Dave Ramsey rips the 4% rule again today.

People ignore inflation risk at their peril. By the time they understand it, it's too late. There's no mulligan.

Right but if (big "IF") the portfolio keeps up with inflation while providing 10% of the portfolio balance withdrawals, then the withdrawal will be inflation adjusted.

But that absolutely cannot be assumed (and isn't likely I don't think), and we agree that one must be careful to watch for that.

-ERD50
 
... if (big "IF") the portfolio keeps up with inflation while providing 10% of the portfolio balance withdrawals...

What's that proverb? "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride"
 
Last edited:
The 10% is not meant to be inflation adjusted, it is 10% of whatever the portfolio balance is. But if you click "Inflation adjusted" under the graph of Portfolio Balance, you can take 10% of that value to see what you would take out for spend on an inflation adjusted basis.
But inflation is real, so if you want to account for it and see how it affects your real buying power, you still need to click the inflation adjusted under the graph.
 
But inflation is real, so if you want to account for it and see how it affects your real buying power, you still need to click the inflation adjusted under the graph.

Yes. However, the bottom chart labeled "Annual Withdrawals" still does not get the inflation accounted for. It's wrong.
 
Yes. However, the bottom chart labeled "Annual Withdrawals" still does not get the inflation accounted for. It's wrong.
If you mean "annual returns", it looks like those are all in nominal values, including the balance, and has nothing to do with selecting that option under the graph. That's not a bug. The annual returns chart doesn't have that option, so it's just a missing feature.
 
If you mean "annual returns", it looks like those are all in nominal values, including the balance, and has nothing to do with selecting that option under the graph. That's not a bug. The annual returns chart doesn't have that option, so it's just a missing feature.


No, I wrote "Annual Withdrawals" and I meant the bottom chart (not the Annual Returns).

The bottom chart is highly misleading because it does not match the top chart of yearly balances when the latter is adjusted for inflation.

It may be called a "missing feature", but unless one is cognizant of the discrepancy and spots it like ERD50 did, he might walk away with a very wrong impression.
 
Last edited:
No, I wrote "Annual Withdrawals" and I meant the bottom chart (not the Annual Returns).

The bottom chart is highly misleading because it does not match the top chart of yearly balances when the latter is adjusted for inflation.

It may be called a "missing feature", but unless one is cognizant of the discrepancy and spots it like ERD50 did, he might walk away with a very wrong impression.
Strange. I know you wrote annual withdrawals, but I do not see that when I am there. I see a tab for annual returns. Confirmed in Chrome and Firefox. Do you have to be logged in to that website to get that annual withdrawals chart to show? I do not have an account there.

Edit: Looks like it only shows when selecting the 10% withdraw option and not with the fixed 4% withdraw adjusted for inflation.
 
Last edited:
The charts just came with the info entered by RetiredAt49, as shown in his provided link below.

Using the Chrome browser on Windows, I just clicked on the link. Then, select "Inflation Adjusted" below the 1st chart. The misleading chart is at the bottom of the page, below the "Annual Returns" chart.
Ok, it showed using that link. It looks like the issue is that it doesn't show the withdrawals graph when using a fixed withdrawal rate, but it shows it with 10% withdrawal, although I thought I checked both those links earlier and didn't see it. But I see it using the 10% withdraw link, just not the fixed withdraw. So, looks like a bug, after-all. And yes, correct, that graph doesn't change when selecting the inflation option on the top graph.
 
It goes to show one has to be careful when presented with some data or a graph, and knows what to look for. The problem is you may not know the question to ask.

I still remember decades ago, when I first looked into investing, I ran across various apparently conflicting claims. For example, when I discussed with a friend that the average stock return was 10%, he showed me some data showing that after the market crash in 1928, it did not reclaim its high until 1952 or so, and that was before taking into account inflation. Egads! At 10% compounding gain, it should have been 10x after 24 years. Something was very wrong there.

Only later that I discovered that there was serious deflation after 1928, and the dollar became more valuable. And then, back then people were afraid to buy stocks, and stock prices were depressed such that the dividend yield was 10%. Yes, you get most of your return on the dividend, not on the stock price gain.

Now, dividend yield of the S&P is a puny 1.53%, and most of the gain comes from the price rise. But again, the total return in whatever form it comes must have inflation accounted for. One fools himself if he ignores inflation.
 
Here's is a video with one of Dave's minions, George Kamel, they discuss Dave's physiological method vs the financially better methods of reducing debt. The discussion is on the Iced Coffee Podcast, with hosts Jack ? and Graham Stephen. Graham has built a net worth to over $20M at 32 yrs old. I have just recently become aware of Graham Stephen on Youtube although my 29 year old has known him much longer. The video pretty well puts it all in order, George and Graham disagree, but agree that their audiences are two different types of people.
The meat of the discussion starts at 14:00, but if you have the time it is entertaining from the beginning.

 
Last edited:
Scratch a Christian radio host - Find a con artist.

Dave Ramsey is a kinder gentler Alex Jones.
 
Scratch a Christian radio host - Find a con artist.

Dave Ramsey is a kinder gentler Alex Jones.


The worst financial loss I ever took was selling a property to a minister.
Ended up in court, got the property back, but I lost $50k in the deal. In one conversation, he made it clear he was judgement proof.
 
I used to be a Ramsey fan because I think he can help the unsophisticated financial set. No more. Not because of his advice but because of his ethics.

He fired a gal for getting pregnant while not married. He didn't do anything about Chris Hogan, who has had multiple affairs, until the facts were made public during the pregnant gal's lawsuit against Ramsey Solutions. Ramsey knew well before the lawsuit but chose to ignore it because Hogan was a money maker for him. Hogan's ex-wife says that Ramsey knew about her ex-husband's conduct as far back as 2018 and tried to counsel the couple by manipulating the wife and putting them in "counseling". Ramsey's "counseling" would terrify me!

Hogan was only fired after Ramsey's hands were tied and he had to do it.
 
Why do people 55 with a 3 million dollar nest egg, $60,000 emergency fund, expecting $4,000 a month in social security benefits, and a $5000 a month pension, with a paid off house, always calling his show asking if they have enough to retire off of?
 
Why do people 55 with a 3 million dollar nest egg, $60,000 emergency fund, expecting $4,000 a month in social security benefits, and a $5000 a month pension, with a paid off house, always calling his show asking if they have enough to retire off of?
I don't know. Maybe they just want to show off.
 
Why do people 55 with a 3 million dollar nest egg, $60,000 emergency fund, expecting $4,000 a month in social security benefits, and a $5000 a month pension, with a paid off house, always calling his show asking if they have enough to retire off of?

Hahaha
Are those really the typical call?!
 
Most people who are retiring in their 60's can go higher than 4%. Most people on this forum will die millionaires due to being too conservative.

Definitely agree, even though my wife and I fall into the category of spending less than 4%. Why? We have no debt, we already travel upwards to five months out of the year, and we don't lust over cars and such. If we pass and leave a good amount to our only child and her husband, we're cool with that. And with the kind of economy we have been suffering under for the last three years, no one can be certain what the future holds. Better safe than sorry.
 
@FREE866 My point was, a lot of people call his show, pretend to be worrying about not having enough saved up for retirement, but have way more than enough, especially when they say they don't have a mortgage, like most of them say. With the financial information his callers be giving, they can practically do the math themselves, and know they'll be ok...unless they're calling in asking if they can retire on only SS, at $500 a month. Maybe they just need a Dave Ramsey to tell them they gonna be rich, or at least ok. Most of the time, all Ramsey does is wound up telling them they're going to be fine, and probably wondering why he's getting so many calls from millionaires.

But most of these millionaires calling in (lol), don't have a DB pension. I believe that's their main reason for calling. So I stretched it a little to be sarcastic. Many people on this board have similar huge nest eggs like some of his callers, plus have nice SS checks waiting on them, and no house payment. With that said, I don't think many here are exactly panicking enough to call a talk show.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. Maybe they just want to show off.



I think that’s it, sometimes. The show seems to have drifted away from the people that really need help getting out of debt. In fairness I see similar questions on other shows and even on this board, but sometimes they are just clueless. Good savers, low spenders, lousy planners.
 
In fairness I see similar questions on other shows and even on this board, but sometimes they are just clueless. Good savers, low spenders, lousy planners.

I think there’s a lot of that. There is far more emphasis in the financial world on accumulation and not nearly enough on the draw down. I think that’s been changing gradually as the baby boomers have hit retirement age but most people have only known save, save, save, but aren’t well equipped for the next stage and aren’t even sure how to know when they’re ready for the next stage. It’s scary to turn off your income for good.
 
Why do people 55 with a 3 million dollar nest egg, $60,000 emergency fund, expecting $4,000 a month in social security benefits, and a $5000 a month pension, with a paid off house, always calling his show asking if they have enough to retire off of?

There are people here that ask the same question, and some of them are a lot older than 55.
 
Back
Top Bottom