ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
[
THis means the analysis involves some averages.
Thats why the 7% SWR is mentioned.
It seems that, for any individual, longevity risk remains uncovered.
The analysis seems to isolate "investment risk"
I dont know any smart person that recomments a 7% initial withdrawal rate.
Even just isolating the investment risk I'm still left wondering:
Was mindless annual rebalancing assumed?
Those were the same Q's that I wondered about - I will try to find time later to read it all, but from my scanning, I'm not expecting to find the answers.
What I can tell you though is that except for those retiring right before a bear market or before massive inflation hits, that the ubiquitous 4% SWR is way too conservative and severely limits your real-lifestyle in retirement.
And unless one has a crystal ball to know if they are retiring before one of those events or not (or some unforeseen event), 4% doesn't seem so conservative.
It is true that most of the historical runs turn out fine @ 4%, or even higher. But I'm not so concerned about the 'most', I'm concerned about the 'what ifs'. Most of the time, I don't get in an accident when I drive my car. I don't think that leads to the decision that we shouldn't bother with seat belts.
-ERD50