Policies – please read!
- Everyone can read posts, but to start a new topic or add a reply you’d need to register. To create an ID, please verify your email address. You will get a link at that email address and you can then pick a password.
- Be courteous to others. Treat others like you like to be treated. Discuss the issues. No ad-hominem attacks!
- It’s OK to include external links if they are relevant. But please avoid spamming! Please no affiliate links.
- Before starting a new topic, please check if that question/topic has been discussed before already and add to that discussion instead of starting a new topic.
- If you’ve written a cool blog post that you want to share with others please post this in the “Self-Promo” category only!
- The forum policies may be amended in the future!
CAPE-Based SWR Results
When I use tools like the Early Retirement Now safe withdrawal spreadsheet to look at various scenarios, the results for CAPE >= 20 are always far worse than CAPE <=10 or CAPE >= 30. Why is that middle range so much worse? Because it's a bubble in the making, whereas >= 30 may be a bubble about to burst?
Sometimes the 20-30 range can be worse than the 30+ range if your specific situation created worse results during the mid-60s than the 1929 peak.
Hard to understand why the <20 is doing worse than the 20-30 range. What's your asset allocation %?
Is it because of limited data with CAPE >30? We've only got Black Tuesday, 1999, and (gulp) today at 37+. In the SWR chart, CAPE >20 and CAPE >30 intersect at 4.5%, at which time CAPE >30 shoots up beyond CAPE >20, but I'd expect it to have a lower SWR for all rates.
Hallo Forum, Hallo ERN,
ich habe hier einen interessanten Artikel gefunden.
Kann diese herangehensweise in der Cape Berechnung deiner
" Safe Withdrawal Rate Serie" ev. eine signifikante Rolle spielen?