95% should be fine. As others have stated there are many things that could happen. However look at the bright side. With every passing year you're closer to realizing that you were OK.
If you are down to the wire and have 95%, it is NOT good enough. If you are 45 years old and 95%, it is risky.
I agree with travellover, 95% and the knowledge that I have significant room to cut back comfortably, if needed, is good enough for me.
95% is reasonable. It's a crap-shoot anyhow.
+1. There have been people here say they retired with an 80% prob of success, others who waited for 200% (a nest egg 2X the 100% prob $) and everything in between. It's whatever allows you to sleep at night, there is no guarantee, so no right answer.If the stuff hits the fan, I'm gonna dial back my spending, anyway. I'd go with 95%.
It's whatever allows you to sleep at night, there is no guarantee, so no right answer.
I claim my small contribution to the SWR literature was to point out about 20 years ago on another internet forum that independent of the probability of one's portfolio lasting 30-40 years, one has to consider the probability of dying before running out of money. I think intercst from retireearlyhomepage.com picked up on this idea and extended it here:
Combining Safe Withdrawal Rates and Life Expectancy
Just as a SWAG, if you are 45 years old and plan to a 95% portfolio survivability for, say 40 years, that means your money has a 1 in 20 chance of running out of money by age 85. But there is approximately a 50% chance you'll be dead by 85. So that 1 in 20 chance is effectively cut in half to a 1 in 40 chance, or 97.5%.
No, it will just seem like 40 years.Good point but if you are married, isn't the chance of one of you surviving 40 years much higher than 50%?