https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/what-are-reasonable-pessimistic-assumptions-116647.html is a somewhat similar thread you might read if you haven't already. Plenty of dismissive comments there, and some very unnecessary mocking ones, but also a few helpful ones.
My answer to that thread as well as this one is to stay with my Variable Percentage Withdrawal plan. Allowed spending is based on the previous end of year balance, with a slight raise in the % factor due to a decreased life expectancy each year. If there is a long run of low/no/negative market growth this will put me ahead of the curve in making cuts to my budget as opposed to holding the course with 4% +inflation withdrawals, banking on historical returns to right the ship.
And if the market follows history, VPW will increase my allowed spending after those good recovery years.
I had not seen/read that thread, thanks for pointing me to it. There are some interesting and helpful posts.
It is also the quintessential example of what I am questioning because the OP’s list of premises includes:
d) A 60/40 portfolio will return 4% nominal terms every year
A version of that is repeated in the statements “banking on historical returns to right the ship” and “And if the market follows history”.
Given the causes of that growth for the past 100 years and the trends we see in the country and in the world today, is that a safe assumption? VPW is dependent on the economy growing and the market going up in the same fashion (stochastic over short periods but dependable over the long term).
Please don’t get me wrong — I’m totally in favor of the economy growing and the market going up. I’m just looking at why that has happened for the past 100 or so years and asking if those causes will continue in the next 35 years. And longer for my kids and grandkids. But my nearest goal is to determine when to push the Eject button.
If I had retired in the last 3 years at the asset level I thought would get me through the next 35 years, I would be very concerned due to sequence of returns risk. And that’s if I was 100% confident that past performance guarantees future results (5-7% return in equities and 3-5% for bonds over 100 years).
Our population is stagnating, the labor participation rate indicates the percentage of those who are able to work but are not working is increasing, the percentage of people who depend on tat payer-funded programs for their lifestyle exceeds those who are paying for it which means they can vote for politicians who promise raises for them in perpetuity, the Chinese have articulated specific plans to overtake the US in economic and military strength, and more. I don’t mean any of those as political arguments. They are facts that present risk to the historical market returns.
I realize we can’t predict the markets or economy with accuracy. Nonetheless, it seems prudent to me to apply the same “past performance does not guarantee future results” wisdom to the US economy when planning for the next 35 or more years. When I do that, I’m concerned that counting on even what would seem to be a conservative 3-4% return is not a safe assumption.
And so I continue to go to work every day with no intention of retiring in the next year or two or three due to my concerns that the causes of the terrific past US economic performance will not hold true for the next 35 years.
For those tempted to post some snarky version of “suit yourself”, please don’t bother. I understand it is my decision based on my perspective and will result in my level of enjoyment of my life. I am responsible for determining my risk tolerance and nothing I have read so far in this discussion or the other one demonstrates to me that I’m wrong to be sufficiently concerned that I am delaying retirement. Such a response is a waste of the attention for those getting emails about updates to this thread. You are stealing time we will never get back.