February 5, 2024 – Two recent papers in the personal finance area have caused enough of a stir that I’ve gotten numerous requests for comment. I noticed that if I compile all my notes, calculations, simulations, and replies, I already have more than half of a new blog post. So, today I would like to share my results with my other readers who might also wonder what to make of those new research ideas. The first paper claims that the famous “Stocks for the Long Run” mantra is all wrong because stocks don’t outperform bonds as reliably as Jeremy Siegel and many prominent finance pundits claim. The second paper effectively claims the opposite, namely that a 100% equity portfolio, half domestic and half international stocks, handily beats any bond portfolio and all diversified stock/bond portfolios, including life-cycle, i.e., target date funds. Thus, the authors claim they have upended decades of personal finance conventional wisdom on stock/bond allocations, diversification, and target date fund glide paths.

Well, isn’t that ironic; both papers can’t be right! So, which one is right? Or are they both wrong, and conventional wisdom prevails? I started this post and wanted to comment on both papers in one single post but then ran out of space. So, I had to split my material into two posts. Today, I share my thoughts on the first paper and on whether stocks are still a good long-run investment in light of the new data. But stay tuned for the follow-up post, likely later this week or early next week!

Let’s take a look…

November 2, 2022 – In my post three weeks ago, I happily declared that the 4% Rule works again, thanks to the much more attractive equity and bond valuations. It’s always fun to deliver pleasant news. But keep in mind, everyone, that this refers to today’s retirees with their slightly depleted portfolios. But how about the folks who were unlucky enough to retire earlier this year in January 2022, when equities were at their all-time high? That cohort is off to a bad start, to put it mildly. Of course, it’s too early to tell what should have been the appropriate safe withdrawal rate for that cohort. We’re only less than a year into a multi-decade retirement. My recommendation back then would have been that due to the wildly expensive equity valuations and low bond yields one should have treaded a bit more cautiously. Maybe do 3.50-3.75% for a 30-year traditional retirement and 3.25% for a 50 or 60-year early retirement. And maybe raise that a little bit again depending on your personal circumstances, especially if you expect large supplemental cash flows from pensions and Social Security later in retirement, see my Google Simulation sheet (Part 28 of my SWR Series). Also notice also that with my estimates, I’m a bit more aggressive than the widely-cited Morningstar study recommending a 3.3% safe withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement.

But recently, I’ve come across some rumblings that put into question all this cautious retirement planning. The reasoning goes as follows: First, the year 2000 retirement cohort actually did reasonably well with the 4% Rule. Second, the Shiller CAPE at the peak of the Dot-Com bubble was higher than in 2022. Bingo! The 4% Rule should do really well and even better for the 2022 cohort, right? I’m not so sure. That line of reasoning is flawed, for (at least) two reasons: First, the pre-Dot-Com-Crash retirement cohort experience wasn’t as pleasant as some people want to make it now. And second, I actually believe that the fundamentals in late 2021 and early 2022 were not very attractive at all. In fact, in some crucial dimensions, they were significantly worse than at the height of the Dot-Com bubble. Hence today’s post with the slightly scary and ominous title. Two days late for Halloween, I know.

Let’s take a look…