The ur-text for the FIRE movement (Financial Independence Retire Early) is Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. I wrote a review of the book back in my Wise Bread days, so I won’t repeat that here. Rather, I want to take a look at the book’s investment strategy. Because many things investment-related changed rather dramatically between 1992 when the book was originally published, and 2018 when they brought out a revised edition, and now things have changed again.
The book began as a series of in-person seminars, that turned into a workbook with a set of audio tapes, back in the 1980s. Their investment strategy reflected those times. See my post on how my own investment strategy grew out of exactly that period.
At its most bare-bones, the original investment strategy was quite simple:
- Live very frugally
- Invest your surplus in long-term Treasury bonds
- Track your spending and your investment income
- When your investment income exceeds your spending: Congrats! You’re done.
This investment strategy made a lot more sense when long-term Treasury bonds paid 14% than they did when rates dropped down under 3%.
The result was a lot of criticism. But a lot of that criticism was misguided. The point of the FIRE investment strategy was not maximum return on your investment portfolio. The point was to generate a reliable stream of income that matched your spending.
If I remember the numbers correctly, Joe Dominguez got his spending down into the $6000-a-year range. If you could live on that, and could earn 14% on your investments, you probably didn’t even need $100,000 invested in T-bonds to cover all your spending and have enough of a surplus to reinvest against inflation.
Still, between the great financial crisis (call it 2007) and the end of the pandemic (call it 2022), the strategy didn’t work at all. For much of that period, the real yield on long-term Treasury securities was below 2%. It was often below 1%. So the revision published in 2018 advocated for a much more traditional strategy of investing in a blend of stocks and bonds. I haven’t checked the numbers, but I’m sure that strategy did much better than the “only long-term T-bonds strategy” would have.
I wanted to write just a little here, advocating for that old investment strategy, now that interest rates are getting high enough to make it somewhat more tenable, because the blended-stock-and-bond strategy loses something: It loses the absoluteness of having a stream of income that covers your expenses.
Think of it this way. It would be pretty easy to come up with an investment portfolio that beats T-bonds 85% of the time. But if 15% of the time it fails to produce a stream of income that covers your expenses? Well, then you’re not financially independent, and you’re not ready to retire early.
That’s what the T-bond strategy offered, and I’m glad that interest rates are getting high enough to make it seem a little more reasonable once again.











