...you’re gonna need oxygen at those SWR’s
the article has a few faults for those of us who are more conservative in our planning (and now executing) our retirement:
in one case, the prospective retiree starts with a SWR even ABOVE Bergen’s “Safemax”, which is already at the bleeding edge of possible surviving portfolios. They then further increase withdrawals to almost twice the original in a more “modest” inflation scenario— all within 10 years but without any concern until that point. Not exactly what most retirees here would do; i would suspect that most here seeing WR of 8-10% would be having alarm bells going off.
The other case, under “high” inflation conditions, started with WR ** just under** the “Safemax” value and like the above found after 10 years that their WR was about...15%! they couldn’t figure out how bad their conditions were deteriorating? no mid-course correction? (the author goes on to give not just one but two corrections over two years, resulting in a reduction to about 45% of the prior value, which seems to me to get back to the “Safemax “ value which he spouts to begin with)
The author never gives the audience the (i believe more proper) answer that under the later high inflation conditions, the payout for a SPIA might be advantageous and would “guarantee “(per state/individual insurers) that a higher WR , albeit reduced from the lofty values noted in the paper, would be sustainable.