If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.

Henry David Thoreau Walden

Essential to navigating any course is knowing your intended destination, and measuring one’s current position. Since the commencement of my journey to financial independence there has been a rather restless search for, and refinement of, the right measures to use.

Knowing just how far one is through a journey also helps to provide a sense of momentum. Key to measuring how much progress has been made is consciously thinking about and defining the end point.

This piece will look through the various benchmarks and measurements adopted, retained and discarded through the my journey, to share what I have learnt about measuring progress to financial independence, and set out the logic behind my current portfolio goals.

Early benchmarks – There lies the port (1999-2006)

There is a strong argument that the first FI benchmark I ever set was the most correct, and the rest have been excursions.

In September 2004, after around three years of consciously building up an investment portfolio, I read perhaps the most foundational financial independence work, Your Money or Your Life.

A central recommendation of this book is to physically graph out monthly income and expenses, from which naturally emerges a measure of the proportion of passive investment income to actual expenses. I did this from June 2003 until December 2005. Each week my calculations produced a simple percentage result of how close I was to the ‘crossover point’ – that is, the point at which passive income exceeds monthly expenditure and financial independence is achieved.

By the time I abandoned the monthly record I was, by my rough calculations, around 80 per cent of the way to the ‘cross over’ point. This was soon to fall, however, with the significant purchase of a house to live in with part of the portfolio, and a continuing fall in interest rates affecting some cash-based savings.

This same overall approach, however, underpinned my first ever explicit benchmark set for the portfolio in 2006. It was a quite logical and simple one: yearly investment returns should match my own average yearly expenditure.

Measures multiplied and buried (2007-2016)

As a measure this was hard to improve on, but this provided no deterrence. With the investment portfolio starting to grow after the house purchase I thought about what would be meaningful benchmarks again, and came up with a layered approach.

There were three new benchmarks under this approach, broadly themed as:

• Comfort – This benchmark was investment income to achieve the median average national salary, with progress estimated as a percentage of current portfolio value against the total portfolio needed to deliver this at an assumed rate of return.
• Independence – This measure was to achieve investment income equal to the median salary of a Federal public servant serving at a mid-range executive level. This was chosen because it represents a very comfortable standard of living and an average level of career achievement for a person with my qualifications.
• Freedom – This measure was for investment income to be equal to the salary of a median public servant at a more senior level in a central government agency. This would enable a lifestyle that is untroubled by material need.

The logic behind this triple standard was a recognition that just reaching a comfortable level of investment income did not necessarily encompass all of my aims. Rather, I was curious to understand what might lay beyond, and what resources might give me a lifestyle indistinguishable from most of my peers in terms of ability to fully engage with the world’s opportunities, without requiring paid work.

The decision to measure progress by reference to an external benchmark was due to two factors. First, a benchmark that is externally linked to a particular standard of living helps ensure that the goal shifts broadly with changes in the broader community. Second, it made accounting for inflation easier, as the benchmark already accounted for its effects.

Years after these three benchmarks were set, I read about the six levels of financial independence, and it was apparent that as well as drawing on some similar concepts in Your Money or Your Life I had unconsciously replicated some of these. The six levels represent an excellent framework through which to think about the different stages of financial independence. Others, such as the ChooseFI podcast, have usefully added other milestones (i.e. ‘half-FI’) to supplement the approach, and place some way markers in between some of the larger steps.

The precise numerical expression of these three layered objectives shifted through time as I learnt more about realistic return expectations and updated them for the impacts inflation. In July 2007 I set a target portfolio value target of $750 000, with the explicit – though ultimately unrealistic – expectation of it producing around $50 000 in annual portfolio income. The goal of providing for a stream of passive income specifically targeting an average income (of $58 000) can be traced back a decade to July 2009.

By 2010 I had estimated that a portfolio of around $1.1 million would be required to meet this average income benchmark. I updated this target to reflect more realistic information and evidence on likely sustainable returns in 2016, first setting my previous FI target of $1.47 million.

Finding a benchmark, or a measure of the journey, was therefore an iterative exercise – first begun and then improved on as I learnt more. Along the journey I have tracked, and in some cases continue to track, a number of other metrics. Some of these numbers fall out of existing spreadsheets, others are historical relics in little used Excel workbooks – seeming important for a time, but now neglected and overtaken as meaningful marks of progress. These other metrics include:

• Asset reserves in weeks. A measure essentially of how long I could last if all employment income stopped tomorrow. This was a significant early metric, and was a comfort to review from time to time. To be able to note that if the worst came to the worst, it might be 6 or 12 months before I could not meet expenses gave a positive feeling of a basic level of security.
• Passive income expressed as numbers of hours worked at minimum wage. How the portfolio income compared to the Australian minimum wage, i.e. how many hours ‘free work’ did the portfolio complete on my behalf? This is a way of thinking about the additional income a portfolio has produced at no physical cost, to consider the hours of work your dollars are putting in which you do not have to, boosting your financial progress.
• Remaining deficit to FI target. This is simply the ‘distance still to travel’ number, and towards the mid and late stages of the journey can be more motivating and tangible to focus on than the long progress already made. At this stage, forward progress week to week might be almost invisible in percentage terms, and yet the absolute deficit can still be closing proportionally faster.

Current navigation aids (2017-2019)

My current approach is to keep benchmarking against external standards, but to supplement these with some specific personal FI benchmarks.

In January 2019 I reset my two external benchmarks of progress (Objectives #1 and #2).

• Objective #1 is a passive income benchmark that is equal to the the median annual earnings of an Australian full time worker ($67 000). That is, approximately 50 per cent of workers earn both less and more than this figure. This is drawn from Australian Bureau of Statistics earnings data, which is updated at least annually, and which therefore can be consistently tracked through time. My logic for picking this benchmark is that any reasonable concept of ‘enough’ should encompass and be somewhat anchored around the earnings of an average worker. To have access to this income, without a single hours paid work being required, represents a significant achievement in freeing oneself all of the potential cares of working career.
• Objective #2 is set at the approximate equivalent of average Australian full-time ordinary earnings ($83 000). As an average, this ABS benchmark is skewed upwards by a small number of higher earners. This second longer-term goal is designed to reflect a more ‘business as usual’ lifestyle reflecting my personal circumstances. At least in my current phase of life, the lower income of Objective #1 would effectively represent rather than more of a ‘leanFIRE’ concept. As I have previously observed, the income assumed in Objective #2 is closer to the level of expenditure at which I think I would truly become indifferent to working or not.

I have also started tracking these any other measures both against the FI portfolio, but also against an expanded ‘All Assets’ portfolio. This recognises that I have some significant superannuation assets that currently sit outside of the investment portfolio.

This means  I now seek to assess progress on two different bases: first, the current measure based on reliance on the investment portfolio alone and second an ‘All Assets’ measure with superannuation assets taken into account.

The reason for this dual approach was that it was artificial and distortionary to my own thinking about the issue to entirely ignore a substantial potential contributor to a FI target in the form of superannuation, even if it comes with accessibility restrictions and some legislative risk.

Due to these risk and restriction factors, I plan to continue to target financial independence through my private investment portfolio alone, with superannuation providing an additional margin of safety and buffer.

Cross-bearings and lines of position

My other recent change was to report against an expanded set of benchmarks, beyond just my formal investment objectives.

Since January 2019 I have reported against two additional measures. First, my average annual credit card expenditure (a ‘credit card FI’ benchmark), and the second is an aggregated estimate of total current annual expenditure.

The credit card purchases measure is a way of keeping my financial progress grounded in the reality of what I actually spend. It is currently set at $73 000 per annum, equivalent to the past 12 months of credit card bills. The measure is derived by calculating how much of this expenditure the portfolio is – using the assumed real return rate of 4.19 per cent – producing in income.

This has the benefit of both automatically tracking broad spending trends and adjusting for the inflation I personally experience through time. It is also a highly salient measure. As one stands in front of a paywave machine, it is some comfort to think that portfolio income is paying over 75 per cent of the bill.

As an additional measure I also track actual month to month credit card purchases, and compare them again either current distributions or a 3 year rolling average (as illustrated below).

The total income measure is quite approximate and results from adding some known fixed expenses (such as rates and utilities) that I do not pay through credit card to my total credit card expenditure. It currently totals $96 000. As I have noted, I recognise that it is by no measure a frugal existence, and my good fortune in being able to live in this way.

An example of these measures is given below, using the portfolio position on in the recent May Monthly Portfolio Update as inputs in this case.

Future measures – the end of reckoning?

So what then for the future of benchmarks in measuring the portfolio?

For the moment, the present measures seem sufficient. Recently, however, I have added some additional metrics to watch as the portfolio changes in value.

These new ‘watch’ metrics are the required safe withdrawal rates implied by drawing each required income (i.e. $67 000 or $83 000 as per Objective #1 and 2) from the portfolio. That is, taking the target income levels as fixed, and then calculating what percentage of the portfolio this represents.

Mathematically, this is just a re-arrangement of the method of determining the level of income from the portfolio, but not assuming the current rate of return of 4.19 per cent. So it is equal to the required benchmark income divided by the Portfolio total (so for example, Objective #1 income $67 000/Example Portfolio Level of $1 430 000= 4.68 per cent).

This metric helps make visible exactly the level of investment returns (or safe withdrawal rate) that would be implied by a total reliance on the portfolio at this moment. The reason this is helpful is that a significant set of academic and other analyses cover the issue of the inverse correlation of safe withdrawal rates and equity market cycles.

Put simply, a higher safe withdrawal rate is riskier at time of expensive market valuation (pdf), i.e. good times, than after equity market falls. Conversely, low safe withdrawal rates may be marginally ‘safer’ following substantial equity market falls.

Safe withdrawal rates are typically designed to not fail given a long backtested history of actual market movements over a range of conditions. Yet there is still value in eyeballing the assumed safe withdrawal rate as a cross-check on any decision to cease paid work, and feeling comfortable with that figure.

Observations – Finding a True North  

The power of setting goals and benchmarks cannot be underestimated. My own observations on the process of measuring progress to FI goals are summarised below:

• Starting is better than finding the best measure. Overall though I have found and discarded many measures and goals along the way, but the choice to start to measure and hold myself accountable for progress was a powerful motivation and tool. Each measure and benchmark helped in its time.
• Different measures may serve you at different times. Linked to the above, different measures will seem relevant and motivating through different stages of the journey, whether it be ‘reaching zero’, a saving rate or progress towards a specific FI number. Those changes in which measures seem the best fit may actually be important markers of the changing phases of the journey
• Inflation should be accounted for in any measure. With inflation at historic lows, this may seem unimportant, but with apologies to Trotsky: ‘You may not be interested in inflation, but inflation is interested in you’. FI measures that don’t account for the impact of inflation on purchasing power over years and decades ahead are dangerous to your future lifestyle and goals. Whether it is updating nominal dollar targets regularly for inflation, or exclusively using ‘real’ dollars and rates of return alone, it is critical that goals account for inflation impacts.
• Measures will be personal choices. The right measures will be deeply personal, influenced by circumstances, preferences, and future goals. There is not likely to be one ‘right’ set designed just for you, even though many of the most common measures (the 4 per cent safe withdrawal rate ‘rule of thumb’ or savings rates) have sound logic behind them.
• Choose measures that make you consider the whole picture. It is possible to fixate on a single measure for clarity, and for this to provide only a narrow or incomplete view of progress. So behavioural ‘framing’ impacts should be considered when setting measures. That is, consider what the measure might obscure or hide, and its impact on your choices. Examples might be: assets left out of consideration in net worth style measures. Ideally, between them the measures adopted should provide a holistic picture of overall progress, without distorting decision-making by leaving out important aspects of your financial decision-making or circumstances.