(03-06-2019, 07:31 PM)dreamybear Wrote: CHRISTOPHER NG: Retired at 39 on astute dividend plan
Published: 01 June 2019
At Dr Wealth, Christopher Ng Wai Chung teaches his students investment strategies designed to allow a single person to retire within 5-8 years. Since he retired at 39 with a passive income of $8-$11k a month, we felt he was eminently qualified to teach others how to do the same.....
Rule #1 – Invest Early, Maintain Your Discipline and Stay Focused
....
Rule #2 – Develop Your Investment Knowledge
....
Rule #3 – Act with Logic, Even in the Face of a Bear Market
....
More details at : https://nextinsight.net/story-archive-ma...idend-plan
I am very careful of individuals claiming to have achieved fabulous financial success and wanting to “teach” others on how they can do it too. It is often implied that one either needs to learn a few techniques, get into a "correct" frame of mind or be disciplined to stay the course and somehow extraordinary results will happen as you go about your daily life. To explore this topic a little further, I will use the above linked article as a case study.
In order for this not to be yet another qualitative opinion piece, I am laying down mathematical calculations to examine the feasibility of such stories and discuss its implications on what it has for most people who harbour hopes of retiring rich and early.
Let’s investigate the above claim about the course trainer, Christopher Ng, being able to retire at 39 years old with a passive income of between $8k-$11k a month through an "astute dividend plan". That works out to be an average monthly dividend income of $9.5k and $114k on an annual basis. The fact that he is mass marketing the course implies that he thinks anyone with a normal income, intelligence and capital access will be able to replicate his early retirement success.
To give him the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that he is only going after riskier investments such as equities and REITs instead of investment rated bonds, government securities or various forms of capital protected instruments which will yield much lower. Going to
http://reitdata.com/, one can see that REITs are currently yielding anywhere from 4+% - 8+%. REITs yielding above 7% are high risk, weak-sponsored, hold short tenured properties, exposed to all sorts of forex and developing market risks and have a patchy record of calling for additional capital frequently. This is not an area a retiree should be holding large proportion of the portfolio in.
Realistically speaking without taking excessive risks, a retiree would have to target a portfolio of quality REITs that are yielding around 4.5%-6.5%. That works out to be around 5.5% average REIT yield. Business Trusts though high yielding have such a bad track record I really don’t think it should feature significantly in any retiree’s portfolio.
Let’s now take a look at high yield stocks of mid to large market capitalization. Quick reference at
http://yieldstocks.reitdata.com/ shows they tend to yield at 3%-5% other than the 2 telcos and SPH for the obvious reason that the market is anticipating significant drop in profits due to unfavourable industry dynamics. So a decently diversified mid-large cap dividend stock yield is around 4.0%.
What all this is leading to would be that a 5% portfolio yield is a reasonable indicator for a retiree portfolio consisting mainly of stocks and REITs. Working backwards, $114k/0.05 works out to a $2.28 million investment value at the age of 39 for retirement.
Let us now plonk in some salary numbers for calculation. For that, we head to the official MOM published report
https://stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/Labour-Fo...yment.aspx and download report #23 which lists the median monthly salary of Singaporeans by age and qualification. For the purpose of our study, lets’ be generous and use a Singaporean male who finishes NS and university degree at the age of 24. So this degree holder guy will have a 15 year earning span from 24 – 39 in order to meet the $2.28 million investment goal.
Here’s what the MOM data says (MOM only publishes figures including employee CPF, so I added another column to strip off CPF to arrive at take home pay):
These numbers already include allowances, AWS and bonuses but have not taxes, so let’s again be generous and assume this male never pays a single cent of income tax throughout his working life.
If one does a back of the envelope calculation of all the take home pay this male will receive during the 15 years of his working life before “retirement”, it would be 3,266 x 12months x 5 years + 4,556 x 12months x 5 years + 6,650 x 12months x 5 years = $868,320
Get this - our median degree well educated Singaporean guy who spends no money at all and pays no taxes would only have accumulated $868,320 by the time he reaches 39! That’s just a miserable 38% of the $2.28 million needed even if he does not eat, sleep and play. The numbers would be far worse off if we take a population wide median number which includes diploma, NITEC educated people who are paid much lower!
Cleary then, this leads one to a natural conclusion. In order to accumulate a $2.28million portfolio by 39, you will either have to be a super saver with a high flying career earning big income way above median or you will have to generate portfolio returns every year at an extraordinary rate. The question of interest then would be, what sort of high flying income career trajectory or investment return will get our Singaporean male $2.28 million a.k.a. 9.5k dividend passive income by 39?
For that, we will need to do a little bit of Excel hard work. Let us simulate 2 scenarios:
1) A degree educated male earning average pay with a high savings rate of 50% and see what sort of annual CAGR investment returns is needed to hit the magic $2.28million number
2) Assume normal investment returns of 7% p.a. high savings rate of 50% and find out what sort of income trajectory is needed to hit the magic number
Scenario 1
Conclusion – As an average earner with a white collar degree job, in order to end your career at 39 with an investment portfolio of $2.28million, you will need to figure out a way to generate a
compounded investment return rate of 23.8% consistently even with a very aggressive savings rate. As a general reference, Warren Buffet’s rate is around 20% and most top fund managers go for 10-15% p.a. Good luck on your quest if you think some investment workshop guru is going to teach you how to do that.
Scenario 2
Conclusion – If you are targeting a reasonably good but not stellar investment return of 7% p.a. and want to accumulate a $2.28million portfolio by 39, you jolly well earn an income that is
3.4X of the median degree earner all the way in every single year from the time you start work to the time you “retire”.
I will end the discussion with some personal thoughts.
First off, some might inquire whether we are more likely to see Scenario 1 or Scenario 2. Undoubtedly, I would say Scenario 2 is more plausible. Although earning an income that is 3.4x that of median is by definition rare, I believe most of us will still know 1-2 individuals in our social circle who look like they can achieve that. 23.8% 15 year CAGR returns on the other hand, quite honestly I don’t know of anyone.
The simulations are of course for two extreme scenarios, but if you think about it mathematically, when and how much you can retire with is really just a combination of 3 levers – 1) savings rate, 2) income (capital supply) and 3) returns. In practice, most people will not rely solely on 1 lever, so a more likely approach to retiring early and comfortably would be to use all 3 levers to a certain extent.
However, the simulations are also very useful to debunk the notion that any Tom, Dick and Harry can just attend a course, read some books and simply pick up a few investment tips and tricks and control your monthly costs to be on your way to retire at 40 as a multi-millionaire.
Barring exceptional talents in investment or career, a person who scores above average on all 3 levers should be able to retire comfortably perhaps somewhere between 55 – 60 years old, but if your target is something like our case study of 10k passive income by 40, you better make sure all your levers are top 1% calibre. This also presupposes your luck is reasonably good, i.e. you don’t get slapped with big unpredictable negative events like illness, retrenchment, prolonged recession, family issues needing to spend huge amounts of money and time etc.
Any comments on how to improve the model and make refinements are more than welcome!