Nevin's Data "Points"

Over the years, so-called personal finance experts have provided valuable information—but also a smattering of misinformation—but I can think of none quite as egregious as some remarks recently made by Dave Ramsey. By now I’m sure you’ve heard—or heard about—his “counsel” with regard to acceptable retirement withdrawal rates—and his disparagement of the “supernerds” who would dare to disagree with him. As for that counsel, at a high level, Ramsey maintains that an 8% withdrawal rate is not only doable, but sustainable. All you have to do is be invested 100% in equities—oh, and assume a 12% return. [i] Of course, such machinations have always been predicated on assumptions—about inflation, about market returns and, most notably, about the length of life itself. That said, this didn’t become a specific focus—a so-called “rule of thumb”—until 1994, whe...

 A recent white paper has garnered a lot of discussion by casting “shade” on a traditional premise about retirement plan withdrawals. The premise—a so-called “rule of thumb [i] ”—isn’t all that old, actually; it dates back only to 1994, when financial planner William Bengen [ii]  claimed that over every rolling 30-year time horizon since 1926, retirees holding a portfolio that consisted 50% of stocks and 50% of fixed-income securities could have safely withdrawn an annual amount equal to 4% of their original assets, adjusted for inflation without… running out of money.  That said, even though it was predicated on a number of assumptions that might not be true in the real world—a 30-year withdrawal period, a 50/50 portfolio mix of stocks and bonds, assumptions about inflation—oh, and a schedule of withdrawals unaltered by life’s changing circumstances (not to mention a 90% probability of success)—a recent Morningstar  paper  challenged its conclusio...

Pundits have long worried that retirees wouldn’t have accumulated enough to live on in retirement, but the data suggests that most retirees aren’t exactly burning through their retirement savings. I remember my one and only conversation with my father about retirement income. He had already decided to quit working, and had gathered his assorted papers regarding his savings, insurance, etc. for me to review. Determined to “dazzle” Dad with my years of accumulated financial acumen, I proceeded to outline an impressive array of options that offered different degrees of security and opportunities for growth, the pros and cons of annuities, and how best to integrate it all with his Social Security. And when I was all done, he looked over all the materials I had spread out before him, then turned to me and said – “so how much will I have to live on each month?” See, my dad, like many in his generation, were accustomed to living within their means. And, according to new ...

One of my more frustrating memories of parenthood was trying to help my kids with their homework. Not because I hadn’t covered the territory once upon a time myself, or because I couldn’t manage to refresh my recollection(s) of the subject. It wasn’t enough to teach my kids a method sufficient to arrive at the correct answer, and to help them understand how we got there. No, it didn’t “count” unless I could arrive at the answer by adhering to what struck me as a weirdly inefficient and complicated regimen upon which their teachers insisted. If this was the “new math,” I remember thinking at the time, I fear for the sanity of the next generation. This past weekend The New York Times ran an article aptly, if somewhat awkwardly, titled, “ New Math for Retirees and the 4% Withdrawal Rule .” The focus of the article, like the 4% rule itself, was how to pace withdrawals in retirement so that you don’t run out of money before you run out of retirement. However, like so many other things...