User talk:Quebec/Non-conventional retirement planning

Liability matching
The current user page is quite long. "Liability matching" is a large portion of it. Should most of this material be moved to a stand-alone article on liability matching?--Quebec 13:49, 29 April 2018 (CDT)
 * I think there is enough content to create a new "Liability matching" page, but provide a summary here. The 5 techniques following "Liability matching strategies" should be subsections (one level deeper). A new page will help from this perspective by moving the entire section up one level.
 * Also note there is a US version in the Bogleheads wiki: Matching strategy.--LadyGeek 14:38, 29 April 2018 (CDT)
 * OK thanks, I will proceed with a separate "Liability matching" article.--Quebec 15:08, 29 April 2018 (CDT)

Aspirational portfolio
Since the aspirational portfolio is described as the second part of the dual-budget model, I have moved that section under "Dual budget model" and removed the section title. Variable Percentage Withdrawal was under this section, which I did not change. --LadyGeek 14:38, 29 April 2018 (CDT)
 * I disagree with the change. The overall idea is as follows: use the dual budget budget model to come up with two targets: the minimum income floor, and the 'nice to have' extra income. Use liability matching to fund the minimum income floor, and a 'normal' (stock-bearing) portfolio + VPW to meet the aspirational goal. This is why the overall structure of the article should be something like (1) Retirement spending; (2) Liability matching; (3) Aspirational portfolio (incl. VPW); (4) examples. We have to separate the budgeting from how the income is generated.--Quebec 15:07, 29 April 2018 (CDT)
 * Your overall structure was not clear. I have revised the introduction and inserted some descriptions to follow the structure as you describe.
 * I think you intended consumption smoothing to be the alternative approach to SWR. I have placed this section at the end of the article. Otherwise, there is an implication that consumption smoothing is part of the retirement budget / liability matching strategy (there is no relation). --LadyGeek 18:57, 29 April 2018 (CDT)

Strategy overview
There are currently 2 (soon to be 3) pages dedicated to retirement planning. Perhaps there should be a top-level overview page? As currently written, one must read both pages to understand the "big picture". As an example, the Bogleaheads wiki offers this summary page for spending (a different topic): Retirement spending.

If a dedicated summary page is not needed, I think a simple table would be helpful, such as: --LadyGeek 14:38, 29 April 2018 (CDT)
 * Good point. Actually, there are other retirement planning pages as well: annuities, safe withdrawal rates, income replacement rates... Let's wait and see if a "top-level overview" is needed, or the suggested table. --Quebec 15:13, 29 April 2018 (CDT)

Refocussing this article on "Safety first"
The current user page still tries to do too many things. Liability matching was given it's own page a few days ago, to cut down on what remains here. I've just created a dedicated page for Retirement budget models, as this is a topic on it's own (not directly fitting within either probabilistic planning or safety-first planning). The next step is to further streamline the remaining content of the current user page to focus on the "Safety first" school of retirement planning (with a corresponding change in title). Everything unrelated to this can be shifted elsewhere. Is that a good strategy? --Quebec 08:46, 3 May 2018 (CDT)
 * Focusing on "safety-first" is a good strategy, as the content will become diluted and lose focus. Consumption smoothing can be removed, which already has its own page. I don't completely understand which of the remaining topics are "unrelated", but the page should be written to follow your proposed approach. Can the unrelated content be relocated into existing pages, or, are new pages needed? --LadyGeek 19:16, 3 May 2018 (CDT)