Friday, December 20, 2024

Zweig Weighs In On Complexity

Earlier this week, we took a very quick look at the new ReturnStacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF (RSBA). In support of the launch, they published a paper looking at adding alts in to the bond allocation to improve overall results. Of course they looked at alts for which they have funds, bonds with managed futures (RSBT) which is their oldest fund, bonds with carry (RSBY) and the new RSBA. The odds of learning from their research are always good. 

I've been skeptical of the premise of leveraging up to add exposure to alternative strategies. The idea is innovative so it's worth trying to figure out how they could help. 


I am using DBMF for managed futures for this post because it uses a replication strategy which is what RSBT does for managed futures. RSBT uses AGG for bond exposure. No one is going to put 100% into RSBT but that sets the table for how the fund as done. 100% AGG/100% DBMF should be a reasonable comparison, again no one allocates this way but it is a simple comparison. 50% RSBT/50% cash is unleveraged, that might fit the bill of leveraging down to collect extra interest which can be valid in certain instances.

The next two screenshots take several different approaches to trying to work RSBT into a portfolio to try to make it work.



Between all the variations I could think of I couldn't get to a compelling outcome, if there is a another approach that will cast a better light, please leave a comment. 

Kind of related, Jason Zweig wrote an article about what I'll call the dark side of alternatives. Here's a list of some of what Jason is talking about in his article.

investments with “guaranteed” yields of 15% or more that evaporated, now being investigated by federal and state authorities;

“interval funds” that charge lavish fees but let you take money out only a few times a year;

illiquid portfolios that sometimes do change hands—for 75% or less of their reported value;

funds purporting to offer high returns at impossibly low risk; 

nontraded companies that don’t even exist claiming to have sold more than $344 billion in imaginary shares;

brokers hawking illiquid shares and debt in companies they control, without disclosing their conflicts of interest;

private real-estate funds that lock money up and open the door for only a fraction of investors to sell at a time.

First, hopefully it is clear that any alternatives we talk about here are ETFs or mutual funds, accessible through brokerage accounts without any sort of lock up or gating. Part of the story with any alternative is the complexity of the strategy or exposure and whether it is worth it. Something that creates a sense of exclusivity like including the word private is certainly something to ask questions about and I would say avoid. 

A couple of the mutual funds in my ownership universe are only available through an advisor which I am not crazy about. The general idea with that restriction seems to be the belief that do-it-yourselfers aren't sophisticated enough to understand the exposures. There are plenty of advisors not "sophisticated" enough to understand the exposures. Puh-lenty. 

For my money, a limited exposure to alternative ETFs/mutual funds is the way to go. I've invested a ton of time trying to understand a lot of these types of funds, allocating to a few to help smooth out the ride. Repeating for emphasis from countless other posts, to the extent you even believe in alts, they should be used in moderation to help manage equity volatility. Equity is the thing that goes up the most, most of the time. A portfolio consisting of a lot of alternatives, hedged with a little equity or put differently, a portfolio with a lot of complexity, hedged with a little simplicity is likely to get left behind. Quite the opposite of seeking outperformance, I expect the alts to go up less than equities or go the opposite direction which can mean going down. 

We spend time here dissecting things like RSBT trying to find whether that form of complexity can actually help. Their stock and managed futures product might be more effective but I am not seeing it with the complexity of the bonds and managed futures product. 

Closing out on the Zweig article, read the comments. Always read the comments. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Thursday, December 19, 2024

Did Anything Work On Wednesday?

 First, I wanted to recap how a few pockets we look at regularly here did in Wednesday's carnage.

The first group are permanent-ish portfolio funds. I am including HFND here but thought of it after the fact. For what it's worth, Vanguard Balanced Index Fund was down 2.17%. The FIRS number may not be accurate because the last trade was right before the Powell presser. I bought a few shares of FIRS out of blogging curiosity, not to buy for clients. It may or may not turn out to be a good representation of the Permanent Portfolio but I'm not worried about it blowing up.  



Next up are a few YieldMax fund with their reference securities. They YieldMax funds did go down less but they still took on plenty of downside capture.


A couple of indexed based derivative income funds. ISPY is one I own too, it was spared just a few basis points in the decline. With less dramatic declines, ISPY usually holds up better than the index. WDTE sells put options. I'm not sure about WDTE specifically but PUTW which also sells puts has had mixed results with going down less. In the 2020 Pandemic Crash, PUTW went down in lockstep with the S&P 500 but in 2022 it was only down 10% versus 18%.

Client and personal holding PPFIX which also sells puts got hit pretty hard. They emailed me first thing this morning. The huge spike in the VIX required them to mark a couple of positions to market that they believe will self correct (snap back) quickly. We'll see. A smaller portion of the drop was attributable to their risk management process dictating the sale of a "couple of positions." This is a perfect example of why you diversify your diversifiers. I would reiterate that the spike in VIX yesterday was huge. 

The next batch are horizontal lines that tilt upward. MERIX went ex-dividend, the fund was actually unchanged. It goes ex on the third Wednesday of December every year. These all did what you'd hope they would do but again, there can be no assurances. MERIX and EMPIX are in my ownership universe. EMPIX is due to go ex-dividend today.


Managed futures were a mixed bag yesterday. The standalone fund I use did relatively poorly but was down much less than the S&P 500. Not calamitous but not great either. This is another example of why you diversify your diversifiers.

Invesco S&P 500 Momentum (SPMO) was down 3.2%. We don't talk about the quality factor much but the GMO US Quality ETF (QLTY) was down 2.6% and the Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) was down 2.05%. And of course Bitcoin got hit hard and is still struggling today.

Finally, a follow up on the GraniteShares YieldBOOST TSLA ETF (TSYY). The fund sells puts on TSLL which is a 2x long Tesla ETF but TSLL is not a GraniteShares product, TSLL is a Direxion fund. The GraniteShares 2x TSLA fund has symbol TSLR. GraniteShares also as a 1.25x TSLA ETF with symbol TSL. TSLL has far more volume than TSLR so kudos to them for going for what is probably a deeper market with TSLL.

The holdings for TSYY were posted this morning. With TSLL in the mid-$30 most of the day yesterday, before Powell, TSYY appears to have sold puts at $28.06 that expire on January 3rd but please leave a comment if you read that differently. Those puts would be assigned below $28.06 or expire worthless (that's what you want to happen when you sell puts) if TSLL stays above that price. 


Here's what's happening today in the TSLA complex.

If the YieldBOOST funds can live that far out of the money then some sort of barbelled fixed income strategy as we discussed yesterday seems less crazy but the dividends will still be ordinary income.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

The ETF That Melted My Computer

Someone on Bloomberg TV said something to the effect that today was Jerome Powell's worst performance in a post-FOMC press conference in his tenure.


About the only thing that did well after the last hour carnage were first responder defensives like tail risk, inverse funds and VIX products. For what it's worth, the Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) was up today. I mention that as a follow up because we've looked at it several times and it seems like it's not easy to know what you're going to get with that one. As another follow up, client holding CBOE Holdings (CBOE) was up 1%.


The chart today is just another datapoint for the theory/belief that CBOE is something of a proxy for the VIX complex which trades at the CBOE. It probably is not correct to say it is always going to function as a first responder defensive but the idea does hold at least a little water.

Over the last week or two, there's been some deterioration in markets in terms of leadership again getting narrower, favoring fewer stocks that is typically considered unhealthy market behavior. Who knows how this will play out, will it be no big deal at all, like the Great Dip Of August, 2024 or something more serious but whatever it will be, it will end at some point and then markets will start to work higher. I've been writing this same passage for I don't know how many years and every time, the only variable is how long it takes to end. 

The ReturnStacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF (RSBA) started trading this week. I've mentioned it a couple of times thinking that like ReturnStacked's other ETFs with fixed income, that it would have AGG-like exposure but instead it has a treasury ladder. The positions are not loaded onto the website as of this writing but the term "ladder" implies there will be at least some duration in the mix. Obviously if you like the idea of these products which create "portable alpha" using leverage, you have to want the exposures they have. For the bonds and funds of theirs you have to want AGG-like exposure or in the case of RSBA, a treasury ladder.

I still think it would be easier to use one of the Tradr 2X Long SPY ETFs for the leverage. They have one that resets Weekly, Monthly and Quarterly although the daily one from ProShares hasn't drifted that much over the years. If someone wanted 20% in alts and was concerned about tracking error (I think at times you want tracking error but please leave a comment if you feel differently), an example would be 60% in a plain vanilla S&P 500 fund, 20% in a 2x fund and then 20% in whatever alts you want. To me, there are fewer moving parts than a fund that combines two exposures. To be clear though, I don't want leverage in that manner. 

And finally the fund that melted my computer is from GraniteShares. They are right in the mix of single stock ETFs. I saw this from Eric Balchunas on Tuesday and figured, ok, more single stock covered call ETFs with a couple of indexes thrown in too.


Well sir, that is not what these are. I first need to say that it appears as though they only started TSYY on Wednesday and the webpage for TSYY isn't quite set up yet but in chatting with someone through the website, the YieldBOOST suite sells puts on 2x Long ETFs. So TSYY sells puts on TSLL.


There's almost no information on the TSYY webpage so I have no idea if the 3% decline versus 8% for the common actually captures what the fund is about but yes am I going to dig in more when/if more of them list and when there is real info posted about TSYY, probably tomorrow. I had an idea about how to use these crazy high yielding, derivative income funds. 

Conceptually, the idea would be like barbelling equities but for fixed income instead where in this case a disproportionate amount of the yield and volatility would be concentrated in the GraniteShares fund of your choice or YieldMax fund of your choice. 


We don't have a very long sample to look at. Dividends are not reinvested. Below are the incomes of each.


A quick note about the 85/15 blend, I'd think anyone taking this seriously would want to split that large of a portfolio weighting between several crazy high yielders not just one. Despite the incendiary nature of the crazy high yielders, working in just 5%-15% in those products with the rest in T-bills backtests as far less volatile than TLH with much more yield. I'd be confident that the volatility profile of a 95/5 blend would stand up with most if not all the crazy high yielders but I'd be far less confident about the 85/15 blend standing up in that manner. 

The crazy high yielders (I am repeating the word crazy very frequently on purpose) should be expected to deplete but they're not instant vaporware. The worst of these I've seen is the YieldMax TSLA Covered Call ETF (TSLY) which is down 58% on a price basis over two years. In its first 12 months, TSLY fell just over 40% on a price basis with a "yield" of close to 50%. 

Back to the NVDY portfolios above, as sort of a mental accounting for this, the T-bill yield could very possibly cover rebalancing NVDY back up to 5% while the NVDY payout is withdrawn. There's very little capital at risk in case the crazy high yielder chosen blows up. 

This is of course theoretical. The drawbacks to the idea include the possibility that all of these get destroyed in the next bear market, they are taxed as ordinary income which makes it unwise in certain circumstances and hopefully everyone now realizes they are not proxies for their reference securities. NVDY is not a proxy for Nvidia common stock, it is a product that sells Nvidia volatility which is different. 

Based on the Defiance put selling ETFs, I doubt the YieldBOOST suite will have less bleed from the put selling versus the synthetic covered calls in the YieldMax funds but I will study them all the same.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

Have A Very Yieldy Christmas

From T Rowe Price on ten year Treasuries. 


And from a different Bloomberg article quoting the same CIO.


We've talked about this plenty of times. I don't know about volatility relative to other sovereigns but US treasuries have become more volatile than they used to be and that volatility is now less predictable than it used to be. There was a stretch there earlier in the year where a lot of pundits were saying to lock in yields for intermediate and longer dated treasuries. 


Yes, the chart is price only but there was no need to take on equity like volatility back then or now (TLT and TLH have higher standard deviations than the S&P 500 this year) for yields in the fours. There are plenty of yield sources with comparable or better yields with nowhere near that kind of volatility. 

YieldMax launched two new funds this week in partnership/agreement with Dorsey Wright. The first one is the YieldMax Dorsey Wright Hybrid 5 Income ETF (FIVY). The process looks at the YieldMax fund universe and selects the five best underlying common stocks based on momentum, target weighted at 8% each and then adds the five corresponding YieldMax ETFs at 12% each. For example it has Netflix (NFLX) common stock and YieldMax NFLX Option Income ETF (NFLY). The other four stocks are Microstrategy, Meta, Tesla and Nvidia. So FIVY blends common stocks and their corresponding covered call ETF.

The other fund is the YieldMax Dorsey Wright Featured 5 Income ETF (FEAT) and it just owns those same five YieldMax covered call ETFs target weighted at 20% as follows.


Who knows if blending momentum with derivative income in FIVY will have some sort of positive effect but the idea is interesting to me. We've looked before at pairing a small slice of one of these with a "normal" allocation to the underlying common stock. The ratio FIVY is using would seem to still have deterioration unless the dividends are reinvested but even then might not look so great.


That's the year to date of all the YieldMax funds in FIVY. The next chart compares what FIVY is doing with my idea from earlier this year and just owning 100% TSLA. Dividends are not reinvested in this one. 


Does the 90/10 combo make any sense? That's not clear to me but for anyone really wanting Tesla with some income, the 90/10 combo turns it into a 4% yielder based on 2024's payout thus far. 

A few days ago, I stumbled into a useful way to think about the YieldMax ETFs. They are not really proxies for their reference equities, the are products that sell volatility on their reference equities. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Monday, December 16, 2024

Long/Short Diversification To The Rescue

Let's start with The Endowment Syndrome: Why Elite Funds Are Falling Behind. Before we really jump in, it's important to understand that endowment funds and foundation type accounts have infinite time horizons that we do not. That reality can change some of the calculus between endowments and individual investor accounts but there are things we can learn from their asset allocations all the same. 

The big idea is that endowments have drifted into having huge allocations to alternative assets which have generally lagged simpler building block exposures accessible to individual accounts through brokerage platforms like a 60/40 portfolio. An interesting comment in the article is that the allocations to alternatives are typically far bigger now than Jack Meyer from Harvard or David Swensen from Yale ever had. The two of them were pretty much pioneers with using alts but based on the article, Meyer and Swensen appear to have better understood the drawbacks and limitations.

The article blames behavioral factors for the huge allocations to alts including vanity. We've touched on that here once or twice, there is an ego stroke to having sophisticated strategies in a portfolio and I think we could sub in the word complex for sophisticated. A repeat theme here though for years has been that equities are the thing that goes up the most, most of the time. If you need normal growth for your plan financial to work then you need an equity-based portfolio maybe hedged with small exposures to alternatives, not an alternative-based portfolio hedged with a little equity exposure. Put differently, simplicity hedged with a little complexity. 

This brings us to a paper from Man Institute that appears to conclude that mixing "long/short quality" with managed futures can help offset the random results that managed futures have when volatility spikes. In the 2020 Pandemic Crash, managed futures did very well at one end of the scale but did poorly in the Great Dip of Early August 2024 as an example at the other end of the scale. 

They have a scatter chart that shows how truly random the performance of managed futures is during volatility spikes. The paper assumes that volatility spikes equate to negative stock market events. The paper distilled a pretty good explanation for why managed futures does well in a volatility spike or why it does poorly. They attribute the different to how it is positioned with longer dated treasuries, long or short. Bonds tend to rally when there is some sort of external event that adversely effects markets. So if bonds were in a negative trend resulting in a short position and then bonds rally as happened in August, managed futures do poorly. If bonds were already in a positive trend like they were in the 2020 Pandemic Crash then managed futures will do well. 


Looking at the chart, I can see why managed futures would have been short TLT, a proxy for treasuries, back in August of this year. TLT started to turn higher in the spring but using a 10 month signal, managed futures could very well have been short. You can see BTAL going up last August which is should do as more of a first responder type of alternative. Putting on my Karl Popper hat, seeing QLEIX not work in August, maybe the paper is wrong. 


The second chart leads into the 2020 Pandemic Crash. You can see why managed futures might have been long treasuries. BTAL went up of course. EBSIX didn't do that well so maybe it was something with that fund, another fund I use did well through this event. 

Where there can be divergences between different managed futures funds, a common suggestion is to split the allocation between multiple funds. We've talked about that once or twice. An easy type of differentiation is to split between a fund that implements the full strategy which might be trading 90-100 markets and a replicator which might trade 10-20 markets. A more difficult way to try to split up the exposure would be to try to differentiate how funds risk-weight differently. Larry Swedroe wrote an article that cites splitting a managed futures allocation between six different managers. 

Back to QLEIX which again struggled in 2020. For what it's worth, in the 2020 event, although QLEIX fell quite a bit, it was about 900 basis points better than the S&P 500. 

The long/short discussion seemed to drift between two different types, the kind offered by the AQR Long/Short Equity Fund (QLEIX) and the kind offered by client/personal holding AGFiQ US Market Neutral Anti-Beta ETF (BTAL). That's why I included both funds in the charts.  Below are a couple of ways to implement what Man appears to be talking about. 


Neither Portfolios 1 or 2 are stock market proxies but offer compelling long term results versus VBAIX. The standard deviation and betas of both are much lower than VBAIX and of course they both did better in 2022, each going up close to 10%. Look though from the start of the study until the end of 2021, both lagged considerably. If we stop the study at the end of 2021, Portfolio 1 compounded at 6.89% and Portfolio 2 compounded at 9.25% versus 11.09% for VBAIX. 

That really can be a long time to languish depending on someone's specific makeup but a portfolio that can get most of the broad market's return with much lower volatility is a pretty good way to go. 

I think this also helps create context for the drawbacks of backtesting. They can be useful for creating some understanding and setting expectations for things like volatility, how well the defensive holdings might do and with setting some performance expectations. If VBAIX is up 20% next year, you can expect Portfolios 1 and 2 to be up less but you have no way of knowing ahead of time whether less means it goes up 4% or 16%. If VBAIX goes down 20% next year, you can expect that Portfolios 1 and 2 would be down less but you have no way of knowing whether less means down 3% or down 16%. A lucky outcome against a 20% decline for VBAIX could be that 1 and 2 go up like they did in 2022 but there is no way to know ahead of time. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Sunday, December 15, 2024

C'mon Gen-X, Time To Rally

Bloomberg had an article titled As Gen-X Nears Retirement, Many Fear They Can't Afford It-Now or Ever. The article profiled a half dozen Gen-Xers ranging from 45-60. Most of them definitely have accumulated decent sums thus far, maybe not enough to be on track for what they think they need, but they aren't in desperate trouble except for maybe one of them. Generally they all plan to work to 70 or beyond out of necessity. 

There was an odd and I believe inaccurate emphasis on workplace retirement plans pivoting from defined benefit plans (pensions) to defined contribution plans (401k) starting around the turn of the century. My second real job after college started in 1993 and at that point many companies had already switched from pensions to 401k including that second job. People entering the workforce in 2000 were not the 401k guinea pigs. According ICI via Microsoft Co-Pilot, in 1985 there were 30,000 401k plans. There was no information on what percent 30,000 was back then, but those folks were the guinea pigs. 

I'm not skeptical that employers to a poor job with educating employees but for an audience of new employees in their 20's it can be wrapped up in a couple of sentences. "You're gonna want to retire some day and your 401k is how do it. Put in as much as you can afford every paycheck and buy a stock index fund (there were plenty of them 35 years ago), the company is gonna match some of it and then in ten years, start learning about personal finance." Optimal? Probably not. Adequate? Probably so. Simple? Hell yes.

At some older age, I'll assume 50's, you start to begin to understand if/when/how you'll retire in terms of the dollars and cents of it. If at 35 or 40 some sort of financial calculator told you your "number" is $1,300,000 at age 65 and at 55 you have $275,000, there's a low probability of hitting your number. If you have $900,000 with ten years to go, odds are pretty good of hitting that number. 

The number you anchored to when you were younger is essentially meaningless. Whenever you retire, whatever amount you have, that is your reality, that is what you have to make work. If your total nut is $82,000 in today's dollars, your Social Security combines to $40,000 and a safe withdrawal rate from savings is $31,000 then you gotta figure some way to make up that $11,000 difference. That could mean cutting back somehow (many different ways to do that) or creating a third income stream of which there are infinite ways to do that. These sorts of numbers can reasonably start to take shape quite a few years before you hope to retire giving plenty of time to work on creating an income stream if needed. 

The article tried to scare readers about Social Security getting cut but gave no detail or context. If Social Security actually ever gets reduced, older Gen-x is not going to be impacted across the board. I wrote a post earlier working through my guess that maybe starting around birthyear 1975, younger Gen-X, could face across the board reductions. More likely for older Gen-X is some sort of means testing that impacts the very wealthy. Another idea I haven't seen anywhere else but from me is the elimination of the spousal benefit, not to be confused with the survivor benefit. Still though, the odds of any reductions are incredibly remote. I would still take the time to run your numbers assuming a 20-30% reduction all the same.

There was very little from any of the profiled Gen-Xers about health and fitness except for the 60 year old with very little accumulated. We spend a lot of time on diet and exercise here because good health is crucial to a successful retirement. We learn as children not to eat too much sugar. There is a learning curve to what that actually means beyond cookies, candy and soda but the less sugar we eat, the healthier we will be. I won't go too far down the rabbit hole on this point but the list of health benefits from less sugar (sugar=carbohydrates) is endless. The more meals you eat consisting of any combo of meat, eggs, fish and cheese the healthier you'll be. If you're vegan, you need to figure out how to make up consumption of quite a few micronutrients and amino acids. I think it's doable, not 100% certain, but there is a learning curve to this too.

We learn as children that it is important to exercise. The list of health benefits from lifting weights is endless. Maintaining the ability to walk fast, bend down to pick heavy things and have a strong grip are all important benchmarks for physical health. Harshness coming but for most people, the only thing between having a very similar body shape to what they looked like in their 20's is habits. If you Google Dick Van Dyke's recent appearance on Kimmel, it is obvious that at 99 he pretty much has the same physique as he had 60 years ago when he played Rob Petrie. I've mentioned once or twice we have 97 year old neighbor who walks every day down on the paved road. From far away he looks like a teenager walking. I just learned the other day he plays pickleball. 

The great thing is no matter your state now, irrespective of age, the body is very forgiving. A lot of problems are reversible with changes to habits but you have to start. Think of the money saved not having prescriptions and the time saved not going to the doctor all the time. 

With a nod to yesterday's post, having health and fitness in order is our best shot to maximize our flexibility, resiliency and optionality.

And a follow up to last night's blog post related to very expensive things that happen and can throw off retirement plan math.


That is Rooster. Rooster loves duck toys. My wife brought that duck toy home yesterday and Rooster spent the afternoon loving it. He was so selfish with it, so motivated that no one else play with the duck that he swallowed it. My wife figured out that he swallowed it right away. "That makes no sense, he's never swallowed a toy like that before" I said. The odds of Rooster passing the duck were very low. This was potentially a very expensive problem. My wife guessed $3000-$4000. She runs a huge animal rescue here in Prescott so her guess is pretty educated. 

We had something similar happen many years ago and fortunately I remembered the solution. He had to drink hydrogen peroxide which would make him throw up and out would come the duck. By drink I mean one of us (me) had to hold him while the other poured the peroxide down his throat. It took two or three minutes for Rooster to start throwing up and up came the duck on the second lurching. I was worried about having to pull the duck out if it got stuck in his throat on the way back up but thankfully it came right out. 

In yesterday's post, I had more expensive things in mind than what this could have been but still, no one ever wants to write a four figure check to the veterinarian. We were lucky that between the two of us, we knew what to do. That won't always be the case. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Saturday, December 14, 2024

How To Make The 4% Rule Complicated As F*$%

That was my thought as I read this article from Barron's that has Morningstar suggesting that new retirees only take 3.7% in 2025 instead of the typical 4%. In November we wrote about the guy who created the 4% rule saying 7% is probably ok, Morningstar says 3.7% based on expected stock market returns. Expected equals guess. That guess could very well be right, returns might be less over the next ten years than the previous ten years but the process that created the 4% rule addressed that with testing that started in 1926. Bengen, the guy who derived the 4% rule, said 4% was the worst case scenario so when someone like Morningstar says something lower, as we say at the fire department, slow down and process information. 4% was the worst case. Bengen says that now, with a couple of more decades to add to the study, the worst case, worst case, has inched up closer to 5%. 

The annual inflation adjustment also seems like an unnecessary complication. If last year, you took $38,000 and then price inflation was 2.9% you'd lift the $38,000 up to $39,102. Growth in the portfolio takes care of that. A $38,000 withdrawal implies $950,000 in retirement assets. If the investor was up 10%, $950,000, less the $38,000 plus the 10% gain of $91,200 leaves the investor with $1,003,200. Taking 4% of $1,003,200 the next year would equal $40,128. 

Making it even simpler, for years I've said just take 1% every three months. Whatever the value of the assets at the end of the quarter, take 1%. Yes, there will be flexibility required every few years if the market is down a lot. Even then though, if you've set aside money toward expenses, that is to avoid an adverse sequence of return, you may not need to reduce what you take or if you have some sort of first responder defensive holding that will go up a lot when stock go down a lot, you can sell that after stocks go down a lot to increase the cash on hand. 

In Bengen's study, 4% never failed. I don't believe 5% ever failed. It would take many things going wrong all at once for a quarterly withdrawal 1% or 1.25% to end up failing. For anyone really worried about this, I would suggest figuring out how to create another income stream. I'm not being snarky with that, my wife an I have another income stream, but not because I am concerned about 4-5% failing. Here's why in response to the following comment.


Mr. Hauck, that's not what the 4% is really about. I've never heard Bengen or an anyone else say this but it's a point that I've thought for years is crucial to what the 4% rule is really about. The 4% rule is really about giving yourself the flexibility to pay for very expensive and unexpected things. I don't mean a $1200 vet bill, I mean very expensive things. 

Take the scenario above taking $38,000 at 4% of $950,000 or $40,128 the next year. Could something happen with your house that is very expensive and not covered by insurance cost $20,000? Relative to a comfortable $40,000 withdrawal, $20,000 is a lot of money and now you're at 6%. What about a scenario where one of your kids needs help that is expensive? Would you say no? I realize that some people would say no, I am not judging either way but in your life what are some things that could come along that might be very expensive that could throw off your comfortable 4-5% withdrawal rate? Where I live, I've heard stories of wells failing, foundations failing, a little less dramatically something involving roads or driveway access could be expensive too.

Taking only 4-5% most of the time allows for absorbing the occasional financial hit. If we take the $950,000 example at the start of 2020 and following through to now assuming returns 300 basis points lower than the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund in up years, so disregard the 10% gain I mentioned, and taking 4% per year would now have $1,060,000. It's a useful period to study because of the big drop in 2022. Now, at the start of 2025 a $31,000 fixit comes long, plus the $40,000+/- withdrawal. This might not be comfortable but unless VBAIX goes down 40% next year and that's all they're 100% allocated to that fund, this isn't a catastrophic event. 

Rewind back to the $950,000 at the start of 2020, everything the same expect the withdrawal rate was 6% all the way through and the current balance would be $954,000. Now comes the $31,000 fixit and the 4% withdrawal. That's about $70,000 out the door. 

How many expensive fixits should we expect over the course of a 30 year retirement (use the number of years more applicable to you)? I don't know the answer but not knowing argues for being conservative with withdrawals, taking 1% or maybe 1.25% every three months. 

I think the key words here are flexibility, resiliency and optionality. A higher withdrawal rate diminishes our access to all three of those.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Zweig Weighs In On Complexity

Earlier this week, we took a very quick look at the new ReturnStacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF (RSBA). In support of the launch, the...