BiggerPockets Money Podcast - 351: Does the 4% Rule Hold During 2022's Stock Market Crash?

Episode Date: November 7, 2022

Stock market crashes aren't good news for anyone. For retirees though, this dip in prices can feel like a death wish, as active income is no longer an option. Have the hopes and dreams of financial flexibility gone out the window? Or is a market crash like we're experiencing today just a small blip on a retiree's radar? Pairing this with inflation, how will someone who has just retired make it? We’ve got Michael Kitces, retirement planning expert and financial genius with enough acronyms coming after his name to spell out the alphabet, on the show to answer whether or not retirees are in trouble. Michael has advised his clients for decades on the right way to save and invest for retirement. He’s been a proponent of the 4% rule and was bold enough to hold his claim even during the flash crash of 2020. But, with such high inflation and stark drops in equity values, does he still agree with his past predictions? Michael takes us on a trip down memory lane, visiting some of the worst financial crises in American history, showing how they compare to today. He also proposes that holding large amounts of cash, even during high inflationary times, isn’t the worst move to make, and whether or not he’s still investing as the market finds its bottom. If you’re worried about retiring during times like today, this is the man to listen to! In This Episode We Cover The 4% rule explained and whether this sage retirement advice still holds up How past retirees fared during high inflation, low growth time periods Which types of market crashes can be “dangerous” to retirees (and who should be worried) Why some of the brightest minds in personal finance are clinging to cash  Purchasing power and how withdrawal rates are affected by high inflation The smartest move to make if you’re worried your retirement savings aren’t enough And So Much More! Links from the Show Find an Investor-Friendly Real Estate Agent BiggerPockets Money Facebook Group BiggerPockets Forums Finance Review Guest Onboarding Mindy's Twitter Scott's Instagram Listen to All Your Favorite BiggerPockets Podcasts in One Place Apply to Be a Guest on The Money Show Podcast Talent Search! Subscribe to The “On The Market” YouTube Channel Listen to The “On The Market” Podcast: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, BiggerPockets Check Out Mindy’s 2022 Live Spending Tracker and Budget Buckingham Wealth Partners Bill Bengen (The Inventor of the 4% Rule) Talks Retirement, Past Crashes, and How You Can Withdraw Even More! Original Article from the Journal Of Financial Planning, October 1994 Are FIRE Naysayers Bad at Math? Yes. with Michael Kitces Click here to check the full show notes: https://www.biggerpockets.com/blog/money-351 Interested in learning more about today's sponsors or becoming a BiggerPockets partner yourself? Check out our sponsor page! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Bigger Pockets Money podcast where we interview Michael Kitsas and talk about inflation and this crazy stock market. The 4% rule, which was kind of built around these balanced portfolios that we regularly rebalanced to, wasn't meant to be prescriptive about how the portfolios manage. It was meant to be a baseline about how the portfolios managed, not the least of which because we've got historical data and it's really easy to calculate, like what your return would have been for an annually rebalanced, balanced portfolios. It's a very straightforward way to calculate a baseline of here's what would have worked historically. Hello, hello, hello.

My name is Mindy Jensen. And with me, as always, is my now officially qualified to make dad jokes, co-host Scott Trench. Oh, baby. Scott and I are here to make financial independence less scary, less just for somebody else. To introduce you to every money story, because we truly believe financial freedom is attainable for everyone, no matter when or where you're starting. Whether you want to retire early or travel the world, go on to make big time investments in assets like real estate or start your own business will help you reach your financial goals and get money out of the way so you can launch yourself towards your dreams relying on the 4% rule. So, Scott, I am super excited to talk to Michael Kitsis today. He is a wealth of knowledge and a wealth of information and he is going to come in and allay your retirement fears.

I'm very excited to bring him in. And let's talk about you before we bring in Michael. What's new with you, Scott? Well, we recorded a couple of episodes in advance a month or so ago because I was going to be out for a few weeks because my wife and I welcomed a daughter into the world. Katie Trench, Catherine, Katie, Trench. So we're very excited for her. And she's beautiful and wonderful. And we've been enjoying some time with the baby for the last few weeks.

Yay, congratulations. And he's right. She is beautiful. She is wonderful. I harass them all the time for pictures. And I have a ton of pictures of my phone. She's the cutest little thing ever. I can't wait to meet her in real life.

Yeah. We're not sharing a bunch of pictures online right now, but we'll, if anyone wants, why not can send them directly. Yeah. So Scott's phone number is. Scott, this show today brings back the fabulous Michael Kitsis. He really doesn't need any introduction, but I'm going to give you one anyway. He is amazing and wonderful in every single way.

He is a CFP. He is the founder of the XY Planning Network. He is the author of the nerds eye view blog. He is a financial planner. He runs a huge firm. He writes blogs all the time about money stuff. He's just very wonderful in every single way. Yeah, he's a master of the subject of retirement planning and the 4% rule and how markets,

inflation, inflation interest rates impact portfolios. So fascinating discussion we had with him, always learn a lot for Michael. 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 Pockes. 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 Matt, 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-N-D-com. Found is a financial technology company, not a 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 Found. 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 Leaner Stronger for Fitness, the Anxious Generation for Parents, the Anxious Generation for parenting perspective and several Arthur Brooks' audiobooks that have been excellent for mental well-being. What makes Audible so powerful as 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, welcome back to the Bigger Pockets Money podcast. I am so excited to nerd out with you today. Awesome. Appreciate the opportunity to come back, Mindy. Love nerding out on all things, retirement planning, financial planning.

Before we jump in, let's make your compliance team happy. Please give a disclaimer about how you are a financial planner, but you're not their financial planner, blah, blah, blah. Yes. I am a financial advisor with Buckingham wealth partners. This is not personal financial planning. No in particular investment recommendations. Your individual situation may vary.

Please understand we're talking about overall planning and guidance and not specific individual personal financial planning advice. However, if you would like a personal financial planner, you can find one at the xyplanningnetwork.com, which is a fee-only financial planning matchmaking service that will connect you with a financial planner that specializes in something like a thousand different specialties. Yes, we have almost 1,700 advisors now across a very wide range of specialties, including a few that have gone very deep into the world of fire and advice only services and other similar engagements for folks that are navigating this early retirement path. Yeah, it's a great place to find a great

financial planner. All right. Michael, when we last had you on on episode 120, we asked you if the 4% rule was broken. This released back in March of 2020, and you had such an eloquent, well-thought-out answer. I'd like to play that whole conversation again. 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. But now we're in 2022. 2020. 2022. The consumer price index came back recently, higher than expected. Literally every single report that keeps coming out is either higher than expected in a bad way or lower than expected in a bad way. The S&P 500 is in a free fall. The Dow is down. The NASDAQ is down. The sky is falling. So now is the 4% rule broken. And do we have to

completely reimagine retirement in general as a result of all of this? No. We're still there. No. I, right. Like, again, I mean, when we look at this relative to just where the 4% rule came from. And just I find it's the thing that we just sometimes miss as we keep looking back this. And I understand like, you know, we're in the thick of all the scary stuff that's happening. Like, these are the times that it was made for. Like, these are the times that it came from. You know, the average historical safe withdrawal rate that would have worked is about six and a half. We don't go around talking about six and a half. We talk about four. And the reason we talk about four is sometimes times are not like they were five to 10 years ago, times are like they are now,

which is why you have that lower number. Like we, you know, talking about the 4% rule was implicitly saying, hey, the average is 6 and half, but let's cut a third of that off just in case once every 10 or 20 years, we get absolutely horrible market returns with low real returns with rising interest rates and all the nasty stuff that happens. Otherwise known as unfortunately what we are going through today. So, you know, this certainly is the environment where I would be talking about four. and not five or six or seven or eight or heck,

I mean, there were some 30 year periods where 10 would have worse. Like these are kinds of the environments where four was sort of made for, but it's not necessarily the thing that that breaks four percent. And I find interesting, even if you go back and look at what markets look like historically, I mean, we have some analogous periods to this, if particular if you go back to the 1970s.

And to me, it's really interesting if you look back at, you know, an environment like 1973, right? So inflation had just spiked from three to six. It's on its way to 11. Bond yields were at about six. So your bonds were yielding zero after inflation and soon to go negative. SMP's down 17%. Next year into 1974, it's worse. Right. It's like if this is 20, 23, 24, as we're going from 73 to 74. Ninety-74, it's worse. Inflation goes from 6 to 11. Bonds go from 6 to 7.

So you're now getting negative 4 real return on bonds. The S&P's down another 30. And if that's the environment that you retire in, not so different from where we are today, safe withdrawal rate was 6. Can we just take one step back here? I love it. I think this is fantastic. perhaps not everyone listening has listened to the other 350 episodes of Bigger Pockets

Money and are not familiar with the 4% rule and really what we're talking about even at a high level here. Could we maybe frame the conversation there and then go right back into dive? Should we take a step back of just like where did the whole thing come from in the first place? What is the 4% rule? Where does it come from? And yeah, why are we talking about it here? Scott, it's a good question.

It's just like, yeah, pause and where the 4%? central thing come from. So, so the idea of this, so if you, if you literally dial back to like where it came from from the research end, you got to go back, um, almost 30 years now. It's the early 1990s. Stock market's been booming for 10 plus years since we got past that nasty 1970s stuff. Like 80s are booming. Ninety seven was a weird hiccup. We're covered within a year. We're getting these great double digit returns year after year after year. And if you pull out, publications and like magazines at the time, the common discussion was if you are getting ready to retire in the early 1990s, a reasonable conservative retirement spending rate would be about

7 to 7.7 and a half percent. And that seemed moderate because again, stocks have been doing 12 to 15 plus almost every year, year after year. So it was sort of a like punchline to a joke like, hey, just in case maybe you would only want to take out 7 to 7 and a half. And bear mind, like you could get seven on a 10-year treasury at that point. So all this discussion around, you can spend upwards to 7% of your portfolio as a conservative number. And some folks started doing some research saying, well, you know, okay, like we got some good returns that we've been running on here right now. And bond yields are pretty good right now, but it hasn't always been that way. There are times when markets are worse, and there are times when they don't return so well. And there are times where you get started and bad

things happen out of the gate. And so some researchers started digging into this, say, well, let's look at what this would have looked like historically. And the first person that did this from the financial planning side was a gentleman named Bill Bagan, financial planner or engineer, Aerox engineer turned financial planner. So like the man loved to nerd out with a spreadsheet. When dug up all the historical data that we had at the time, which was basically the Ibbetson data sets when Ibiton was driving a lot of that market research. search data. And Bill went back and said, well, let's see what kind of withdraw rates would have actually worked through all the different historical time periods that were out there. You know,

we could do better part of seven or 80 years of rolling history, that we had pretty good data going back to the early 1900s. And so essentially what Bill did was he calculated if you had a balanced portfolio and you went through each of the possible 30 year sequences we've had over the past century, what withdrawal rates would have worked in all the different 30 years scenarios that we've had. Some are good, some are bad, some are better, some are worse. The average of the whole series was about 6 to 6.5%. But the comment in the framing from Bangen was, well, okay, I mean, you can take something that had a median of 6 to 6.5%, but almost by definition, that means it fails about half the time. If you really want to figure out a withdrawal rate that's

safe, you should look at all of the ones that have worked in history and pick the worst one we've ever had. Like whatever the lowest withdrawal rate was that would have worked. And the answer in that exercise was about 4.15%. Bengen rounded it to 4.1. The industry rounded it to 4.5. And that was where we came up with this 4% rule. And it was essentially kind of a two-way tie between retiring right on the eve of the Great Depression with all the horrible things that happened in the 1930s. and retiring in the mid to late 1960s, where you went through a 10 to 15 year stagflation period before markets ultimately took off again. So one was sort of a deflationary depression.

The other was an inflationary stagflation environment. Both them came out with this number that was right around 4%. And so that kind of became the number. The idea of it was, look, if we look at what have happened in history, basically one of two things happens. We get markets as bad as anything we've ever seen in history, in which case, 4% should more or less get you through, or markets are better than the worst thing that's ever happened in history, in which case, either A, you'll have a bajillion dollars left over at the end, because market

returns are better, or B, more realistically, you'll get a couple of years in your retirement, you'll realize things are going okay, and you'll decide to start ratcheting, you're spending up a little bit further because you're ahead. But the idea of it was, if we want to find a baseline, we take 4% of our initial starting balance, we spend that adjusted for inflation. So notably, it's not like we take 4% of our balance every year because then your lifestyle goes up and down as the markets go up and down. The idea of it was, what's a baseline spending that I can maintain adjusting for inflation for life? And so 4% rule is essentially $4,000 for every $100,000 in your portfolio. And you spend that 4,000 moving up and down however inflation and deflation plays out.

And it would go 30 years even in the worst historical time period that we had found. So not the unequivocal guarantee. It is always possible. The future could literally be worse than anything that we've ever seen in history. But again, when you start going through what history actually looked like, I mean, the market fell almost 89% from top to bottom from 1929 peak to 1932 trough. And the 4% rule still worked for that. Now in part because there were a bunch of bonds that do well when the market gets obliterated like that.

But just you look at the kind of things that we've had that have happened in history. that are frankly even a lot worse than what we're looking at in today's environment and what was worse than the tech crash and it was worse than the financial crisis. And that's why just we continue to find this number holds up pretty well. Like it's not that it's anything mystical or magical. It's just when the reality is that on average and with average returns, you can you can spend at six and a half adjusted for inflation and you dial it down to four, you cut a third of that off just in case market returns are bad. When you actually get bad market returns, it holds up pretty well because that's what it was made for in the first place. Love it. So, so, you know, to summarize a couple of

key points there, the 4% rule, the question that we're answering, the reason we care about this is because people want to know how much money do I need to retire. And the 4% rule says you need 25 times your amount you intend to spend this year. And the 4% rule will take care of inflation, and all the other things associated with that. So you want to spend $40,000 this next year, your first year in retirement, you need a million dollars. I want to spend $80,000, you need $2 million. And that you can spend $80 plus inflation every year for the next 30 years and not run out of money in the worst scenario in history with that. And what I think is interesting is the 4% rule is really not designed for the current situation that we're in.

It's actually designed for the people who retired in February or March of this year when the market peaked or January, right? when the market peaked this near it. Yeah, I mean, we're already well into it. It's sort of the, well, the weird inverse effect. You know, if you look at what happens after markets have significant declines, the typical safe withdrawal rate that works is a lot closer to five than it is to four. Now, it's 5% of your portfolio with a 20% haircut, which is basically the same as 4% your portfolio with the whole thing.

But that's kind of the point, like the because as markets move, you're spending a can adjust with it or just the safe spending amount is more stable than what markets gyrate around in any particular year. And so we get that's why these numbers continue to work as well as they do. If you actually take 4% off of your curtailed number because markets are down and on the bond side and the stock side this year, arguably you may actually be haircutting yourself more than you need to to take 4% off that reduced based number, which is why, again, if you look back to other time periods in history, like, hey, the 1973, which had a lot of similarities, inflation, spiking, rates are rising, bonds lose money, stocks are down almost 20%.

It's about to get worse the following year. But if you actually retire, heading into the start of 1974 in the midst of that miserable environment, the withdrawal rate that worked was six, not four, because you'd actually already born enough of the pain that, you know, the pain wasn't done. In fact, it was arguably worse in 1974 than it was in 1973, but you were already part of the way there and part of the way to the recovery. That means 4% isn't even the number anymore because that's really what shows up if you're at the absolute peak worst timing before any of the bad stuff begins. So markets down 25% and the inflation rate is close to 9%. So 9 plus 25 is 34. Can we then say that

because your effective purchasing power of your portfolio is down 34% year to date, which is an enormous decline that we're good with the 6% rule now? I don't know that I would dial it that directly, only because, look, like, I'm a big fan of looking the data and measuring the data, but I'm also a bit of a data stats nerd. And so in the stats world, there's a phenomenon known as overfitting, which is like, I'm going to so dive deeply into my numbers that I'm going to use a relatively small. data set and then find like the one perfect thing that I can fit to my data to make the point, even though that probably isn't going to be perfectly representative of the future.

So I don't know if I would take it quite as far as four to six. But we published some research in the past just looking at how the withdrawal rate changes as you start getting shifts in valuation and shifts in real return expectations. And it does get from four to five percent pretty pretty quickly. And again, all that really does is say four percent of what I had the beginning. the year is relatively close to 5% of what I've got now. Like, it just makes the point that you're still actually at a fairly similar number. It's not like you're going to get to spend more because bad things have happened in the market. It just gets you pretty close to what I would

have had at the beginning of the year because that is a phenomenon we see for a lot of people that were really close to retirement. It was like, I was going to take 4% of my number and now the market's crashed. Like, well, crap, I'm like, now I'm really far from my number again. it's like, well, if you were that close to your number at 4% of what you had in January, four and a half to 5% of what you've got now, probably still puts you at least in a, in a similar-ish neighborhood. And again, I wish we could align it perfectly. Like every X percent decline in the market is a wide percent increase in, um, in withdrawal

rate. But just, you know, having lived a lot of the numbers and crunched a lot of the numbers and being wary of, of overfitting data, like I, I wouldn't, try to torture the data for more than it can yield. And to me, that that's, that's probably pushing a little bit too hard and just trying to make precise calculations off of what is still a somewhat limited data set. So I can live with 100 years to say the neighborhood that we're in and the worst case that we've seen. But I would be a little bit wary to try to peg it perfectly intra-year. So you have an article that's now a couple of years old when we were talking before we

started recording. You said it's 15 years old. So thanks for making me feel super old. Your article is called How Has the 4% Rule held up since the tech bubble and the 2008 financial crisis? And in that article, you note even when starting with a 4% initial withdrawal rate, less than 10% of the time does the retiree ever finish with less than the starting principle. And to rephrase that, let's look at this this way. more than 90% of the time you have more money than you started with after making your withdrawals based on the 4% rule for 30 years. You truly have to wonder if the people who are dogging the 4% rule in this Bill Bagan study have ever even read the study.

I've read the study and it is so well thought out and so well written and you can't argue with the study if you read the study because math doesn't lie. I have a link to the article. I'm going to link to it in the show notes. And if anybody is still nervous after listening to Michael talk about, this is the first time I've heard that 6% was the safe withdrawal rate in the early 70s. Yeah. In 1974, in 1973, before all the, before any of the bad stuff happened, it was a little bit higher. It was a little bit lower.

There was still close to five. You know, the, the 4% rule scenario from the, from the stagflationary environment. actually wasn't for someone who retired in, in 1973. It was someone who retired in 1966. So if you look in kind of history, 1966 was the first time the Dow hit 1,000. 66 was a bad year. It was a pullback in the market.

It wobbled sideways. In 1973, it was still at 1,000. Then the 73-74 bear market happened. Then you got a lot more volatility. by 1981, the Dow is still at 1,000. You've gone 15 years without a dollar of appreciation in the Dow. Now, your total return was there because you got some dividends. And back then, companies paid out a little bit more than they retained in.

So your total return was a bit higher than that. But you got 15 years of zero price appreciation on top of inflation spiking to double digits. And that's where you get this world of, like, like, okay, that all together was so unbelievably horrific. We got down to this 4% rule. But, I mean, when you look at it from that frame to me just said, it helps to highlight how awful markets have to be. I mean, if we want to mirror something like the 4% rule from the 1960s or from the late

1920s, like, you know, hopefully not dating us too much. Like as we're recording here, like S&P is a little bit under 4,000. So you're talking about a world where it's 2037, we still haven't gotten over down over S&P 4,000 again 15 years from now. That would just be analogous to what makes the 4% rule, not breaks it. That just puts you on par with where it was. And even when I talked to folks and you like, hey, all this bad stuff happening, like, how long do you think it is before the market makes new highs again?

I don't hear a lot of people saying, well, I'm concerned we're not going to be there until the 2040s. I hear people say, like, well, it could take a year or two or three or five or ten. Great. That's better than the four percent rule. So one quick question here about that. During that period, 64 to 81, I think you've mentioned. 66 to 86 to 81. What was happening to interest rates?

Were they generally rising or falling or flat? So rates were rising. That's an odd tongue twister. Rates were rising through that time period. The beginning of it, they were pretty low because we were coming off of post-World War II inflation area in the 50s into the 1960s, and interest rates got fairly low. I think like three and a half to four percent on the 10 year, which back then was sort of unheard of low because it had been higher for a long time. By the time we went from like 1966 until we got to the peak in 1981, interest rates basically, I mean, if you look like the 10-year treasury, interest rates went from 4.5. to 14 on top of the fact that markets went nowhere flat over the over the 15 year period.

Again, like, it might have been a big causation there too. I mean, it was a truly awful, awful, awful time period. And on top of that, you know, inflation also peaked north of 13 percent in the middle of all of that as well. So even when you're getting better yields, like you're not making much better money yet. You're just trying to get yields that keep up with how much inflation was spiking through this time period. as well. So your bond returns are real, your real bond returns are flat or negative for most this time period. And your nominal bond returns are getting crushed because the rising interest rates is slamming the price as, as rates rise. So it was, again, it's very analogous to a lot of what

at least we've been seeing through this year, these sort of stagflationary environments where economic growth is not good. Markets are down. Rates, inflation is rising, which is make rates rise. Rates rising are causing bonds to decline at the same time that you're stocks are going down. That's the kind of environment that we had as we went through the 60s into the late 60s into the 70s and into the early 1980s. And again, to the sort of the point at the beginning, like, that's where 4% came from. Like, that's why you can't do 6 as a standard withdrawal. It got ratcheted down to 4 to deal with those kinds of environments. Yeah. I mean, it's a lifetime of savings, right? I mean, you're saying when you say the 4% rule, it says,

I'm going to save up 25 years of expenses. And in all historical scenarios, that will last me 30 because I just need to eke out a tiny beat to inflation in order to have it not run out over 30 years. So, I mean, it's just so conservative that it's it has to apply to the vast majority of situations that we're likely to encounter in our lives. Well, which is why, I mean, if you look at it from the flip side, if you just say like I take 4% rule in all historical scenarios and I see how I do. as Mindy had noted, like upwards of 90% of the scenarios, you never touch your principal once in 30 years, half the time you finish with more than double your money left over on top of a lifetime of inflation adjusted spending. So it's a weird phenomenon. It's even for anyone who likes to put their dollars into calculators and spreadsheets, like the 4% rule is the equivalent of, hey, if I've got a

million dollars, let's make a plan where I die with two and a half million dollars 30 years from now, never having used $2 million of my original $1 million. That's actually what the 4% rule is. Like that's, that's an equivalent calculation tradeoff because, in part, because sequences matter. And if you get a great long-term average return, you can get a really lousy sequence,

which is why we take these more conservative numbers. But again, it is the sort of the twin reality for it is setting your spending low enough to withstand the worst sequence we've seen in 30 years most of the time just results in either a big old pile of money left over at the end that you didn't use or more realistically for most people, just we begin to make mid-course adjustments as we get a couple of years in and see that things are not as awful as feared. We're doing okay. We've gotten ahead. We're far enough ahead. We can start ratching or spending up again. And we start dialing it up if we don't get the disaster scenario.

A moment ago, you said that people who retired in the mid to late 60s got hammered with the 70s inflation. And we've been comparing the early 70s to what's going on right now. Who should be concerned right now? People who retired five years ago? Where are you seeing people who need to be a little bit more cautious with their withdrawals? Strictly speaking, I would start with, I'd be more concerned with the folks who retired on the, you know, at the beginning of 2020.

where we're two and a half years in, market actually, you know, we rebounded so much after the pandemic. We're still higher than we were heading into the pandemic, but not far. I mean, if you retired right before the pandemic broke out, I think S&P was close to 3,300. Now we're at about 3,800. So, you know, spread out over two and a half years. That's a pretty lousy return on top of inflation ramping up and my bonds getting hammered and the rest. And so I would be a little bit more concerned if I retired two and a half years ago right on the eve of the pandemic. And I've been living this out for two or three years.

And the markets have not been cooperating so much over a three year stint. Because what you really find, like if you dig into what drives, sort of 4% rule in general, but just at a higher level, like what drives failures in retirement outcome where we run out of money when we were planning for very long periods. It's not really the market crashes that we tend to talk about. It's the slow recoveries. What defines sequence of return risk is much less about bad years and much more about bad decades. That's why, look, if you retired, like on the eve of the crash of 1987, which was the worst market decline we've seen in a single day ever since. yet a 20 plus percent decline the day after you retire, if you took your first withdrawal,

you know, right before Black Friday, and you took your second withdrawal a year later, the second withdrawal came out at a higher price than the first withdrawal, and the entire crash of 1987 would literally not show up in your retirement distributions. Because the crash was so horrible and the recovery was so fast, you wouldn't even see it. And you still, I mean, if you actually run the numbers back for someone retire, retiring in that time period, you get like 9% safe withdrawal rates because the 1980s was a really, really good time period for markets. So it's not so much about retiring on the eve of crashes. It's retiring when you get bad decades, when bad things happen and you get really slow recoveries.

That's why even by the time you get to retiring in 1973, it's not as bad. You're withdraw rates closer to five than four. It's retiring in 1966 where you go seven years of Noah. appreciation and rising rates. And then the 73, 74 bear market happens. And then the stagflation kicks in. And then they raise interest rates to the sky trying to break the inflation curve. And all the terrible stuff happens. And by the time they get control of inflation and markets and the bull market kicks

in and all the rest, you are already more than halfway through your retirement. If you started in your early 60s, you're about to have your 80th birthday before markets get higher than they were when you retired. So those are the kinds of scenarios that create the challenges. And it's part of the reason why the Great Depression is similar. It took until after World War 2 for the market to make material highs, material new highs above where it was at the beginning of the Great Depression, there was 15 years from 1929 to the mid-1940s. And so it's the 10 to 15 year sort of disaster scenarios that creates so much trouble. So that's why the tech crash was not

that problematic because the markets were covered relatively quickly. That's ultimately why the financial crisis was not that problematic from a withdrawal rate perspective because markets recover it in a relatively short number of years. That's why at least up until this year, coronavirus pandemic was not that problematic because markets had such a V recovery going through the challenges in Q2 of 2020 that folks that retired then were still relatively on track. Now, seeing it again continuing this year, to me raises a little bit more concerns because now we're almost three years in and we're not making good head. way and who knows whether markets get better next year or whether we've got more pain going for this.

We got more pain. You could be four or five years in and still struggling to get above the highs when you started your retirement. And even that's not necessarily fatal to the retirement path. It's still more about where are we at the end of the decade, not just in the next year or two. But these are at least the paths that to me would create a little bit more worry and concern for someone, which again, the context of the 4% rule simply means like hang out with the rule. Like that framework is still built for troubling periods like this. But I wouldn't necessarily be saying like, woo, markets recovering. Let's ratchet up my spending because this is awesome.

Like I might take a little bit more slow measured, tempered pace if I'm a couple of years in a retirement trying to decide, hey, do I spend more as the market recovers? Yeah, maybe go a little slow play on that. Okay. So let's pretend that I know a lot of people who retired in late 2019, early 2020, and are watching this market and thinking, huh, what should I be doing? I'm thinking of Amy and Tim. And I think they're in a good position, but they did retire and start their travels, like literally right before COVID started. So what are some things they should be watching out for? If they're

continuing to do the 4% rule, they are continuing to be, you know, on track with their spending and they're not going crazy with their spending. But what are some things they should be watching out for in the market, just to keep track of this like 10 to 15 year time period, like keeping that in their heads, I guess, is going to be really important. So, well, so I'd answer is there's a couple of different ways to answer this because the question that it ultimately comes back to for most of us. Well, so first of all, from a pure 4% rule framework, we still shouldn't have a problem in this environment.

It's not a good one. I wouldn't be super excited about what's going on. but it's not necessarily the environment that creates breakages. And at the least, like if we're going to end up having breakages that make the 4% rule struggle, this is much more about questions like, hey, by the time we get to the latter part of the decade, it's 2028 or 2029, are we still sitting at the S&P not able to break 4,000? Okay, like now I'm getting a little bit more concerned. And by then you will probably notice because your spending has been ratching up for inflation.

What started out is a 4% withdrawal is now like 4.5. it's five, it's five and a half, you might be creeping towards six. Good news, good news, air quotes. You're 10 years into retirement. So you can have a slightly higher withdrawal rate because time horizons come a little as you moved along. But if I'm looking at a withdrawal rate that's ratcheted up that high, I start getting a little bit nervous about it. More practically speaking, though, and it's just worth recognizing as a, an important, I'll call it constraint to the safe withdrawal rate research. I don't mean that as a knock on the work that Benin did and others. I've about some of this as well. But the original safe withdrawal rate research was very constraining in

its assumptions about spending. It essentially assumes whatever that initial spending rate is that you take, you know, $4,000 per 100,000 that you've got saved, like that's my baseline number that I'm going to adjust for inflation. It essentially says no matter what happens, no matter what's going on, you never change your spending. You just march along for inflation every year. Essentially, I joke about it in the advisor context for us. Like, it's sort of like, it's sort of like saying, you know, like people are like lemmings and they're literally just going to blindly march straight off the cliff. If you don't like ratchet their spending down on day one to point them a same direction where they won't walk off the cliff. When of course, what happens for people in real time is

like you do things you respond to the world you're in human beings are kind of built for that like we we do stuff i mean practically speaking like hey maybe you'll eat out a little bit less when all of your friends can't afford to eat out either because it's a horrible recession and there's inflation and other bad things are happening or maybe you'll say like hey the place i'm in i'm just not really enjoying the lifestyle here anymore and it's gotten obnoxiously expensive i'm going to relocate to another part of the country that has a significantly lower cost of living that just completely radically changes the trajectory or maybe we'll just, you know, we had 30 years of trips around the world planned. Let's take like a year or two off for that while the crazy stuff settles down, right?

Like we can we can make temporary adjustments to our spending. And one of the things that we found that to me is most striking around this when you look at when bad things are happening, if you want to do something in the meantime to try to get back on track, one of the most straightforward ways to get back on track is actually the, the remarkably simple adjustment of just try, just don't change your withdrawals for inflation. So if you were, whatever number is, if you were taking five grand a month from your portfolio this year, keep taking five grand a month from your portfolio next year. Keep, keep that as your baseline.

Now, in practice, you'll feel a little squeeze. Everything's getting more expensive. Inflation does what inflation does. So if I take the same dollars and inflation makes everything more expensive, you know, nerd wise, I lose purchasing power, practically speaking, my money just doesn't go quite as far. And so you have to start adapting your budget, at least slightly, to the fact that I'm taking the same distribution, but I can't quite buy as much stuff and live my lifestyle as much because of this shift. And if you go down the path of doing that, it turns out that is one of the single biggest

ways to put a portfolio back on track if you're running down a troubled track. Because the reality from the spending end is if I trim an inflation adjustment out of my portfolio, I don't just take a cut once. That forms essentially the new baseline for all my spending adjustments in the future. And so if I don't take my 8% spending adjustments, that's about where inflation wraps up this year, we'll see. If I don't take my 8% spending adjustment this year, that's essentially a lifetime downward adjustment of 8% spending going forward. And it has an immense impact positively on putting portfolios back on track if you are getting the point where you're feeling worried and want to make some adjustments. And so the framework that we we tend to talk through clients with about this is

when bad stuff's happening, our gut response is like horrible things are happening. I got to do something big to get back on track again. And we tend to think about large temporary cuts. Or like, I'm going to cut way back for the next year or two until this stuff blows over. It turns out in practice what helps the most to get back on track are not large, temporary cuts, they're small permanent ones. Small but permanent ones. Like I'm just going to trim the inflation adjustment out. It puts me on a much safer trajectory. And it's sort of permanent in air quotes because if and when markets ultimately recover and you figure and you realize your way ahead of your target again, you can always give that back to yourself later. But to think in

the framework of small but permanent adjustments or small long term adjustments rather than large short-term adjustments. The small, long-term adjustments actually have more benefit and are, frankly, just less lifestyle painful to adjust in the moment. So we talked a lot about the 4% rule in Bill Bingen and his approach to that. You know, perhaps some folks listening will know that Bill Bingen came out earlier in the year, I think January, February of March, and said, you know what, 4% rule is great, but I'm actually going to sell all of my position, or 70% of my position in stocks and bonds and go to cash because the world is about the sky is about to fall. And he looks pretty smart right now, I think, with that adjustment that he made, given where

everything is going. Can you comment on that and say, does that mean that he does not believe in the 4% rule or that we all should be going to cash or that we should be thinking like that? What are we to make of that? It's a great question. So first, like I'll say at the high level, no, I don't think that's necessarily an indication or statement that that Bill doesn't believe in the 4% rule. And just I know him personally, I've actually had some of these conversations. It's not that Bill doesn't believe in the 4% rule. If you want to think of it from a research end, the 4% rule, which was kind of built around

these balanced portfolios that we regularly rebalanced to, wasn't meant to be prescriptive about how the portfolio is managed. It was meant to be a baseline about how the portfolios managed, not the least of which, because we've got historical data and it's really easy to calculate, like, what your return would have been for an annually rebalanced, balanced portfolios. Like, it's a very straightforward way to calculate a baseline of here's what would have worked historically. So that's an important statement that we need to call out here, right? The 4% rule was not designed to be the way that we should manage our portfolios. It was meant to be, in the event that you are a robot, make no adjustments whatsoever.

And I forget the word that you used earlier. Lemmings, because I'm a Gen Xer that played the Lemmings game when I was young. So shout out to my Gen X friends. Perfect. If you are a lemming, which is a new term to me, then you can manage your portfolio that way and not run out of money in all historical contexts using the 4% rule. But that's not the way Bill Bangen actually managed his own or his client's portfolios. It was more of an example. And it was never how Bill, Bill managed his client portfolio. So we, um, so I, I have a podcast for advisors called financial advisor success. And we had Bill on a year or two ago, uh, just sort of talking about this sort of his journey and the rule and how he did it in practice with his clients. Uh, because, you know, from the advisor and we like nerding out on these things. Like how, you know, how the guy that made the 4% rule do the 4% rule with his clients. And so Bill was not a. passive investor. Bill was a, Bill was an active investor. And I don't necessarily want to open up the active versus passive debate. Maybe we can have that next or another day, but just Bill was not a passive investor. So Bill took his clients to cash at the beginning of 2008 as well when he was in

practice. He took them out for a similar phenomenon to what he did earlier this year, which was just markets are looking bad, right? Just inverted yield curves and the kinds of things that tend to pretend bad stuff. And, you know, the reality is markets predict more bad scenarios than bad scenarios actually occur. I forget what the exact number is, but something like inverted yield curves have predicted 14 of the past six recessions because it over, it over, it gets them all, gets a lot of false positives along the way as well. And if you, if you like looking at that kind of stuff, there's a couple of other market tracking techniques that you can glee. similar insights from.

Bill's view of this was, look, if you recognize at the end of the day that sequence of return risk is driven by these bad things that happen that can take a couple of years to play out, if you just don't mess around and play the game during the really high risk time periods, you strip out a whole bunch of risk without necessarily dialing down a lot of return because, you know, if at worst, you know, valuations are high and the yield curve is inverted and markets are trending down on the, you know, the 50 days across the 200 day and a bunch of all those other types of factors that people who do that trend watching look at. If you're wrong and it's not the next horrible recession, it's still usually not the environment's like, whoops, didn't see it

coming to market like rocket's 30% upwards. At the least, it's like, hey, it didn't turn out awful. It was just kind of sideways and grindy for a while. And so you don't necessarily leave a lot on the table if you try to take those more defensive postures. And that's essentially what Bill's approach was. And what that means in practice is if you occasionally dodge a really large bear market, you end out with the withdrawal rate that's a heck of a lot higher than four. I mean, like, four works. But when you don't get clobbered in bear markets,

higher than four turns out to be the result. And so Bill was never one, like the point of the rule was not, well, it was meant to be, call it prescriptive around what sustainable spending is. It was not meant to be prescriptive around what the one and only way to manage a portfolio through that journey was. It was at least meant to show and Bill himself did some of this research and others who followed afterwards to point out like there is a range of portfolios we can own from really aggressive to really conservative to more balanced stuff in the middle. And the research has been pretty clear that in the middle balanced are

better than either of the extremes. If you go too heavy into bonds, you get a high inflation environment, you get clobbered, you go too heavy into stocks, you get a depression and you get clobbered. So good old-fashioned diversification does work. And the data has been pretty clear that balanced portfolios are much better than too heavy into stocks or too heavy into bonds. But that's all built around a static, you know, passive strategic portfolio framework. And granted, some folks are more passive and strategic. That's much more just my approach, our firm's approach for what we do with clients. But Bill, Bill was not passive, had never been passive. He took his clients out in early 2008, and he since retired. He sold his practice a couple of years

ago. But as noted in the recent media interviews, like, he's done it again. He's out again. Now, the challenge for those environments for anybody that's ever been through these cycles is, you know, as the saying goes, if you want to try the time the market, you have to be right twice because you have to figure out when to get out and you have to figure out when to get back in. and Bill struggled, at least on the last cycle, in when to get back in. It took them a couple of years to get clients fully back in. So good news, they missed the decline, bad news, they miss a lot of the recovery. Net result is you still do pretty well because you end out back in similar to where

you started without the giant V in the middle. So it still lifts up retirement income sustainability. But, you know, just feel compelled any time to be talking about trying time markets that way, particularly when you put someone up who has. managed to make a couple of good calls is, you know, you got to be right on when to leave and one to come back in. And a lot of people do this for a lot of reasons. And most people don't time it well. So just super heavy, your mileage may vary kind of warning around pursuing that. To get a little bit more directly to your question, Scott, of like, does that mean you should be pulling out

and trading out today? Again, asterisk, like, I'm not a big fan of trying to do market timing. So be cautious with anything that comes out of my mouth from here. But just when you look at this from historical perspective around market volatility, like after you've already knocked off 20 plus percent of the market decline is usually not the best point to be able to figure out when to get out. You're usually closer to the point that you're trying to figure out to get back in. So wouldn't necessarily be looking to say like now, oh, since Bill sold six months ago, maybe I should be looking to sell now. like, well, he sold six months ago, was a heck of a lot higher than it is right now. You know, question of Bill is like, when are you getting back in now that the market has come

down this far? And so, again, I don't know exactly where he is on it. But when you get this far into a decline, you're usually looking more at when am I going to get back in than when am I going to get out further. And so I would be cautious about trying to make extreme shifts now after a big decline because Bill did it at the beginning of the year before. 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 Pock. 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. You 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 Registeredagent.com slash money-free. What do you doing personally? What do I do personally? I'm a, I don't even bother opening the statements and look. I just let it run.

And this is in passive index funds? Yes. Yeah. I won't give shoutouts to any particular companies, but all the usuals that you would expect that are framed up for for passenger portfolios. I'm a little bit shifted, though, compared to most in that. I also keep a really sizable cash allocation, but that's not a market thing for me. That's a, I'm still a long ways to retire, and I'm an entrepreneur that starts businesses.

And so I got to deal with the secondary risk of if I get sick, I got to make payroll for some team members. And so for me, like, there's a bigger cash allocation, but that's more business and personal reserves and essentially a very oversized emergency fund as an entrepreneur than like a retirement portfolio allocation. Okay. So how much cash do you keep on hand in terms of like monthly spending or like monthly payroll and things like that? Well, so relative to personal spending, about three years. Oh, so this is a large cash position. Okay, that's interesting. About three years worth of cash on the personal side.

And then I guess from the business perspective, it's about three months of payroll. Okay. We're a recurring revenue business. So revenue is relatively stable for most of what we do and we've been running for a long time. But again, just when you're running as an entrepreneur, particularly where you're a driver of, the business revenue. You know, my, my greatest risk from the, from the business, or just from the financial perspective overall is if something happens to me, it impacts both my earning power, then it impacts my ability to keep my team on board, which then impacts the value of the

business, which then impacts my future earning potential and the equity value of the business. And so not having cash to weather storms can cascade really, really quickly if you're someone that runs a business and especially if you run any kind of service business that has employees where like you need them to stay around because if bad things happen and they leave, there's no one to do the service stuff, which makes your business go downhill very, very quickly. So I keep much higher cash reserves from that end because that's my primary risk as an entrepreneur and a business owner. I do the exact same thing.

I have one year of personal. expenses in there. So a very large cash position. Everything else is in stocks and or real estate. My boring old duplexes and triplexes that I purchased once every 18 months here. So there's something very comforting about having that cash position, even if it's not the greatest return profile. It's also very embarrassing for either one of us to go broke, given what we do for a living. Yeah, there's a little of extra pressure of like being a financial person who ends out going broken in their financial journey, true. But I mean, to like, this was something for me from,

from very early on. And I mean, the irony, I guess in the context of Mindy's earlier question, not to take us too far down the, down the rabbit trail, but, you know, the, like the dollars that I have that are invested in diversified retirement accounts is mostly stuff that I saved 15 years ago. so I'm 44 now. So mostly stuff that I saved in my 20s, I haven't contributed to retirement account in almost 15 years

outside of getting my match for my 401k plan. And the reason is simply, again, your mileage may vary, don't recommend entrepreneurial journeys for most people, but I like building businesses, and I can't go build something if I don't have cash to launch something to hire the people it takes to get the business off the ground, to just have the reserves to take the risk of going and starting a business. And so a lot of people I see that want to build, want to try to build wealth through

entrepreneurship and building businesses, the first problem they get out of the gate is essentially, I'd love to start a business, but all my money is tied up in retirement accounts and I don't want to get clobbered on taxes and penalties getting it out to start my business. And so I realized pretty early on that was going to be a problem. So I stopped putting money there so I wouldn't have that problem. I also did the exact same thing. I think I completely agree with that sentiment. And, you know, retirement's a long way off saving three grand a year, starting at 23. I'd much rather have 20, 30 grand accessible to me at that point in time. If I'm going to use it to pursue opportunities like building businesses, taking risks on new jobs, startups, whatever it is.

So more early stage wealth accumulation than getting close to retirement side, right? At some point, you have to turn that switch and decide how you're going to liquidate and transition it. out of that environment so that you can actually spend it, right? Businesses can build, build dollars, but it's not always good to build in cash flow. But yeah, just an interesting side note from the wealth building perspective is, you know, I decided pretty early on that I'd far prefer to bet on myself than investing in the markets. Not like anything negative against markets. We help a lot of clients invest in into markets as well. But, I've still got a long enough time horizon that bets on myself have a multi-decade period to pay off.

And my career has grown faster than markets have grown. Okay. I have a question for both of you because I get this a lot in the Bigger Pockets forums and in our Facebook groups. Aren't you concerned about losing purchasing power to inflation by having so much in cash? And I would like everybody to listen to Michael Kitsis and listen to his answer. I mean, the short answer is no. Like, it's, it's not, I mean, it's, it's not the dollars I'm using to build wealth. It's, it's the, you know, it's like the ballast I'm using to keep the stability so I can do other things that, that go actually build wealth.

Like, I don't have the cash there to generate returns. And yeah, I mean, from a pure financial perspective, it's a big old dead weight that sits around. But, you know, when I look at that relative to, okay, but the fact that I got a big pile of cash means I was able to launch a speaking. career 15 years ago and grow my income. And then I was able to launch a number of other businesses that I could not have done if I didn't have cash built up because I've got a spouse and young children and I am the sole breadwinner for the family. And that's a whole lot of responsibility that sits on my shoulders. And so I wasn't even willing to go down a journey of saying I'm going to invest to myself in my career and try to get raised and try to get promotions and try to build a

business. I couldn't do that if I didn't first spend what was literally many years building up enough cash to be able to do that and take the leap. I think when I when I when I originally jumped, I had about a year's worth of cash. I mean, this was 15 years ago. I was also had less overhead and was not married yet. So didn't didn't take as much to build up the savings to take the leap originally. But I I probably spent five years building up a year's worth of cash to be able to cover the bills while I took a leap because it takes a while when you go and build something just to get back to your old income. And then as the business grew early on, I took a lot of the free cash flow that came out and just banked it to build up the reserves even further before I went and launched

the, before I went and launched the next thing. So it's not a return engine. It's the anchor that keeps you safe enough so you can go do other things that create returns and generate wealth. I 100% agree with that. And my cash position has been performing excellent. Excellently, in a relative context in 2022 compared to the other asset classes. Well, yes, the irony at least is that it doesn't lose money when interest rates rise when you're keeping it in cash or money markets are equivalent. So, yeah, it also turned out to be an OK returner this year by losing a large amount. Yeah, I got to make a decision about a car coming up.

I have the option to pay cash for the car. I have the option to finance it. I got the option to do some sort of hybrid approach if I chose to do that. I mean, that's a huge, that's a big return. Yeah. Well, I still bought a, I still drive a crappy 16 year old Kia. I bought off eBay in 2006. Love it.

Used. Used and used off eBay in 2006. No offense. I feel like, no offense to Kia. It's a fine car. I'm not trying to trash the brain. So it's a weak old car. It's managing to hold up, though.

Yes. I don't think there's anything wrong with having cash. I think that you should have cash. And everybody who is listening who wants to be a real estate entrepreneur and wants to quit their job and go out and have this huge empire, you should have a huge cash position to cover the expenses and the emergencies that life throws your way. And Michael Kitsis, who knows everything there is to know about money, keeps three years of cash in his personal accounts, three years of spending in his personal accounts so that he has a safety net. And I'm sorry, but if you don't have a lot of cash, a huge emergency reserve, easily accessible, it doesn't have to be in cash. It can be in something easily liquidatable. I mean, this isn't stuffed under your mattress.

I hope it's not stuffed under your mattress. Please tell me. No, no, it isn't a banking institution. Yeah. But, yeah, I mean, he keeps this amount in his accounts so that he has access. to it. And if you don't, like these people who say, the whole reason we started this show is people kept asking, I want to start investing in real estate with no money and bad credit. I'm like, well, that's like the worst thing ever. So dope. Well, yeah, go, you know, save some dollars to work on improving

your credit and getting down payments. And then it gets a, and then it gets a little bit more, it gets a little bit more stable. And, you know, I mean, the irony to me even in that context, and like, look, I understand a lot of people are, are in different places and come from different journeys. you know, even even in the vein of building wealth in real estate and building wealth in business, like almost all of it, unless you say come from money or have some independence source from which money springs forth for you. Uh, almost all of this starts with what can you do to build your personal income, your personal ability to earn with your time or your knowledge or whatever career or vacation you're pursuing, that gets you positive cash flow enough to get to get

the point where you can build some level of reserves for yourself, so you can then go do the next thing that that builds the wealth even further. I spent the first nearly 10 years of my career, like try, well, reinvesting into myself, so, you know, pursuing advanced degrees designations in our industry's context before I ever went and owned any kind of real estate or, um, or started any kind of business. I mean, it was it was 10 plus years into my career, I guess almost 10 years into my career, before I made that leap. And most of that time, like, you know, I had a crappy car.

I bought off eBay and I split a three bedroom apartment with two buddies, you know, three bedrooms in a common room just to keep my rent dirt cheap so that I could afford to save money to build up the reserves to then do the things that I wanted to do years later. We love it. Michael, this has been fantastic. Thank you so much for coming on the show today and sharing your wisdom and just the broad expertise you have in the subject of retirement planning and thinking about the 4% rule and how markets can impact your portfolio. We really appreciate it. Where can people find out more about you? Most straightforward place is just kitsis.com. K-I-T-C-E-S dot com was not the luckiest on the, translating the name into English when my family came over, but K-I-T-C-E-S dot com has our writing, our research, some links out to the other services that we provide as well. But that's the best place to find it as well as the nerdy retirement research we like

putting out from time to time. Awesome. Well, we will link to all that in the show notes here. awesome appreciate it thank you very much michael thank you it was lovely talking to you again absolutely likewise thank you mindy thank you scott appreciate the time thank you we'll talk to you soon awesome take care okay scott that was michael that was fabulous what did you think of the show i thought it was great i think it was affirming hey the four percent rule is designed for situations um like the great depression and the inflationary period of 1966 to nineteen eighty one um

Surely it will hold up in the current context here. And the worst part of it, if you believe that we're about to enter a significant market, a prolonged market downturn, the worst time was six months ago. So the 4% rule surely continues to hold up with the current portfolio. I also thought it was fascinating to hear about his large cash position. I have a couple of comments on that in a moment. And I thought it was fascinating to hear the explanation that, hey, the 4% rule is not designed to be a portfolio management strategy. Rather, it is a illustrative example of how a lemming

would not run out of money in all but the worst market scenarios, all of including the worst market scenarios in history. I want to focus on the phrase safe withdrawal rate. That is what this whole article and this whole concept was about when Bill Bagan did his research, He was looking for the safest withdrawal rate. This doesn't mean that your withdrawal rate only has to be 4% for the rest of your retirement life. This means that 4% will get you through 96% of the time. And that's actually kind of a weird little math thing. It happens.

It's not called the 4% rule because it works 96% of the time. It just happens to be the 4% rule is the safe withdrawal rate. But in 96% of cases, it is. you have enough money to last you 30 years. And Michael's article, how has the safe withdrawal rate held up over since the 2008 crash, which we will link to in our show notes,

which can be found at biggerpockets.com slash money show 351. That article says that in 10% of the time, you end 30 years with less than you started with. 90% of the time you have more money after withdrawing for 30 years than you started with in the beginning. So you're living well with your 4% safe withdrawal and you still have a ton of money. If you got to the position of retirement, and we're speaking really to early retirees here

on this show. But if you got to the position of early retirement, you are kind of obsessive. with money, are you going to stop looking at your portfolio as soon as you retire? I can answer that question from my husband's point of view. No, he looks at it every single day. I don't look at it because I'm not, well, I don't have to because he does every single day and he tells me about it. But you will continue to review your portfolio. We continue to talk about our portfolio. So you will see trends. You will see, oh, the market's down. I better be a little bit more cautious. or hey, the market's been up for seven years in a row, it's okay to take that around the world cruise.

Like, you'll still be conscious of what's going on. So I think that people who are really, really concerned about their retirement that they have based on the 4% rule should read this Bill Bangin article, the original article, which will also be in the show notes. And just read through it and see all the work and research that he did to come up with this number. It wasn't just some pull it out of thin air number. There's a lot of work that went into this particular article that he did. I really like what Michael also had to say, small, long-term adjustments have more benefits than large short-term adjustments. Again, I thought it was great. If you're looking for how much money do I need to be done, to be financially independent, a good answer to that question is the 4% rule, 25 times your current annual spending.

in a mixed stock bonds portfolio and you're done. Really in a variety of portfolios with that. And again, that portfolio assumes you are a lemming. That means you never earn more money. You never collect Social Security. You never adjust your spending to tie with that. You don't, you know, you're not making, you're in a disaster scenario with this. You don't react at all to circumstantial changes over 30 years.

We know that's not true. Last, I will leave us with a thought, though, that in spite of the exhaustive of this study. I personally know zero financially independent people who rely exclusively on the 4% rule. So while the math is good and while we just had an exhaustive discussion defending it, I know nobody who has a mixed 6040 stock bonds portfolio, no significant cash position, and no other levers in their portfolio like real estate pensions or whatever. So paradoxically, in spite of the fact that it is this proven concept, folks still, don't seem to rely on it in early retirement in the fire community. But I do think it is the

beginning of the finish line. You are financially independent when you hit the 4% rule with this. If you want a definition of that, you can feel confident in that. Although you will probably go beyond that to pat it, because that is what human beings in the fire movement tend to do. I would like to tag off of Scott and say, if you are a human being who is using the 4% rule with no significant cast position and no other extra income and know all the other stuff that he said, reach out to me, Mindy at BiggerPockets.com, because I would like to talk to you and see how your experience is going and talk to you about your mental mindset, I guess mental mindset is it. Well, we won't be hearing from you because you don't exist.

But if you do, reach out at Mindy at Biggerpockets.com. Okay. That wraps up this excellent episode. episode of the Bigger Pockets Money podcast. He is Scott Trench and I am Indy Jensen saying, I cannot believe Scott has never heard the word lemming before. Oh, what a cliffhanger.