USGrant1962
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Michael Kitces has an interesting post where he dives deeper into flexible spending versus FIRE. In the past he has advocated for ratcheting rules, where you start with a safe withdrawal rate and in (the majority of) cases where your portfolio grows notwithstanding withdrawals, you may ratchet up spending over time.
Interesting in this article is that he references a Bengen article that I had not seen before. Bengen shows that 3.5% is the SWR for a 45-year retirement. He did this in 1996, so the "3.5% is the new 4%" isn't so new!
In my mind the money quote is:
Yikes! Hence the idea that you are very likely to be able to ratchet up. In the context of being prepared for variable spending (up and down) it makes sense.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/the-problem-with-fireing-at-4-and-the-need-for-flexible-spending-rules/?
Interesting in this article is that he references a Bengen article that I had not seen before. Bengen shows that 3.5% is the SWR for a 45-year retirement. He did this in 1996, so the "3.5% is the new 4%" isn't so new!
In my mind the money quote is:
...with 40-50+ years to compound, the range of future outcomes is actually much much wider than more retirees realize (or can even comprehend, with “equal” likelihood of a $1M retirement account running out, or turning into $150M, at a 3.5% initial withdrawal rate!
Yikes! Hence the idea that you are very likely to be able to ratchet up. In the context of being prepared for variable spending (up and down) it makes sense.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/the-problem-with-fireing-at-4-and-the-need-for-flexible-spending-rules/?