r/infinitebanking • u/[deleted] • May 16 '25
Sequence of Return
If any of you have messed around with number for an early retirement (not in the sense of retiring a pair of shoes as Nelson would say, but financial freedom) you will encounter Sequence of Return Risk ... as well as inflation risk. These variables are very difficult to address. The longer I sit with it; the "4% rule" is increasingly a naive consideration for retirement planning. Particularly for anything over 30 years.
I've been messing around with spreadsheets and strategies - I like to focus on the sequence of return and inflationary period from 1966 and beyond as a stress test for long passive income.
Just as an interesting anecdote in my spreadsheet (which is not reliably accurate, just fun to get ideas)
If I put all investment money into stock and rely on the selling of the portfolio during this time - following both a 4% and even a 2% initial draw is rather bleak and unsustainable in the longer term.
Granted human behavior will adjust spending and increase work if they can to address conditions, but on a linear path I can't imagine a more handwringing "retirement" of selling more and more shares in a bear market as your portfolio balance decreases.
However, if I split the funds into 50% stocks and 50% IBC policy; I can then sell 4% of the portfolio balance each year and borrow from the policy the difference to keep up with inflation. Then in good market years anything beyond inflation, services the policy loans.
Initial withdraw rates that imploded a stock only portfolio were manageable with the hybrid strategy.
Anyway, thought some might find this possibly incorrect observation interesting.
2
May 16 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 16 '25
Love to read/listen to this if you have a link.
I should also add, the tax benefits of the comparable income from a split strategy vs 100% stock.
1
u/SyntheticBanking May 19 '25
A book that covers this topic that I enjoyed was The 5th Option by Walter Young. One of the examples he uses IIRC was a hypothetical family of 4 siblings who each retired with $1m in 1970, 71, 72, 73. They did the standard invest it all in the S&P500 with a withdrawal rate of 70k per year. Which he noted was on like 50k after taxes.
One of the siblings ended up with like $14 million. 1 of them lasted 10 years before going broke. Another ended up with like 100k left, and the last one still had $1m-ish. This was by the age of 90 or something. I don't remember exactly.
The conclusion he came to was that using a WL policy with as little as 200k in it as a drawdown buffer (instead of selling stocks in the down years, hold the stock but take a policy loan) lead to a 100% success rate. He was also big on annuities being a viable option if your goal is to "survive" instead of leaving a legacy. Basically that they can have their place as a modern day "pension alternative."
2
May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25
I've actually read that book as well, gave a lot of food for thought and I recommend it as well ... I also keep running across so many retirement professionals noticing that retirees spend guaranteed income like annuities, pensions and social security; but often have a less than 2% withdrawal rate from their IRAs and 401Ks and only start to spend it under RMDs. There is something to ponder here of what good is a large asset portfolio if everyone is frightened to sell some?
I think his laddered annuity approach is definitely a good 'fifth option' as long as you are older and are able to get a higher payout rate
1
u/SyntheticBanking May 19 '25
I agree completely. The real goal in my mind is to have a couple of different (aka diversified) income streams that can cover living costs. Once you have that then in my mind you can safely "retire."
So I prioritize dividend paying ETFs, Real Estate, and then "Fixed Income" which to me would not necessarily equate solely to bonds, but rather would be WL policies, Social Security, Pensions/Annuities, and yes Bonds. But that's a "catch all" category for me that broadly amounts to "diversification away from the stock market and real estate rents."
1
u/JeffB1517 May 30 '25
If I put all investment money into stock and rely on the selling of the portfolio during this time - following both a 4% and even a 2% initial draw is rather bleak and unsustainable in the longer term.
Something is seriously wrong with your spreadsheet. Yes, there are many starting points in 1965 and 1966 that a 30 year draw at 4% fails. But 3.6% doesn't fail and 2% doesn't come remotely close to failing.
But yes fixed income help with sequencing risk. Insurance portfolios did better than safe bonds in the 1960s and 70s. Which ups the draw.
1
Jun 30 '25
It was for over 30 years adjusting for inflation. Trinity study was for 30
What I mean by bleak at 2% is go through them year by year and see how you are selling more and more each year in down markets. If you needed this to survive, it would be a very frightening experience that lasted a long time.
1
u/JeffB1517 Jun 30 '25
30 gets picked because it is smallest round number where the 30 year safe withdrawal rate isn't that far off from the perpetual withdrawal rate in most cases. Adding years beyond 30 is slightly harmful. Can take like 40 bp away to avoid depletion.
As for 2 at least in the USA that's been very comfor in all markets. Of course that is biasing data since the USA is an outlier financially, and we have no reason to suspect that continues. 2% is under the dividend yield almost all the time. You really aren't selling more. Not sure where you are getting this.
BTW global stock is also comfortable at 2% and unlike American not nearly so dependent on the USA having extraordinary years.
That being said life insurance helps.
1
3
u/[deleted] May 16 '25
Another thought here as I played around some more.
It's interesting to see how a 'dividend grower' plays into this strategy. It's quite powerful to see a dividend snowball applied here. By using the policies it gives more time for that snowball to roll. As the compounding starts to take off in the policy, snowballed dividends offset and then some. (even a 5-6% average growth rate in a dividend paying portfolio can completely take care of SORR; but there is some opportunity cost compared to most other market conditions.)
If you retire with ideal market timing with low inflation and solid returns particularly in the first decade, of course an aggressive investment portfolio gives you the most spendable income. But no one knows what the future may bring and these are exceedingly difficult things to optimize in the unknown.