Skip to main content

Mitigate the effects of inflation on your passive income

Hypothetical:

Say the year is 2019, you have accumulated 2M in investible assets and retired at a ripe old age of 40.


Let's further say you are a somewhat conservative but competent investor, returning an average of 6% on your capital, i.e., 120k a year, or 10k a month.

In 40 years time, at a 2% inflation rate, 10k a month would be more or less be equivalent to having around 5k a month in today's value.

As you can see, inflation is a real issue that wipes out the true value of your passive income, and with that, the goods and services you could reasonably purchase with your income.

In order to ensure that you can enjoy substantially the same purchasing power in 40 years time (at age 80), you will need a mechanism to grow your passive income to outpace, if not match, the inflation rate.

In 40 years, @2% inflation rate, the future value of 10k is around 22k.  Thus, to match inflation, you would need to grow your passive income at a rate to achieve 22k a month passive in 40 years time.

After playing around with some excel sheets, I found that to maintain the present day value of your passive income (assuming a steady 2% inflation rate), you need to re-invest at least 33% of your passive income consistently (assuming a steady yield of 6%).






In other words, even if you return 10k a month of passive income, you should save and re-invest at least 3.5k of that income, so that the value of your retirement nest egg does not diminish over time.

Those who attain FIRE early in their life may scoff at the continued need for savings. They may feel that since their income-generating capital is not being drawn down, they are relatively "safe" since their capital is being "preserved".

However, that fact is, even in retirement, you should provision for a lifestyle that is guided by this 33% re-investment rule and be careful not to over-extend your financial obligations.

Indeed, there is something scarier than CPI inflation, and that is, lifestyle inflation. Once a person has gotten used to a particular standard of living, it is unlikely they would be keen to revert to a less lux life.

Onward to FI friends.


Comments

  1. i think it might be very strange to look at still saving in retirement. technically, you are not suppose to be working. i guess the idea is that you have to have more money that is all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's actually a simple formula to calculate the reinvestment rate

    Re-investment rate = Inflation Rate/Investment Returns

    For your example, Re-investment rate = 2%/6% = 33.333%

    Try it out on your excel sheets

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, very useful indeed. Learnt another new thing today. Much appreciated!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

As a Dividend Investor - I am having fun staying poor

Recently, there was a self-styled "master" who went around dissing dividend investing, saying things like REITS will chibaboom (his words not mine). Ironically, the master also invested into "growth stocks" like BABA and notably SE before its recent implosion.  Masterstrokes indeed. Dividend/income investors have borne the brunt of "have fun staying poor" taunts since the dawn of time.  Previously from the crypto bros and then from the growth investors. This is nothing new.  Every growth investor likes to talk about Tesla. But where are the ARK ETF investors? Where are the NIO bulls? Where are the BABA fanatics? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.   Good luck to those who retired on a portfolio of "growth stocks", hoping to spend 4% annually on an expected annualized portfolio growth rate of 10%.  Without dividends, one would have no choice but to liquidate part of the portfolio for meeting expenditures.  The damage done might never be reco...

FIRE by 2020 has officially failed

Back in 2015, I never thought I would have to work past 2020.   The idea was that I would have accumulated at least 1.7 M by Jan 2021 and would be comfortably returning 110k a year in passive income based on a 6.5% yield.  How laughably naive. The optimism is commendable but misguided.  Covid struck hard.   Several terrible decisions were made. EHT is bankrupt. A 50k write off.  Ouch is right. First REIT is trading around 20% of my cost price. Never again Riady. Never again. Yields have been severely compressed  with "quality" REITS, e.g., MINT, PLife, Ascendas REIT all returning paltry yields of 3-4% or, gasps, less.   With the view of improving portfolio resilience, I made a conscious decision to rebalance my portfolio to go REIT-lite (well, lighter) and increased my holdings in DBS, UOB, OCBC.  The MAS cap on banks' dividends does mean that these companies are returning 3% or less per annum.   Sigh.  All in all, pr...

Smoke, mirrors, bungalows and mistresses

People care way too much about a couple of colleagues fucking each other. The only people who should care this much are the aggrieved spouses and the family members who were hurt and embarrassed.  If you are not one of them, then shut the fuck up already. Who cares? The fact that they fucked or are still fucking doesn't affect you in the least bit. So quit the vomit-inducing moralizing.  But do you know what is detrimental to you, the hardworking taxpayer slogging 10-14 hours a day to make ends meet? 1)      That the Government apparently provides a special class of rental properties, one in which only a TINY TINY group of people may afford, in particular, those who can comfortably pay >20k a month in rent. Suffice to say, a real tiny and privileged bunch including people like, say, K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan. 2)      That the Government is happy to willy-nilly spend close to half a million tax dollars to make these properties "habitab...