cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

"Without knowing the future, my instinct is that a VWEHX retirement portfolio will quickly crash at a 4% withdrawal rate. I can easily recalculate for different scenario's now that the spreadsheet is done. But, your premise of any withdrawal rate less than the starting distribution yield is clearly wrong."

Actually, my premise doesn't talk percentages, it talks dollars, which you can spend.  Percentages depend on the value of the portfolio, which adds nothing to the discussion.  Withdraw and spend less cash than comes into your portfolio as distribution cash, in other simple words.

In simple, other words, $Y GE $W.  Portfolio income greater than or equal to needed living expenses.  Living within one's means.

It's just different whenever a retiree has to always sell portfolio shares to cover a withdrawal.  It's much more complicated to figure out what has to happen in order to avoid, with a high POS, selling that last share!  8-))

ElLobo, de la casa de la toro caca grande
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@ElLobo wrote:

The 'sustainable' withdrawal rate for VWEHX, or any other fund, is its distribution yield, in dollars, not in percentages!  It isn't based on the historical return or distribution amounts.  The best indication of what the distribution will be, going forward a year at a time is the trailing 12 month distribution history.

It's 'sustainable' given the fact that you never sell any shares to cover a withdawal.  Ifn you withdraw and spend 100% of the distribution cash, you never buy any more shares either!  It's completely sustainable in that, whenever you never sell shares, you never worry about selling the last share that you own!  That's what you do whenever you always sell shares, to cover the withdrawal, whenever the withdrawal exceeds the distribution cash.  As a result, the POS is ALWAYS 100% while the POF is ALWAYS 0, going forward!

The ONLY question, then, is if that future cash flow will be a real, inflation adjusted amount ( doubt it!), a nominal amount (most probable, based on historical distribution amounts), a varying amount (should not be constant but not too variable), or whatever, and whether or not that cash flow covers your living expenses.


EL,

Well, you have always talked about "distribution yield" as the determinant of the static "safe rate" in the past. The higher the better has been your motto.  But it does not matter because you just declared your retirement strategy as a fail anyway.

So, after all the redirects, are now saying that your withdrawal strategy is not the inflation-adjusted safe-withdrawal that everyone else is talking about?   For what it is worth, your former plan only works until 2009 which is when the retiree first had to live on less. By 2011, all distributions (except March and May 2011) were less than what was planned for.

So that juicy 11% initial yield that barely sustained a 5.4% withdrawal was not very reliable predictor after all.

VWEHX Annual Dividend History.jpg

El Lobo:

"It's 'sustainable' given the fact that you never sell any shares to cover a withdawal.  Ifn you withdraw and spend 100% of the distribution cash, you never buy any more shares either!"

How "completely sustainable" is any strategy when the distribution erodes to 25% of it's initial value? Heck, the distribution yield is still higher than the initial distribution rate, and the math still does not seem to work.

None of us have a crystal ball, but yield is usually indicative of relative risk.

Holiday

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@SlipSliding wrote:

Hi Mustang -

Just so we’re all on the page, my manual what-if showed that the goal of having sufficient dividend income to cover expenses over the specified 32 year period required a starting value of at least $570K. The question I set out to answer was “could it have been done”, and it turns out that yes it could, provided that the retiree invested sufficient funds in the beginning, and only cashed out an inflation adjusted amount each month - no more, no less.

In addition, my analysis was completely retrospective; a trait it shares with all major SWR studies. Any projections based on it, or any other retrospective analysis, are made at the projector’s peril.


Hi @SlipSliding 

For what it is worth, my calculations verified what your findings were even though we both asked different questions. 

  • You were looking for the required initial investment to match income with monthly withdrawals.
  • I was looking for the maximum % SWR that would last over 32 years and end with $500k. 

With the initial 11% distribution yield, your SWR is 4.73%, and my SWR is 5.45%.  They compare like this:

VWEHX SlipSliding 3.jpg 

The retirement account balance comparison charts like this:

VWEHX 4.jpg

Based on these two observations, A "successful" 33 year retirement period landed in a range between a SWR of 4.73% and 5.45%, with an initial investment between $500k and $570k when using VWEHX historic data. By the Way, I counted 6 instances where shares had to be sold to cover the 402 monthly expenses, but I used a longer time period than you did. Most of those shortages were at the end.  

The actual distribution yield of 11% does not appear to be strongly correlated with either SWR. Maybe it is useful to help keep the initial investment lower?

However, it does seem clear that "smallish" changes can make outsized differences.  Especially when lowering SWR and increasing initial investment. Maybe I will try to calculate which made the bigger difference.

I like Excel too. I am glad you joined Morningstar, and I am very pleased to give you some of your first kudo's.  BTW, you are averaging about 50% at this point.

I added your name to the calculation to keep the two straight.  I can edit the pictures if this bothers you.

Thank you,

Holiday

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@ElLobo wrote:

So although you can calculate the TR of the fund, you can't calculate the TR of the PORTFOLIO unless you keep track of how many shares you own.


The number of shares is no more needed to calculate the total return of a portfolio than it is to calculate the total return of a fund. For the simple case where the only cash flow is a single purchase, the total return is EndingBalance/StartingBalance-1 for both a fund and a portfolio. The calculation is done the same way for a fund of holdings and a portfolio of investments.

When there are cash flows, into or out of a fund or a portfolio, between the starting and ending dates, the total return is calculated using the dollar balances immediately before and after each cash flow. Details are in the Total Return section of the Morningstar Portfolio Manager help web page.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@Holiday wrote:


Hi @SlipSliding 

For what it is worth, my calculations verified what your findings were even though we both asked different questions. 

  • You were looking for the required initial investment to match income with monthly withdrawals.
  • I was looking for the maximum % SWR that would last over 32 years and end with $500k. 

With the initial 11% distribution yield, your SWR is 4.73%, and my SWR is 5.45%.  They compare like this: (tables and charts are in your original post).

Based on these two observations, A "successful" 33 year retirement period landed in a range between a SWR of 4.73% and 5.45%, with an initial investment between $500k and $570k when using VWEHX historic data. By the Way, I counted 6 instances where shares had to be sold to cover the 402 monthly expenses, but I used a longer time period than you did. Most of those shortages were at the end.  

The actual distribution yield of 11% does not appear to be strongly correlated with either SWR. Maybe it is useful to help keep the initial investment lower?

However, it does seem clear that "smallish" changes can make outsized differences.  Especially when lowering SWR and increasing initial investment. Maybe I will try to calculate which made the bigger difference.

I like Excel too. I am glad you joined Morningstar, and I am very pleased to give you some of your first kudo's.  BTW, you are averaging about 50% at this point.

I added your name to the calculation to keep the two straight.  I can edit the pictures if this bothers you.

Thank you,

Holiday


Everyone is pretty much using the VERY GOOD retirement period 1990 (or 1987) to 2019 to prove a safe withdrawal rate.  I used it on Wellington with Bengen's 4% method but it had a very high ending balance which was pointed out when discussing the Modified RMD method. Looking at this data I decided to test Wellington with a 5% initial withdrawal, then a 6% initial withdrawal, and then a 7% initial withdrawal.  I also changed the beginning balance from $1,000,000 to $570,000 because that is what you used. Here is the spreadsheet.

yearBeg Balwithdrawreturn%End Balinflation%
1990$570,000$39,900-2.81$515,2046.1
1991$515,204$42,33423.65$584,7043.1
1992$584,704$43,6467.93$583,9642.9
1993$583,964$44,91213.52$611,9322.7
1994$611,932$46,125-0.49$563,0342.7
1995$563,034$47,37032.92$685,4212.5
1996$685,421$48,55416.19$739,9763.3
1997$739,976$50,15723.23$850,0641.7
1998$850,064$51,00912.06$895,4211.6
1999$895,421$51,8254.41$880,7982.7
2000$880,798$53,22510.4$913,6413.4
2001$913,641$55,0344.19$894,5831.6
2002$894,583$55,915-6.9$780,8002.4
2003$780,800$57,25720.75$873,6781.9
2004$873,678$58,34511.17$906,4073.3
2005$906,407$60,2706.82$903,8433.4
2006$903,843$62,31917.97$992,7462.5
2007$992,746$63,8778.37$1,006,6154.1
2008$1,006,615$66,496-22.3$730,4720.1
2009$730,472$66,56322.2$811,2982.7
2010$811,298$68,36010.94$824,2151.5
2011$824,215$69,3853.85$783,8913
2012$783,891$71,46712.57$801,9761.7
2013$801,976$72,68219.66$872,6731.5
2014$872,673$73,7729.82$877,3540.8
2015$877,354$74,3620.06$803,4730.7
2016$803,473$74,88311.01$808,8092.1
2017$808,809$76,45514.72$840,1562.1
2018$840,156$78,061-3.42$736,0311.9
2019$736,031$79,54422.51$804,2632.3
2020$804,263$81,373   

 

Withdrawals are on January 1st. Annual return uses the January 2nd balance.  Inflation is applied to the following January 1st withdrawal.  Equivalent first year monthly withdrawal is $3,325.  Final 2019 monthly withdrawal is  $6,628.  I know I have a 3 year shorter period but looking at the January 1st 2020 balance of $804,000 and the next withdrawal it would have lasted a couple of more years and still been above $500,000.

Using this retirement period doesn't prove the theory.  I doubt these same calculations would hold up in the late 1960s or early 1970.  Bengen wrote that the greatest threat to retirement portfolios wasn't a market crash, it was high inflation. I showed what high inflation would do in an earlier post testing the Modified MRD method starting in 1968.  All that these calculations prove is that we are lucky be living in the 1990-2019 retirement period.

By the way, I'll stick with Bengen's 4% rule.  I'd rather have a SWR of 7% adjusted for inflation than 4.73% or 5.54%.  I am fairly certain these calculations are correct.  Please let me know if you calculate something different.

And, yes we do not know what the future will bring.  That is why an initial withdraw of 4% is safe and periodic reviews are needed.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@ElLobo wrote:


1)  Here is my complete portfolio, as of this evening:

    Yield 
Stocks 62.96%AMZA34.58%14.10%MLP ETF
  SDYL28.38%7.90%2X Leveraged Divey Aristrocrat ETN
Bonds34.39%PCI18.05%11.00%1.8X Leveraged Bond CEF
  PFFL16.34%14.70%2X Leveraged Preferred Stock ETN
Cash  2.66%  

 

2)  Up until recently, whenever my ex sold the house, my backup plan was a Home Equity Line of Credit, with a credit line similar to the value of my portfolio at the beginning of the year.  Never had to use it for normal living expenses.  At the beginning of the year, prior to the market crash, my portfolio threw off about 2.1X the amount of cash I was withdrawing, and that portfolio distribution cash flow had been 'growing' at about a 19% per year for the last decade or so, obviously well above the rate of inflation.

However, my portfolio back then (at the beginning of the year) had a sizable position in MRRL, the UBS 2X leveraged MREIT ETN, that essentially triggered a mandatory redemption whenever its unit price dropped below $5/share on March 18.  I lost a good chunk of change in March, but I didn't know what the effect of that would be until the monthly distributions were declared in April.

Whenever they came out, my withdrawal coverage had dropped, from about 2.1X my withdrawal to roughly 1.1X, as I recall.  In other words, my total portfolio cash flow was cut roughly 50%!

Although it wasn't really necessary, I skipped 2 months worth of withdrawals, given the stimulus money that came in and what I had in the bank.  But I also changed my cash management strategy.  Rather than reinvesting all excess distributions, I've started to simply build up a cash bucket, for rainy days.  That's why I have 2.66% showing in my table for cash.  I also cut my withdrawal 25%, given that I was building up my rainy day fund within my portfolio, rather than in the bank.

Hope this helps.


You got to frame ElLobo posts.

How many investors do you know that held a large position in an ETN (MRRL 2 X leveraged) because higher yield is so important and lost it all?  

How many investors do you know that claim that losing 12% annually for 5 years with AMPL is better than making 10% with SPY because higher yield is more important?.

Sure, if your portfolio + SS (+ maybe a pension) are big enough you will be OK but it's far from correct.  

wait, ElLobo now owns 

AMZA  YTD= -50%...5 year average=-23.63% (AMZA is a leveraged MLP). 

PFFL YTD= -31.3%

SDYL YTD = -29.5%

PCI YTD = -20.7%

The above is "impressive".  

Do you know what is the easiest way to get to one million?  start with 2 million  :-)

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

I knew you couldn't resist FD.  Sometimes you would be better off to just shut up.  But you don't seem to know when.  

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@PaulR888 wrote:

I knew you couldn't resist FD.  Sometimes you would be better off to just shut up.  But you don't seem to know when.  


First, I didn't address you, so why comment?

Second, if you find anything that isn't accurate please post about it.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

I comment because I have a sense of decency and will not tolerate you or anybody else kicking someone when he is down.  Why not surprise us and demonstrate some class sometimes.  

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

Guys, I respect both of your opinions.  I'm really interested in this discussion.  Please don't get this thread locked.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

Holiday,

You go back and forth from looking at the past and looking towards the future.

Here is the question you asked me first thing this morning:

"So, given the equilibrium of of 50% of starting yield, wouldn't it be prudent to assume 50% of the current yield of around 5% (2.5%) as the sustainable future rate for this fund? Without knowing the future, my instinct is that a VWEHX retirement portfolio will quickly crash at a 4% withdrawal rate. I can easily recalculate for different scenario's now that the spreadsheet is done. But, your premise of any withdrawal rate less than the starting distribution yield is clearly wrong."

I answered thusly:

"The 'sustainable' withdrawal rate for VWEHX, or any other fund, is its distribution yield, in dollars, not in percentages! It isn't based on the historical return or distribution amounts. The best indication of what the distribution will be, going forward a year at a time is the trailing 12 month distribution history.

It's 'sustainable' given the fact that you never sell any shares to cover a withdawal. Ifn you withdraw and spend 100% of the distribution cash, you never buy any more shares either! It's completely sustainable in that, whenever you never sell shares, you never worry about selling the last share that you own! That's what you do whenever you always sell shares, to cover the withdrawal, whenever the withdrawal exceeds the distribution cash. As a result, the POS is ALWAYS 100% while the POF is ALWAYS 0, going forward!"

And now you reply, again, looking at the past, not towards the future:

"Well, you have always talked about "distribution yield" as the determinant of the static "safe rate" in the past. The higher the better has been your motto. But it does not matter because you just declared your retirement strategy as a fail anyway.

So, after all the redirects, are now saying that your withdrawal strategy is not the inflation-adjusted safe-withdrawal that everyone else is talking about? For what it is worth, your former plan only works until 2009 which is when the retiree first had to live on less. By 2011, all distributions (except March and May 2011) were less than what was planned for."

So let me generalize, such that we are all talking the same talk.

'Sustainable' to me means, for this discussion, that the value of a retirement portfolio doesn't go to zero within the next 30 years whenever a predetermined amount of cash is taken out of it.  Sustainable means looking forward, not looking backwards.

Whenever you do look back, as we all have in this thread, the value of the portfolio either went to zero or it did not.  It's binary.  It's either yes or no.  It WAS either 'sustainable' or not.

Whenever you DO look forward, there is so much uncertainty in all of this that you have to get a handle on sustainability.  The typical handle is the Probability Of Success and, in the alternate, the Probability Of Failure, where POF = 1 minus POS.  The meaning of the POS is along the lines of, if such and such amount of cash is taken out of a portfolio, allocated in so and so manner, with yearly rebalancing, then there is a 75% probability that the value of the portfolio will NOT go to zero within the next 30 years.  If so, then there's a 25% probability that it WILL go to zero!

SO, to continue these discussions, do you agree, or not, with the above?

ElLobo, de la casa de la toro caca grande
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Explorer ○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

Hi Mustang - 

I have no problem with you using my moniker to identify the analyses, but would warn anyone looking at it that it assumes a great many things, especially the time period, but also the inflation rate.  Change either one, and the analysis changes dramatically.

I should also mention that I am not a fan of SWR as retirement planning tool.  Bengen's 1994 study showed that 4% was a safe 30 year withdrawal rate.  Otar's 2009 work showed that 3.8% was a safe 30 year withdrawal rate using the same methods.  A study conducted next year using the same methods will likely produce yet another 30 year safe withdrawal rate.  Which one is right?  They all were, because they all used a different set of data.  Yes, they all used 30 year rolling periods, but Otar had more of them to work with.  Next year's (mythical) study will have even more.  None the less, they are all retrospective, thus my use of past tense when describing them.  

I agree with you that periodic reviews are absolutely necessary.  For me, that period is annually, and involves short and medium term forecasting of expenses, income and portfolio returns based on the prevailing social and economic environment, and making prudent assumptions to simulate expectations 1, 3 and 5 years out.  IMHO, anything beyond that borders on fantasy.  

Highlighted
Follower ○○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Explorer ○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

@SlipSliding 

The last paragraph sounds right. Indeed, one could say that a review is in order whenever there is a significant change in one's personal circumstances or else developments that have or are likely to affect the economy and the markets, such as those of the past few months.

Highlighted
Follower ○○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

We both are on the same sheet! 👍😎

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Follower ○○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@SlipSliding wrote:

Hi Mustang - 

I have no problem with you using my moniker to identify the analyses, but would warn anyone looking at it that it assumes a great many things, especially the time period, but also the inflation rate.  Change either one, and the analysis changes dramatically.

I should also mention that I am not a fan of SWR as retirement planning tool.  Bengen's 1994 study showed that 4% was a safe 30 year withdrawal rate.  Otar's 2009 work showed that 3.8% was a safe 30 year withdrawal rate using the same methods.  A study conducted next year using the same methods will likely produce yet another 30 year safe withdrawal rate.  Which one is right?  They all were, because they all used a different set of data.  Yes, they all used 30 year rolling periods, but Otar had more of them to work with.  Next year's (mythical) study will have even more.  None the less, they are all retrospective, thus my use of past tense when describing them.  

I agree with you that periodic reviews are absolutely necessary.  For me, that period is annually, and involves short and medium term forecasting of expenses, income and portfolio returns based on the prevailing social and economic environment, and making prudent assumptions to simulate expectations 1, 3 and 5 years out.  IMHO, anything beyond that borders on fantasy.  


If I edited something wrong for a comment or I misunderstood, I’m sorry.  I didn’t mean to say you did something you didn’t.

If you use the 1990-2018 period the safe withdrawal rate is 7% and at the end of 30 years the retiree still has 80% if his investment.  But there is no guarantee that the future will be that good.  Besides,there really isn't much difference between 4% and 3.8%.  On a million dollar investment it's only $2,000 per year.  If we expect our portfolio to provide a stable income and last the expected retirement period we have to start with something.

I may be thinking about reviews in a little different way.   My wife will have other incomes.  This investment will be providing maybe 25% of her income.  And while we have withdrawals from investments that pretty much run on autopilot (traditional IRAs) our taxable investment withdrawals are not meant to.

 Bengen’s method requires an annual review.  How else can you apply inflation?  In what I’m trying to set up it also requires a decision on which of two funds to use for the next withdrawal, Wellington or Wellesley Income.  Wellington for good years and Wellesley Income for down market years.  We already own both funds.

The five year review I’m thinking about is different.  It is to take advantage of unexpected investment growth.  Bengen’s initial safe withdrawal rate is basically a worst case scenario rate.  Under normal circumstances raises above the rate of inflation may be possible.  The question is how to safely implement them.

I don’t think market volatility would allow this to take place on an annual or even three year schedule.  And, Bengen, the Trinity study and Pfau updates have made this easy by providing safe withdrawal rates for 30, 25, 20 and 15 year retirement periods.  (They are in an earlier post.)

At each five year point the retiree recalculates everything as if he is just starting retirement using the higher initial withdrawal rate for the shorter retirement period.  If the recalculated amount is larger than the current withdrawal then the retiree takes the higher dollar amount and increases it by inflation for subsequent year withdrawals.  If it is lower than retiree keeps the current withdrawal.  The market did not support a raise above inflation.

Anyway, that is what I am thinking.  I’m open for suggestions.  And yes, a review might be needed for lifestyle changes. 

The current market crash wouldn't warrant a review.  Bengen's 4% rule included the crash of 1929 and subsequent Great Depression.  It and updates have included all retirement periods starting each year from 1926 through 2018 with a 100% success rate.  The current crises might be bad but I haven't heard of anyone jumping out of skyscraper windows yet.  They probably won't.  Our government is pumping trillions of dollars into the economy to stimulate it.  That did not happen in 1929.

What might happen is high inflation rates from over stimulating the economy.  But that happened in the past also and Bengen's method was successful.

P.S.  The biggest lifestyle cost that would throw a monkey wrench into everything is nursing home costs.  I'm still looking at those.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method

Mustang     At each five year point the retiree recalculates everything as if he is just starting retirement using the higher initial withdrawal rate for the shorter retirement period. If the recalculated amount is larger than the current withdrawal then the retiree takes the higher dollar amount and increases it by inflation for subsequent year withdrawals. If it is lower than retiree keeps the current withdrawal. The market did not support a raise above inflation.

 

My reply:

It is one thing to recalculate the SAFE withdrawal amount every five years and follow it.   But it is another to choose the maximum of previous calculation and new calculation.    This is basically a different withdrawal method.   This may work in practice but I am somewhat worried that it might not be `safe' anymore. 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@PaulR888 wrote:

I comment because I have a sense of decency and will not tolerate you or anybody else kicking someone when he is down.  Why not surprise us and demonstrate some class sometimes.  




No matter what one thinks of El Lobo's investment philosophy, he may be the most honest poster on these boards.  No matter how bad things are, he posts his results without sugar coating.  He did the same back in 2008, when he was down a lot.  You have to respect that.  Those who take advantage of that honesty to try to belittle, just show a real lack of understanding of these discuss forums and show really bad form.
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Bengen's 4% Distribution Method


@Mustang wrote:

@SlipSliding wrote:

Hi Mustang - 

I have no problem with you using my moniker to identify the analyses, but would warn anyone looking at it that it assumes a great many things, especially the time period, but also the inflation rate.  Change either one, and the analysis changes dramatically.

I should also mention that I am not a fan of SWR as retirement planning tool.  Bengen's 1994 study showed that 4% was a safe 30 year withdrawal rate.  Otar's 2009 work showed that 3.8% was a safe 30 year withdrawal rate using the same methods.  A study conducted next year using the same methods will likely produce yet another 30 year safe withdrawal rate.  Which one is right?  They all were, because they all used a different set of data.  Yes, they all used 30 year rolling periods, but Otar had more of them to work with.  Next year's (mythical) study will have even more.  None the less, they are all retrospective, thus my use of past tense when describing them.  

I agree with you that periodic reviews are absolutely necessary.  For me, that period is annually, and involves short and medium term forecasting of expenses, income and portfolio returns based on the prevailing social and economic environment, and making prudent assumptions to simulate expectations 1, 3 and 5 years out.  IMHO, anything beyond that borders on fantasy.  


If I edited something wrong for a comment or I misunderstood, I’m sorry.  I didn’t mean to say you did something you didn’t.

<snip out remaining conversation>


Hi Mustang AND SlipSliding,

SlipSliding is new, and he confused my reply with you from you because I quoted a message he sent to you. I was sticking my nose into a conversation between you two; one that I was not invited into. Easy mistake to make.

I made reference to including his moniker in my spreadsheet because I recreated and verified his test which looked for the minimum investment required where dividend income would match withdrawals.

This is an example from the post I think he is responding to.

VWEHX SlipSliding 2.jpg

So, @SlipSliding, It was me (Holiday) who has been replying to your messages with Mustang.  Sorry for the confusion.

And, Welcome to the Morningstar Forums!

Holiday

0 Kudos
Announcements