OP here. Just had some time after my errands. I have only skimmed the replies, will try to look closer later, but for now:
My skimming gives me the impression that the intention of my post was lost. Perhaps I was not clear, or maybe it was misread, I don't know. But it was not intended to be a debate over aggressive versus conservative AA. I've said many times that I have little to say about that, as long as people are clear that they understand the pros/cons of each. Mainly, that a conservative AA has not historically been 'safe' - less volatile, yes, but not necessarily 'safe'. But if your WR is low enough, it's a personal choice.
What it was intended to be, was a review of the idea that a somewhat aggressive investor (70/30 in this example) can be conservative for the first 5 years, and this somehow sidesteps the SOR risk.
My feeling was, the SOR risk still exists. The question is now, is the 'first-five-year-conservative-retiree' prepared for that next SOR hit?
I used the 100% bond portfolio to represent staying conservative. I did not show the move to something like 70/30 at year five, you can visualize that for yourself. As I said, clearly if you are behind at year 5, you are less prepared for a bad sequence after year 5.
You can rerun the linked version if you want to change the AAs, but it's actually pretty easy to visualize a mix. To do a gradual change in AA, you will need another tool.
Also, 1995 was not cherry-picking, it was just an illustration of the idea. Change the year if you like, report back. But I think 1995 is enlightening, there had been a sharp rise in the past few years, a time when many would be thinking of getting conservative. Sure, other times the conservative approach would be better, but I don't think enough times to make it anything close to a slam dunk. Maybe not even a good idea.
I'll try to look through the posts and links in more detail later.
-ERD50