Safe Withdrawal Rates are rubbish

I find it odd that many of the ER critics ("4% rule is rubbish", "you need tons-o-bucs for LTC", "50% stock market drops that never recover" - you know the types) ignore that it is no different than when you are working. When working you could get laid off, you might have to take a pay cut, you don't get a raise just because inflation was 20%, you don't know your future spending, you could get a debilitating disease. That's called life.
The difference is, that being a worker already implies being at the mercy of the employment market. We are contingent, at-will, vulnerable. If [expletive] happens, we promptly react, sometimes acceding to degradation, austerity, humiliation, just to keep bread on the table. The laid-off executive becomes a cab driver, a street-sweeper, a peddler of vegetables from a shopping cart, parked next to the skyscraper that formerly sported his name.

Being a retiree implies insulation from the vagaries of markets or societal forces. It means an aristocratic detachment from the bread-riots and barricades. Retirees might complain that the vegetables aren't as fresh, or the streets aren't as cleanly swept, or the cabs are tardy. But they would never stoop to such degradation as going back to work, let alone in a menial capacity.
 
I knew a fellow, and he believed he was going to die soon, so he maxed out his credit cards on purpose living it up. Well it turned out he had mis-interpreted or was later found that his condition wasn't so serious that he would probably go another decade or two!
:ROFLMAO:
What an idiot :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
They're a mental shortcut for ignoring the difficult problem of preparing for an unknown future, and mask over a complexity of decisions that includes at least the following:

Deciding on the length of retirement you want/need to fund. The "rule" usually assumes a 30 year retirement. Is that appropriate for your particular solution? Shouldn't you decide for yourself?

Starting with the "rule" results in an annual spending amount. I think it would be better to start with your actual current spending for a baseline. That way, your lifestyle can drive the decision. Furthermore, if we start with a spending amount, and then incorporate our retirement nest egg, we can divide them to get the years of funded retirement in current dollars. Now, with the years of funded retirement, the problem becomes clearer.

How am I going to grow the funds to make up the difference between the years I have funded and the years I want/need to have funded?

How am I going to ensure my growing funds at least match inflation (in addition to the unfunded years)?

These questions are much more useful to have detailed answers for, as opposed to some discussion about how comfortable you are with such and such success rate in Firecalc.

Thanks for reading my rant ;-)
When I made my plan/projection for retirement, I laid out my projected future spending with expected life changes then evaluated my future income projections to see if it was viable. This included forecasting taxes and use of FIRECALC.
 
I think it would be better to start with your actual current spending for a baseline. That way, your lifestyle can drive the decision.
I don't see that current lifestyle has any relationship to your nest egg and and how much of it you can spend and have it last until you die. Extreme example: You spend $120k a year (your baseline/lifestyle), and your nest egg is $200k. How can you let your lifestyle drive the decision on spending, you can't, you need to let your portfolio drive your lifestyle.
 
I don't see that current lifestyle has any relationship to your nest egg and and how much of it you can spend and have it last until you die. Extreme example: You spend $120k a year (your baseline/lifestyle), and your nest egg is $200k. How can you let your lifestyle drive the decision on spending, you can't, you need to let your portfolio drive your lifestyle.
If lifestyle has no relationship to a retirement plan, then just live in government housing and use food stamps for food. No retirement nest egg and zero spending.
 
If lifestyle has no relationship to a retirement plan, then just live in government housing and use food stamps for food. No retirement nest egg and zero spending.
My point was, if you don't have enough saved, then the portfolio will rule your lifestyle. Here's what I said, "I don't see that current lifestyle has any relationship to, your (nest egg and and how much of it you can spend) and have it last until you die. If you read it with emphasis that the lifestyle you live now, has no relationship to what you can spend from your nest egg during retirement. There are people that have a nice lifestyle spending $150k a year, then retire and find they can no longer live that lifestyle because the nest egg won't support it. I also agree with you, if you have a small or zero nest egg, the taxpayers may end up supporting you,
If that doesn't make more clear what I was trying to convey,
I'm willing to try again.
 
I think I get you. I'm thinking in terms of making a plan for a future retirement, still saving, and deciding when to retire, and what I want my lifestyle to be in retirement. Once you've given up working, then yes, your portfolio for sure limits your lifestyle. Sorry I was a little "over the top" on my response...
 
I think I get you. I'm thinking in terms of making a plan for a future retirement, still saving, and deciding when to retire, and what I want my lifestyle to be in retirement. Once you've given up working, then yes, your portfolio for sure limits your lifestyle. Sorry I was a little "over the top" on my response...
Oh no problem. Communication is difficult and communication over the internet via text is even harder.
 
I knew a fellow, and he believed he was going to die soon, so he maxed out his credit cards on purpose living it up. Well it turned out he had mis-interpreted or was later found that his condition wasn't so serious that he would probably go another decade or two!

It took him 5 years to pay back the credit cards

Was he not happy that he was not going to die? I don't think he would mind tightening the belt to pay off the credit cards after having a taste of living large, and now realizes that life is more precious than the shallow luxuries.
 
If lifestyle has no relationship to a retirement plan, then just live in government housing and use food stamps for food. No retirement nest egg and zero spending.
W*rks for a significant number of retirees. Not my cup of tea. I want flexibility and want to be as "in control" as possible. BUT lots of people exist in such a manner - so many that I suppose someone approaching retirement has to consider it. YMMV
 
Was he not happy that he was not going to die? I don't think he would mind tightening the belt to pay off the credit cards after having a taste of living large, and now realizes that life is more precious than the shallow luxuries.
Yes he was happy to be living. He wasn't sad or anything, he was a College professor when he told me.

He also decided to not have credit cards anymore , or maybe that was face saving as perhaps his credit score was lousy.
 
just use the SWR rule of thumb to estimate required savings ... then multiply by two!
 
Yes he was happy to be living. He wasn't sad or anything, he was a College professor when he told me.

He also decided to not have credit cards anymore , or maybe that was face saving as perhaps his credit score was lousy.

Twenty years ago, when I was 50, in a chat about travel with an older engineer who was 20 years my senior, I repeated the well-worn saying that nobody on his deathbed would regret not spending more time at work. And that was why I wanted to travel more when I still could.

This wise man shook his head and said, no, many dying people just wanted the pain to stop and would not care for anything else.
 
Well, sure - though that's a luxury very few can afford to do - and few ever will get to feel THAT degree of security. We're pretty lucky on here to be able to speak so glibly!
Not trying to be glib but, I was definitely not being specifically serious about 2X. I myself would love to reach 2X but, we never will most likely. I guess my point would be to build as much margin as you can in savings ... enough to sleep well at night.
You can plug in whatever number you want to reach that goal. It's different for everybody.

I find these rules of thumb to be interesting but, just another data point to consider. Nothing to bank on, in my book.
 
its napkin math. It is never meant for an actual withdraw strategy.

I just asked Chatgpt what if I retired exactly 30 years ago from today with 1 million in the sp500, withdrew 8% per year, increased each year with inflation, I would have just under 500k after 30 years. This used actual sp500 returns and actual CPI data. Maybe Dave Ramsey is on to something :)
 
its napkin math. It is never meant for an actual withdraw strategy.

I just asked Chatgpt what if I retired exactly 30 years ago from today with 1 million in the sp500, withdrew 8% per year, increased each year with inflation, I would have just under 500k after 30 years. This used actual sp500 returns and actual CPI data. Maybe Dave Ramsey is on to something :)
That's not too bad considering the early 2000's and the Great Recession are in that 30 year period.
 
just use the SWR rule of thumb to estimate required savings ... then multiply by two!
In the first year of both my wife and I collecting Social Security, we've settled in at monthly draws of about half our SWR, with our non-retirement savings accounts beginning to grow.

That draw doesn't account for lumpy expenses, like repaving the driveway.
 
Back
Top Bottom