time regardless of money. You may or may not actually end out making some later. Is if you plan for that, it drastically changes the math of the whole thing. If I just came to the table and said, hey, what if I merely earn half of what I wanted to earn? like I take a 50% pay cut. You also just cut your fire goal in half. Because I only need half the dollars now that I needed before. And particularly for a lot of folks that I see that go through the fire process, right there, their spending is way, way lower than their earnings.

That's how we get a lot of money that we can save. So, you know, if I'm saving 50%, and I'm only living on half of it, if I earned half of what I save, which is a quarter of what I currently earn, I only need a fraction of the amount of money to fire off in the first place. And so if you came at this and said, you know, something as simple as, could I go out there and find something at some point that I could earn like two grand a month as a side hustle, you don't even have to do it right away. Take a couple of years to get there.

If I could do something on the side that earns me just that little bit of extra dollars on the side, when I'm looking this at a three and a half percent withdrawal rate, that's the equivalent of adding almost $1.4 million into my retirement nest day. Excuse me, I did that math wrong. It's about $700,000 and $2,000 a month. So if I'm willing to just have some side hustle on the side that I even spent a few years building up to, it lops like $700,000 off of the fire goal that I need,

which means you can take that job, you can't stand, and get out of it. of it a lot faster and go find something else that you like doing even more. And what you may even find out and what we see over and over again is when you find work you actually enjoy and are good at, it usually ends up having some pretty good upside for you. And you may not even making more and more money. And the moment you don't like it, fine. Peace out, leave, go find something else. Like it's not like I'm trying to figure out how to get back to a job that pays six figures.

like get back to a job pays two grand a month on a part-time basis and I lop $700,000 off my fire goal. So the piece that worries me about this is it's great to say I can always go back to work as a safety valve, right? I'm going to shoot for my three and a half percent withdrawal rate number and get my nest egg to that point. And then I'll pull the fire trigger because I always know I can go back to work or get Social Security or tap my house or adjust my spending or all the other things, Scott, that you pointed out as the levers we can move. but the one that bothers me just at kind of a human level are the people that spend way longer in the work that they can't stand trying to get to a point where they never have to work again because we confuse in our heads, I don't like this work so I want to never work again. When all we're really saying is I don't want to do this work anymore,

I'd like to find something that is better fit for me. And I don't care if I earn a fraction of the amount because I only need a fraction. in the amount to make firework at a much lower dollar amount. There is no, I can't even put into words how freeing it is to leave the job that you wake up in the morning and you're like, I can't even imagine. I have to go back to work today. I hate my boss. I hate my job.

And then moving to a job that you do love, I have been in both situations. I'm at a job that I can't believe they pay me to do this. This is so much fun. I'm so blessed to be here. I would almost do it for free. and the difference in my happiness is just immense. I used to be just a completely miserable person, and now I'm so much happier.

So if you're listening and you have a job that you hate, but you're sticking with it to get to fire, Michael and I both give you permission to find something else. Yeah. And recognize, like, if you just commit to find something that cover, that is half of what you make now, or heck, a quarter of what you make now, you might find that if you were just ready to do that,

you actually could pull the trigger today. Yeah. Like you might you might actually already be there. And then the only thing you have to figure out, which is still an important challenge, is like, how are you going to sustain that? Right. It's not just about going back to work for a few years. Like you are committing, you're going to keep doing it for a while. But what you'll find, I'm sure many you've found a similar effect. Like it turns out once you're doing the work that you like and you keep doing it for a while and start building this as your next new career or thing or whatever it is, sometimes the dollars actually start adding up. and the income gets better as you go. Well, you're doing something that you enjoy. Your bosses see this and they give you raises. I mean, that's how it's been in my... But the distinction, right?

I know it's a mindset shift for people. If we spent too long in work we didn't like trying to earn raises that we just felt we had to get in order to get to this moment in the first place, just understanding the mindset shift of once you're mostly there for fire and you only need a little bit of dollars, like you may still need some.

you got to plan for some level of work, but you can go find the work that you like. You don't have to worry that much about the salary requirements. Like, I need something, but you're going to be a pretty flexible employee. And if it turns out something you don't like, it's cool, go find something else. Because we're really not actually wired for 168 hours of downtime every week. Like, we tend to want to wake up and do something. And so, you know, if your worst problem is, I found a passion,

but I'm not sure I can make money at it. There were a whole bunch of sites out there that help you turn your passion into a side hustle. You got like 40 odd years to figure out how to make a little bit of money at it. Love it. Okay, Michael, you were just talking about side hustles and let's talk about making smart money moves

during this market. Someone who does have money to invest currently, let's say they have X. How do you recommend that people add that into the market right now? Because there are people who want to take advantage of these sale prices in the stocks, dollar cost averaging is what a lot of people refer to this. How frequently should people be putting money into the market and how frequently should they be putting it in over the course of like regular life?

So this is really another one of those things. There's sort of there's the mathematical answer. There's the psychology answer to it. Like the odds on mathematical answer at the end of the day is on average markets go up more than they go down. So if you don't actually have a functioning crystal ball, your best odds are just put the darn money in as soon as you can for as much as you can because it goes up more than it often than it goes down. Like that's just kind of the math to it. Anything you do to drag it out when markets go up more often than they go down increases the odds that you end out lagging.

Now that's the pure math nerd perspective. Then there's the psychological reality, which is if I put in all my money today and then the market tanks again next week because there's more bad news, I'm going to freak. Or I'm going to regret it and wish that I had had a little more to put in now. And so if you want to manage your regret avoidance, dollar cost averaging is a fantastic regret avoidance vehicle. If I spread it out, it will hurt a little bit less. You know, worst case scenario, markets go down a little more.

I buy a few more shares, right? That's how the sort of the dollar cost averaging math works. Because markets go out more often than they go down, on average, you dollar cost average in by buying shares at higher prices and get few of them. That's why lump sums still work better, all else being equal. But if that's not where you are sort of mentally, psychologically, because you're going to regret it if you pull the trigger and then find out that was the wrong time, then spread it out. Because from the flip side, you're not going to hugely damage yourself by spreading it out. If it turns out markets go up a bit more, they might go down a little bit more.

there's certainly a wide range of uncertainty. And so we can manage just some of the uncertainty and regret avoidance by spreading it out. So where do we end out in practice with most people who have kind of sizable dollars that they're moving into markets? Most commonly what we end up seeing monthly basis, anywhere from about three to 12 months, depending on how much dollars you have and how much you're spreading it out. Just faster than that, you're going to start second-guessing yourself because like you hit the button on Monday instead of Tuesday.

spread it out more than that, particularly in volatile markets like this, you'll start regretting that you spread it out a little bit too much. So if you've got a bunch of dollars, you want to put it in, you're afraid, like you want to, but you're afraid now's not the time, but it might be the time, but it might not see the time, right? Like we get ourselves wrapped up in this pretty quickly. You know, three to six months, 12, if you're really concerned, and you're otherwise just optimistic about investing for the long run, you will probably smooth you out enough to manage the regret of what if it turns out to be the timing, that the timing isn't right? And look, times like the financial crisis, I think were a good example, right?

I mean, I remember going through this in the fall of 2008, when similar to recent weeks, like, depending on which day you put your money in or rebalanced your portfolio, it was swinging 10% in a day, right? And we had a few of those recently as well. You know, that was all about, heck, at the market bottom, like, did I get into the S&P when it was at 660 or 680 or 710 or 720. It's a 2,500 plot. The answer is, wherever you got in there, it all kind of washed out after 10 years.

You made a zillion dollars because the market roughly 3xed. So in the moment, right, when the things get volatile, our time horizon gets really short, right? It's kind of the fog of war effect in the markets. We tunnel vision in and you can't see very far ahead. So we start fixating on the short-term piece. And so if we want to manage the regret avoidance, the short-term piece, spread it out over a couple of months. You'll sleep a little better at night.

But I can tell you almost certainly, when you go back 10 years and 20 years from now and you look back, you'll hardly be able to see on that chart the little blips of the different prices that you got in on because this, you know, just the chart gets a whole lot bigger once you spread out the time horizon again. Okay. Well, I'm really glad I asked that because the, way that you explained, it makes me feel a little silly now for wanting to time the market.

Time in the market is better than time in the market. Yeah. If you actually can perfectly time the market, timing in the market is pretty freaking awesome. Well, yes. It is a glorious thing. But, you know, if it was that straightforward to do, someone would borrow like a billion dollars and turn it into 10 billion because, you know, why not do this with other people's money? If you can do it that magically, like it's a lot harder in practice.

A lot of us have to try it a few times and get humbled by the market. before we're ready to surrender that. So if that's what you need to do, that's fine. Take 10% of your portfolio and try this out for a spin and see if you can do it. If you can do it, you'll make some money and you'll feel great. If it turns out it doesn't go so well, at least you dollar cost average in the other 90%. And you can run yourself a little race if you want to. But at the end of the day, like it always seems obvious in hindsight.

it never turns out to be that obvious in real time. And so because trying to time the market in practice becomes pretty punishing to people, that's where we usually end up falling back to, then just get it in there because in the long run, these things tend to mostly wash out. And if you're really concerned about regretting

that you pulled the trigger at the wrong time in the short term, space it out a bit so you feel a little bit better and you don't have to become as worried about exactly which day did you hit the button. Okay, that sounds like a really great place to end. This whole episode was fantastic. I'm super excited for this to come out.

Just to note, we did record this on Thursday before the show airs on Monday. So if any big wild swings happened after Thursday afternoon, we didn't know about them. So, and I do not have a functioning crystal ball. Nor do I, although I really, I really wish I did. Well, to be fair, like, I've kind of got a really foggy, hazy one. I can see a little bit of future shapes, right? Tends to go up more than it goes down. These things tend to average out in the long run,

but it's not so great in the short term. Yeah, yeah, mine doesn't work in the short term either. Okay, Michael, tell people where they can find you everywhere they can find you. Oh, goodness. So I'll kind of give you three places. So all the research that we published around this stuff is the nerds-eye view blog at Kitsis.com, K-I-T-C-E-S, unfortunately did not inherit the most spellable name. but it is unique. So if you see it, it is me. So kitts.com is the blog where we publish a lot of

this retirement research. I'm also co-founder of a group called the XY Planning Network, which does financial planning for people on their 20s, 30s and 40s on a fee-only, mostly advice-only basis. So if you're looking for help, we have almost 1,200 advisors that do this for a living. And then I'm also involved in a private wealth management firm called Buckingham Wealth Partners, based in St. Louis, but we have almost 40 offices across the country, doing this for people that want to work with someone in a deep ongoing relationship around this whole holistic picture. And I'll have to check out those last two, but I spent extensive time on your blog this

week and just awesome, awesome, awesome stuff. You can tell if you're listening to the show, how polished you are and all of your thoughts. That's just to only backed up even more on your blog. The visuals are great. The studies are great. It's original research. It's really fantastic stuff that I know, I'll be, as I can.

to write and develop my philosophy, I'll be citing and reading a lot of and referring back to. Well, I appreciate that, Scott. And we'll make sure we get just at least like a couple of good starter links for your listeners in the show notes. If you just want to follow up on some of these themes that we've been talking about, a few good places to start in reading through that. Absolutely. Yeah, perfect. Okay, Michael, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. And I know this is going to be hugely helpful to pretty much anybody who's concerned about, you know, oh, is 4% going to be enough? Look at that. In fact, I'm going to cut and paste that chart into our show notes because that is so powerful.

Look at all these times that it works and look at this one time that you go to zero in year 31. There's these, there's these trolls sometimes that like to say things like, oh, but a sequence of return risk or it hasn't been tested through the great recession. We won't know until 30 years from now. And it's like at every turn, you've got like article in detail about why it works right now and we'll work in the next 30 year period. Well, I mean, just if you want to keep the context, like at the end of the day, from the peak in 1929 to the trough in 1932, the market went down almost 89% and the 4% rule worked.

Yeah. Yeah, this is another quote. So when we look at these like the market's down 20 or 30% or it went down 40-something in the great recession, like, we're not even in the same neighborhood of the stuff that still failed to break the 4% rule. Now, again, that was a portfolio with government bonds because the diversification effect is important. Like, that's not a pure stock portfolio. But we've written out a lot worse. And it's still not a guarantee that the future can't somehow be worse and more broken than anything we've ever seen in the past. But we don't give enough credit sometimes to how horrible investment

markets have actually been in the past. that we've still survived through. Yes, and I have one more quote than I'm going to let you go. This is from your article. It says historical safe withdrawal rates aren't based on historical averages. They're based on historical worst case scenarios. I mean, you just said 89%. That's, you know, a little bit bigger than what we've got now.

Again, the average safe withdrawal rate that would have worked in history is about six to six and a half. So the fact that we've gone from six and a half down to four or even three and a half, half for a longer time period. Like, you have already taken a 40 plus percent haircut just in case you get a bad sequence. So we don't need to ratchet down further. Like, we take the haircut to defend against sequence risk. That's how we got to the 4% number. You can't mic drop on a podcast because it just reverberates.

I can do it on the video version. You just can't see it. You have to kind of hear the swoosh of the hand. He's literally dropping his mic. Mike drop. Okay, he is Michael Kitsis. The other guy is Scott Trench and I am Mindy Jensen. And this was episode 120 of the Bigger Pockets Money podcast.

And we are saying, stay the course. I don't have anything clever to say, Scott. Me neither. Okay. Bye. Bye.