One additional thought (clarification?) that I might not have explained well earlier? When using "bridging" strategies you don't generally want to think about covering 100% of the expense from cash. Rather, look at it as covering the *excess* expense from cash.
If my basic and continuing expenses are $150k but I have short-term expenses of $50k over the next few years, then I would want to cover the basic $150k from income and the $50k from the bridge. Thus a $250k set-aside would fund a five year bridge - or longer if continuing income reduced the need.
Using your numbers below, you are already looking at $116k of income and can easily reposition that to $125k. You mention $350k in the taxable account and smaller IRAs, and $30k Social Security in two years (more if you were to wait). You know your budget and future needs better than I, but I'm imagining something like $200k for the next five years, followed by $150k after that? A "bridge" plan to meet that need might look like:
Age 60: $125k income, $75k bridge
Age 61: same
Age 62: $125k income, $30k SSI, $45k bridge
Age 63-64: same
Age 65+: $125k income, $30k SSI
The "bridge" need in the above scenario would be $75k * 2 + $45k * 3 = $285k, i.e. less than the cash available for the need.
The risk in the above is that if the magnitude ($200k) or duration (five years) of the temporary need is underestimated, then the bridge funds can run out. Again, you need to give that aspect careful consideration because I don't have the information to assess that. But I think the above numbers are plausible, from what you've said, and thus a portfolio yield of 6% (i.e. $140k income) or less might suffice? That's getting to the range that is sustainable indefinitely, as long as you don't insist on a rigid inflation index. Even with a full inflation index it is very safe over a 15 year period. |
