Yes, that's another way to look at it.

And this is where my approach might be considered riskier. When I modeled this, I had one goal: maintain as high as possible equity allocation while mitigating SORR (if SHTF).

And I made two assumptions:

1. If the previous year S&P 500 was down, then I use a step in the ladder for income, otherwise I pull from stocks.

2. Once a step in the TIPS ladder is used, then I don't replenish. I haven't figured out exactly what I will do if the cash is not used and the TIPS mature, but odds are I'll roll it into treasuries (or TIPS) that mature at the end of the ladder.

So after all TIPS/cash are spent, I'm living solely off of stocks, supplemented by SS.

I realize that this approach is not for everyone and in its true form, it might not be for me. I'm still thinking of extending my TIPS ladder beyond 6 years, but I'll never go lower than 80% equities.

There's no rebalancing for me either, since I built a ladder that will guarantee income for years where stocks underperform. If I decide to 'rebalance,' it's more that I feel equities are highly valued and I decide to take some gains for security. But if I have enough in equities, I probably won't bother, as long as my WR is low enough.

The $30k/year SS amount I mention is if I start at 62, but my plan is to start later, quite possibly at 70, where I would collect $55k/year.

When I was thinking about this approach, I wanted to see how it performed, so I built a model using CPI/S&P data from 1871. I use the CPI data to mimic TIPS, ignoring any real return and assuming the TIPS yield is only the inflation adjustment. I also didn't add SS to the model.

Here's an example run:

Code:

```
30 years
40k initial income
1,000,000 initial portfolio
2 to 10 steps in ladder
srcdata start 1871 end 2022
max runs 121 years 30
steps 2 success 117 failure 4 total 121 max 25,780,803 in 1943 min 47,748 in 1929 average 7,329,796
steps 3 success 120 failure 1 total 121 max 24,370,600 in 1943 min 17,014 in 1966 average 7,040,779
steps 4 success 121 failure 0 total 121 max 22,822,715 in 1943 min 35,784 in 1966 average 6,716,653
steps 5 success 121 failure 0 total 121 max 21,228,171 in 1943 min 230,588 in 1966 average 6,317,002
steps 6 success 121 failure 0 total 121 max 19,701,163 in 1932 min 374,014 in 1966 average 5,830,551
steps 7 success 118 failure 3 total 121 max 18,623,626 in 1932 min 58,386 in 1969 average 5,298,543
steps 8 success 118 failure 3 total 121 max 17,247,952 in 1932 min 36,998 in 1968 average 4,734,251
steps 9 success 116 failure 5 total 121 max 15,741,267 in 1932 min 4,185 in 1973 average 4,169,016
steps 10 success 114 failure 7 total 121 max 14,155,678 in 1932 min 1,589 in 1972 average 3,610,417
```

Based on this result, the sweet spot is a TIPS ladder for 6 years. That's pretty consistent with other runs that I've done, usually it's around 5-6 years in TIPS, even in cases where all runs fail.

What's interesting, and not really surprising, is that if you get too conservative, the portfolio will fail. With a 60/40 mix, you're at 10 steps in the ladder with 5.8% failure rate (firecalc has a 4% failure rate with a 60/40 portfolio). But if you go with 6 steps in the ladder, 76/24, then firecalc has 4.8% failure rate vs success with this approach.

Of course, maybe my data's wrong? Or I made the wrong assumptions?

When I built the model, I spent a good amount of time looking at the year to year results and I'm confident enough that for my purposes it'll work. Odds are that my equities will be high regardless and the TIPS ladder I built will provide a soft-cushion for any downturns we have.

Anyways, a lot more detail than I initially planned on providing, but it's always good to think about these things again. Hopefully it makes sense.