I track my spend rate as a rate [s/W] every month as part of a statistical control process. That means I need a denominator. I've lost track of what the "official" literature has to say on this so I'll just describe what I do. It's easy enough to say "use the balance from your brokerage accounts" but I think that's the wrong answer. Not all financial wealth belongs in the denominator just like not all non-financial wealth is necessarily excluded.
I keep an enhanced version of an actuarial balance sheet akin to what Ken Steiner recommends. That means I have assets and liabilities and I also have "flow" items like capitalized SS PV and an estimate of a spend liability among other things. I also have what I might call mezzanine liabilities that are near term 5+ year big ticket spending like college for 3 kids. I could and should do this for LTC but haven't...yet. So, when I want a spend rate, wealth in the denominator should reflect what I can spend and I call that "net monitizable wealth." In practice, this means:
1- Net financial wealth: including flow items in PV form but net of both soft and hard liabilities
2- A slice of non-financial wealth that I could monetize if I needed to consume it
3- If I can consume it someday, it's in, if I can't reasonably expect to, it's out.
For #1, the soft liabilities are mostly made up of the estimated PV of a Tier 1 college ed, books, travel, room n board for 2 kiddos (already had one go thru Stanford). The hard liabilities are things like a stub of a mortgage and a rolling estimate of a tax liability and a working capital LOC I sometimes keep. The spend-liability estimate proper is left out for this exercise -- but not forgotten -- since this is a spend rate effort.
For #2 the only example I have -- other than maybe a couple watches, perhaps a little silver left over from grandparents and some other trivialities like some rugs and astrophotography gear -- is a portion of my house. Some direct private investments in business ventures, valued by a model, used to be in there but I now estimate their value, not to mention monetizability, at zero. I raised three kids in my current home and I don't need my whole house. I'd downsize in a heartbeat but only up to a point. I figure in an extreme situation I could ditch half the value and be fine. In practice I make maybe 30% of my house available as "monetizable" for this exercise. And, in fact, on a recent real estate scouting trip to MT, that's about the differential I think I'll see when I move.
Thanks for the mention, Will. Your wealth denominator makes perfect sense to me for measuring the level of your monthly "recurring expense" spending. I assume that you are benchmarking your monthly spend rate against something like 1/12th of 1/(PV of your lifetime planning period)?
ReplyDeleteI annualize it and keep a 12per SMA of that series. Then the running SMA is charted/benchmarked against two statistical control boundaries based on a blogger's awareness of the convexity of spending risk at that age. At 50 it was low, maybe 2.5-3.5%; at 60 it's a little higher; and at 90 it'll be higher still. Note that I consider underspending a problem in addition to high spending. I also consider highly volatile spending to be something to work on. Trends up are probably bad, too, except in a down market where it is to be expected. Still a work in process. Over-engineered but that's me.
Delete