The financial crisis (circa 2008-2009) brought out discussions about “lost decades” in the investment markets, 10-year periods that suffered negative equity returns. It even prodded PIMCO to argue that the investment universe had fundamentally changed, that an “old normal” had been overtaken by a “new normal” characterized by persistently slow economic growth, high unemployment, significant geopolitical tension with social inequality and strife, high government debt and, of course, lower expected returns in the equity markets.
A Journal of Financial Perspectives paper from last summer considers how unusual it really is for equity markets actually to “lose a decade.” As it turns out, lost decades of this sort are not the exceptional episodes that only very rarely interrupt normal steady economic growth and progress that so many seem to think. Continue reading
A number of years ago, during George W. Bush’s second term and by sheer happenstance, I ended up playing a round of golf with a Navy SEAL Commander (half the SEALs train here in San Diego). Obviously, much of his job was classified and he was very circumspect in what he shared. However, when I asked where or how I could become better informed about foreign policy, he recommended Ron Suskind’s book, The One Percent Doctrine.
The “one percent doctrine” (also called the “Cheney doctrine”) was established shortly after 9.11 in response to worries that Pakistani scientists were offering nuclear weapons expertise to Al Qaeda. Here’s the money quote from Vice President Dick Cheney: “If there’s a 1 percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It’s not about our analysis … It’s about our response.”
Thus in Cheney’s view and per subsequent policy, the war on terror required and empowered the Bush administration to act without the same level of evidence or analysis as might otherwise be necessary. Continue reading
My latest piece for MarketWatch is now available. Here’s a taste:
This need to avoid investing errors is particularly relevant to retirement planning. More retirees use systematic portfolio withdrawals to provide needed income than any other strategy by a large margin . The common rule of thumb is the so called “4% rule,” which generally postulates that one should be able safely to withdraw an inflation-adjusted 4% from a diversified portfolio of between 50% – 75% stocks annually and have the portfolio last for 30 years to roughly a 90% – 95% certainty.
However, recent research (summarized here and here ), much of it by my RetireMentor colleague Wade Pfau , “suggests that the sustainable withdrawal rate for retirees in 2000 could be much closer to 2% than to the 4% safe withdrawal rate rule-of-thumb.” The problem is largely on account of ” sequence risk .”
Retirement: Winning the loser’s game