Timeyin Akerele

Do you think your conclusions would have been different if you looked at, say, a global portfolio?

across this timeline, there's been lots of people that have now retired.

I wonder if, you know, have you seen or do you see like cohorts where, you know, oh, this group here are having a really tough time in retirement because they've been accumulating through this phase or not?

Have you taken any of this into the real world?

Yeah, I imagine, to make my own point again, if we extend out 100 years into the future, and if we keep a flat contribution rate of 8%, like we do at the minute, we'll get these cohorts where it's like, oh, their retirements are pretty crap, because they just happen to be at the wrong point along this line.

And they might have got a good market while accumulating a bad end.

So you'll get generational poverty within pensions just dependent on market cycles.

And especially if you're not asking, am I doing enough?

If you're just relying on the...

Would you include gold in that as well?

Yeah, it did go nowhere for 20, 30 years.

Exactly, yes, yes.

Yeah.

The table you mentioned is table one.

I like this table.

I actually used a section of it in one of my latest videos on my YouTube channel, just because I thought it was quite a really good way of showing sequence risk or sequencing of returns risk, which is this idea that...

You could get the same set of returns as another person, but if the returns are in the reverse order, you get vastly different outcomes if you're taking from the pot.

So if you just had, you use 40%, five, 10, and minus 25, and then you've got a table here where you iterate every version of that.

We'll put it on screen for the people on video, but just I describe it for the audio people.

And yeah, if you're withdrawing from a pot, I did it, a really simple example of saying, if you've got a million pounds and you need to take 50K a year, and you've got these sequence of returns, the best returns would be 40, 10, 5, 20, minus 25.