@@johnbrown1851 That is probably true, he has a fixed amount of time and he must draw a line somewhere. But if you are below that line, he is still giving you a ton of free advice that I find extremely helpful. If more people listened to James Conole instead of Jim Cramer they would be far, far, far better off.
Thank you for sharing this. It's similar to our situation. Also, if someone gives a lot to their church, RMDs can go in that direction and not be taxed.
Making good money before you retire is super important. It can boost your social security benefit and give you a stronger retirement portfolio. Basically, the more you earn now, the better off you’ll be later
The 4% rule is far from perfect, but can be used as a guideline. I've seen many clients that have the ability to withdraw more and others that need to dial back. What often gets overlooked with the 4% rule are taxes & fees, but health, lifestyle, etc. all make an impact. Great video!
If a retiree can do their income taxes using tax preparation software, they can create a projected income tax return for the next year. This would allow the retiree to see if they have space in lower income tax brackets where it may be better to take out more and reinvest the proceeds to mitigate future income taxes. As for fees, one can use low-cost investment products. As for advisory fees, those would be included in the budget. For affluent retirees, healthcare costs can be budgeted by using Medigap policies, which can close up to five of the six Medicare holes and provide for more level budgeting.
Indeed, it is just a guideline to start ballparking with, but gets treated as both gospel and heresy. I see a lot of folks who triple count their safety margin (margin their spending, use 3-3.5% WR, and assume SSI will disappear). Others do the opposite, planning to retire at 30 with a bare bones budget, ignore taxes, ignore healthcare, ignore long term things like vehicle replacements, etc, and figure 4% is infallible.
You touched upon it a couple times but it might be worth being explicit: the 4% referenced in the 4% rule is only calculated in the first year. The following years, you might take a smaller percentage if the market goes up enough (by 4% + inflation), otherwise you'll take a larger percentage. So no, any plan where you get more than 4% doesn't invalidate it at all, because in the Trinity study, that percentage stopped mattering the moment they implemented it! They always just adjusted the previous year's amount by inflation, no matter what the market did, and that's how they calculated the success rate that led them to suggesting starting out at 4%. I mean, it's fine to check what percentage your current withdrawal is going to take from your portfolio, but if you're going to adjust it based on that, you're no longer using the 4% rule. You might as well read up on and implement the guardrails strategy or one of the various bucket or barbell strategies.
Absolutely love it!!! I'll have to be financially stable in every sense before purchasing my first supercar. The best thing to do with your money is to invest rightly because money left saving will end up with no returns
During years when the RMDs are lower, it may be prudent to take out more if there is space left in lower tax brackets and place the excess money in a low-risk asset such as high-yield savings, a CD, or money market fund. The retiree would then rebalance the portfolio to their desired asset allocation. Another method to reduce taxes is using asset location, where asset classes with lower expected returns in a tax-deferred account and asset classes with higher expected returns in taxable and/or Roth accounts. Taxable accounts should contain tax-efficient asset classes to mitigate capital gains.
I enjoy your videos, but one thing I don't see is stress testing of portfolio returns. For example, most examples you provide have 6% to 8% returns. These returns are not linear and there can be long periods of lower expected returns from both bonds and stocks.
Hi - In your examples, curious as to why you include the person's / couple's home value and net worth figures? Is it just because it strikes a chord with people, even though it doesn't actually pertain to the situation?
To me and annuity provides psychological benefits I've been a saver for decades and spending in a down market (hopefully it wouldn't be from equity) would eat at me. I'll by a SPIA and invest the rest very aggressively
The idea of handing over $1 million and having nothing to pass on if I died 2 years later would eat at me. I think most people would rather have a pension or annuity where they just get a monthly paycheck and don't have to think about it, but I'd prefer to retain control. If you have investments you can always rebalance how you like. Putting money into an annuity is a one way trip, you can't undo it.
if the idea is to build an income stream to use as complement for retirement, or at any given point if needed, then building a dividend growth portfolio always buying adding to it could be a good and peaceful path. On the long run consistency and perseverance could guaranty the desired income stream goal with little worries
James I agree with your premise , But. in your example the Annuity pays out 60k a year for more than 15 years. What if you invested 4% of your annuity payout to keep up with inflation. What were the numbers look like?
My property taxes will increase 7% next year since the county says it’s value is up 7%. If you apply the 4% rule to my property taxes, I need $200K to service that expense next year. Of course the $200K needed will go up every year as the county continues to raise the value of my house. Just an idea. Break up your expenses, apply the 4% rule to it, to see what you need for that expense.
Property taxes are not always that simple. In my county, they adjust the tax rate after new valuations so that the revenue is relatively flat on average. Don't assume a 7% increase in valuation means a 7% increase in taxes. Check with your county/state to see how it works in your area.
It is benefiting Social Security and will continue to benefit Social Security, but what we really need is immigration reform. With immigration reform, employers will now be required to comply with legal requirements, preventing individuals from receiving illegal payments and avoiding FICA contributions.
Yes. The key to controlling illegal immigration is going after the employers. If you fined the farmers or threw a soccer mom in jail for hiring an illegal nanny, it would stop fast. But that won't happen because we need the labor to literally put food on our tables. The answer to immigration is the same as the answer to the war on drugs, legalize, regulate, and tax it to control it. As the war on drugs proved, you can't fight basic supply and demand just by arresting people, that just fills up the prisons and leaves you with the same problems. Adding more workers paying into FICA, and fixing the population pyramid, will keep Social Security solvent. Both require immigration reform to expand legal immigration.
The opposite is usually the case. Folks here illegally pay into the system, using fake Social Security numbers. Then they never recieve a dime in benefits. In this way, undocumented aliens benefit the Social Security system.
If you could get 40k on $1M or 60k with an annuity, you could also split the dollars between the two. Say you guarantee the same 40k with only 650k in an annuity, then you still have money to invest in growth assets to keep up with inflation down the line. And you can get FIAs with GLWB riders that pass on a death benefit in the case of premature death.
For crying out loud you could’ve explained the required distribution in one sentence . Yes you’re required to withdraw perhaps more than 4 % but not spend it… just reinvest like you said 5 minutes into the video. Loquacious!
Thanks, James. The Ruby scenario is the one I have been waiting for. I don't know if you made Ruby up or if it is real with a fictitious name. For this scenario, if it is totally made up, may I suggest a stepped down travel budget rather than a cliff from $10,000 at 63 to $0 at 73. I use NewRetirement. I have suggested that instead of 3 steps (go-go, slow-go, no-go), they allow the software to set the high point of travel expense ($10,000 in Ruby's case), then associate a percentage of that high point with each year of retirement. In reality, a retiree will travel the most early on and gradually taper off as they age.
