- What if the Good Life Requires Giving Up Some Freedom? - September 15, 2026
- What Climbing Grouse Mountain Taught Me About Financial Freedom - August 18, 2026
- My Apartment Gave Me Something That Money Can’t Buy - August 4, 2026
The FIRE movement is built around the 4% rule—the idea that you can safely withdraw 4% every year in retirement and not run out of money. It’s the mathematical formula upon which we’ve organized the past 10 years of our lives, and if math is our religion, the 4% rule is our scripture.
Even though the Trinity Study has been cited as the inspiration behind the 4% rule, the actual person who deduced this rule is Bill Bengen, a financial planner/MIT engineer. Back in 1994, he analysed every 30-year retirement period in modern U.S market history and discovered that 4% was the maximum safe withdrawal rate that withstood the worst recessions.
I was so busy parenting, I didn’t even realize he wrote an updated book called “A Richer Retirement” last year, so I was beyond excited when a friend told me about it and gave me a copy.
What shocked me the most about this book:
- How readable it is! Most finance books written by financial planner are dryer than week-old toast left out in the Sahara, but this book has so much useful and interesting data I couldn’t stop turning the pages. This guy is a bonified nerd and has thought about retirement from every possible angle.
- He says the 4% rule is no longer valid!
Here are my biggest take aways from this book and how it affects FIRE:
The 4% Rule Isn’t What Most People Think
When he derived the 4% rule, Bengen wasn’t thinking “How much should I withdraw in retirement.” He was thinking “What withdrawal rate would have survived the worst retirement sequence in modern history?”
And the SAFEMAX (maximum safe withdrawal rate) he came up with was 4.15% in 1994. It got rounded down to 4%.
In his new book, he has redone those calculations for the current environment and now SAFEMAX has been…raised to 4.7%!
So the 4% rule is now the 4.7% rule, and even then, most retirees can withdraw more than this. Bengen deduced this number from a hypothetical retiree from the year 1968—a particularly nasty combination of a bear market and high inflation.
The scenario:
- Roughly 60% stocks and 40% bonds
- Annual inflation adjustments using CPI
- A 30-year retirement
- Dying with zero dollars left
This was a worst-case scenario.
Using 4.7% withdrawal would be like building a house to withstand a Category 5 hurricane, when most likely you will never encounter that situation, just like most retirees will not hit this worst-case scenario.
But but but, you ask. What about inflation? Surely, 4.7% doesn’t take that into account?
Why Many Retirees End Up Dying Rich
One of the more surprising ideas in the book is that retirees often underspend. Most people think 4% doesn’t take inflation into account, but Bengen derived this number by increasing the withdrawal amount every year to the rate of inflation. He showed with many graphs (seriously, this guy loves graphs more than I love my husband) that you will have a significant amount left over if you just withdraw less than inflation each year.
In my experience, this is what happens for early retirees because it’s much easier to beat inflation if you no longer need to drive to work, eat out due to lack of time, or live in an expensive city for the jobs.
Also, this analysis ignores human behaviour. When markets fall, people naturally tighten their belts. When inflation is running rampant, early retirees get creative about what they eat, how they entertain themselves, etc.
So when you spend less than inflation, you end up with a substantial portfolio at the end of life.
Bengen argues contrary to popular belief, it’s more likely for retirees to end up dying with far more money than needed.
What Happens When You Double Retirement Length?
One of the biggest criticisms of the 4% rule is that it was originally designed around a 30-year retirement. Bengen mentions this as well. He conducted his research with regular retirees in mind, not the FIRE movement.
So, what happens when you double retirement length from 30 years to 60?
Intuitively, you’d expect the SAFEMAX to collapse.
Surprisingly, it doesn’t.
As it turns out, extending retirement from 30 years to 60 years lowers it from roughly 4.7% to 4.1%.
That’s encouraging news for anyone pursuing financial independence in their 30s or 40s, because the penalty for doubling the retirement time length is smaller than people assume.
What if the Shiller CAPE Ratio Is “Off the Charts”?
Bengen’s research uses the Shiller CAPE (Cyclically-Adjusted Price-to-Earnings) ratio—which compares stock prices to 10 years of inflation-adjusted earnings to gauge whether the market is currently expensive or cheap.
During the 30-year period in Bengen’s 1994 analysis, the Shiller CAPE ratio never exceeded 32.6.
But after his original publication, the Shiller CAPE jumped to 44.2 in 1999. Many critics of the 4% rule look at this and conclude that historical withdrawal rates no longer apply.
In this book, Bengen examined retirees who started retirement between 1997 and 2001, a period when Shiller CAPE ratios ranged from roughly 32 to 44. There were 17 retirement starting points in this sample—roughly one retiree every quarter over four years.
None produced a SAFEMAX lower than 5.4%.
Valuations do matter, but this suggest that very high valuations don’t automatically lead to dramatically lower SAFEMAX rates.
Bengen’s concludes that retirees facing elevated valuations may still reasonably use a SAFEMAX between 5.25% and 5.5%. There’s no need to default to the worst case 4.7% SAFEMAX, even with high valuations.
Inflation Is Scarier Than Recessions
One of Bengen’s most interesting observations is that inflation may be more dangerous than recessions.
Most retirees fear stock market crashes, when inflation is scarier.
He uses the analogy of a balloon with 2 holes. One hole is recessions. The other is inflation. Both are causing air to escape. Both hurt you because one crushes your overall net worth, and the other forces you to withdraw more than you planned.
When both happen at the same time—as they did in the 1970s—you have a real problem. And it’s why the infamous 1968 retiree became the worst case scenario with a 4.7% safe withdrawal rate.
Bengen thinks inflation is scarier because while recessions eventually recover, inflation sticks around.
However, because food and transportation are two big components of the CPI, these are 2 main areas that early retirees can optimize. Given that they no longer need to commute to work, don’t need to eat out as much as a convenience option, and have time to stack up deals and buy in bulk, these changes make a significant dent in the food and transportation categories, which collectively make up 31% of the CPI. Housing, at 44%. can also be optimized since retirees no longer need to live in big expensive cities for the jobs, so they can use location independence to their advantage, which wasn’t take into account in this research.
The Surprising Case for More Stocks
Another one of Bengen’s surprising conclusions is that retirees may benefit from increasing their stock allocation over time. This is the opposite to the conventional financial advisor advice of reducing stock exposure as you age in retirement.
This is because gradually increasing equities forces you to buy stocks after market declines through rebalancing. So, you’re systematically buying low. Bengen used a 60/40 allocation to derive the 4.15% rule, but advocates for moving to 73/26 (stocks/bonds) gradually in retirement, over time. This also approximately matches what we did over the past 10 years with our own investments.
There are many other useful insights in the book, including how often you should rebalance, the detailed math and graphs behind all the points above, leaving an inheritance for your kids vs. dying with 0, and many retiree case studies. I highly recommend reading this book. Not only does it assuage your early retirement fears, but he’s also very down-to-earth in admitting that this is a scientific analysis and not to be treated as a guarantee (since nothing in life is guaranteed).
Generally, the takeaway is this: 4% is not only safe, it takes into account inflation, works for long retirement periods of 60+years, high Shiller CAPE ratios, and is for the WORST case scenario. Also, he recommends managing your portfolio and not just setting it and forgetting it in retirement. When you’re working, you have more leeway to do that, since you’re in the accumulation phase. Draw down requires more attention, particularly in the beginning where it’s more susceptible to market downturns. As your portfolio grows over time, you don’t have to worry about it as much.
It also made me realize that we are way too pessimistic and drawing down too little. We are currently withdrawing $82,000 a year, which represents a withdrawal rate of just 2.6%. That’s too low.
Our withdrawal target really should be closer to 4%, knowing how incredibly conservative that is, which would currently be $127,000. This would represent a 50% increase in available spending, which is a pretty big change. And to be honest, I have no idea how else I can upgrade my life since we already moved to Vancouver and I feel like we’re living our best life.
I…guess I could buy a new car and…barely drive it since I hate driving. I don’t know, that doesn’t sound right. We will have to ponder this further and we’ll let you know what we decide. I still have zero interest in home ownership. Team Rent all the way!
What do you think? Have you read A Richer Retirement? What withdraw rate are you using? And what would you spend more on if your retirement budget got a 50% boost? Let’s hear it in the comments below!
Hi there. Thanks for stopping by. We use affiliate links to keep this site free, so if you believe in what we're trying to do here, consider supporting us by clicking! Thx ;)
Build a Portfolio Like Ours: Check out our FREE Investment Workshop!
Travel the World: Get flexible worldwide coverage for only $45.08 USD/month with SafetyWing Nomad Insurance
Multi-currency Travel Card: Get a multi-currency debit card when travelling to minimize forex fees! Read our review here, or Click here to get started!
Travel for Free with Home Exchange: Read Our Review or Click here to get started. Please use sponsor code kristy-d61e2 to get 250 bonus points (100 on completing home profile + 150 after first stay)!
Love the breakdown, but counting on a 4.5% or 4.7% withdrawal rate feels a bit too optimistic for a 50-year FIRE horizon. Bengen’s higher numbers relied on a very specific asset allocation (heavy on small-cap historical data which might be washed away already by efficient markets), and trying to map that onto a standard total market index portfolio right now is risky.
With CAPE valuations where they are, sequence of returns risk is a real threat for early retirees. For a timeline this long, sticking closer to a 3.25%–3.5% baseline floor feels a lot safer than trying to budget out a best-case scenario.
Great post. Your summary of Bengen’s update is good. I do think there are a few things worth adding to the discussion.
To begin with, the 1997–2001 retiree data Bengen uses to argue that a high CAPE doesn’t necessarily hurt SAFEMAX is still an open experiment as far as I can see. Those folks haven’t been in retirement for the full 30 years yet.
I’m not sure how to reconcile Bengen with ERN (Early Retirement Now) who has also done some pretty extensive research showing that extending from 30 to 60 years at elevated CAPE levels (35–40+) definitely pushes a safe withdrawal rate (one that preserves capital) down closer to 3.25–3.5%. In other words, the “penalty” for doubling retirement length is larger than Bengen’s updated numbers suggest when you account for today’s valuations.
Lastly (and this is based on my read of Michael McClung’s book “Living Off Your Money”), while the withdrawal rate is the single largest controllable lever, those damn sequence of returns matter enormously, especially in the first decade (or technically, for the five years before retirement and up to ten years after). Most people think sequence risk starts at retirement (I certainly assumed that, too) but McClung shows the vulnerability window actually begins years before you stop working. So there’s two (three if you count Jim Otar) people that seem to suggest it would be unwise to ignore a high CAPE environment at the beginning of retirement because it doesn’t just imply lower average returns going forward, it seems to also greatly raise the odds of a damaging early sequence. That’s a different problem than just lower average returns throughout.
None of this means FIRE doesn’t work. It clearly has worked for you. But new retirees reading ‘4% is too conservative, use 4.7%+ instead’ and anchoring on that without understanding the assumptions baked in is potentially dangerous.
I think this is why Nobel laureate and economist William Sharpe famously described decumulation as “the nastiest, hardest problem in finance.”
It’s driving me nuts 🙂
What Bill Bengen Got Wrong About the 4% Rule highlights the value of careful planning and long-term strategy. Likewise, businesses can explore our fulfillment process to improve inventory management, streamline order fulfillment, reduce logistics costs, and support sustainable growth through efficient supply chain operations.
https://oneshippros.com/
This is such an eye-opening perspective on the 4% rule! I’m curious, how do you think changing inflation rates will impact retirement planning strategies moving forward? Is there a more dynamic approach we should consider? thanks for sharing with Driving Directions
Greetings! So glad to find your blog still in operation.
Great review of this important book. And yes, Fred has the right idea that the sequence of returns is the riskiest period of a portfolio management project. Here is what I did for my own portfolio.
As recommended at the time, I moved to an asset allocation of 60/40 (equities and bonds) about 5 years before launch, and maintained that until 6 years after launch. My accumulation phase was 90/10, so I am experienced with wild swings in the stock market. And for me, the drag caused by 40% in bonds was noticeable. Once I emerged from that risk of poor sequence of returns period, I followed the Micheal Kitces paper, gliding to 80/20. (in actuality, the big drop in 2022 decimated my bond fund, never to recover. So, I hopped to 80/20, selling my bond fund, taking my draws from the remaining bonds, and letting the equities recover my portfolio). It was scary for a couple years, but I stayed the course, knowing I had maturing bonds in a bond ladder to feed me while I waited.
Today I’m back to 90/10, where I am comfortable (not something I recommend to everyone).
My draws are adjusted every year right now, using at least 3 solid resources to estimate my draw and picking a number from within the range of these three suggestions. I’m at about 5.4% today, with my goal set to die with zero.
Hendricks asks about future inflation, and so long as you have at least 60% in equities, your portfolio will rise with inflation embedded in the pricing of stocks. Equities are the obvious way to protect yourself from inflation, and the reason I’ve never been enthused about bonds. Of course, I was accumulating during the years of 16% inflation, and retirees with”safe” savings in CDs and Bonds, having to take on part-time jobs to get by. Ergo, I’ve never been keen on buying safety instead of buying growth and inflation protection. The swings in the stock markets make rebalancing fun. (Something this crowd can appreciate)
And the math behind a portfolio that is 25x your annual expenses, is sufficient to fund a much longer retirement period than you would think, because the corpus grows faster than you are drawing down, and compounding over a longer time period creates a buffer to extend your retirement draws.
You really don’t need to shave off the percentage for your draws as much as you might be inclined at the beginning. But if you do, just be willing to notice and change your mind once you emerge from the Sequence of Returns Risk period, so you enjoy life or share with your favorite charities and heirs while you can.
“…and compounding over a longer time period creates a buffer to extend your retirement draws.” Great comment. Could you explain what you meant by the part I quoted just above here? I didn’t track you.
Man this is so dangerous!!! Whomever reads this, please please I urge you to check some real FIRE math at https://earlyretirementnow.com/2019/12/18/safe-withdrawal-rate-without-simulations-swr-series-part-33/
It’s far from the rosy picture these guys here paint. They barely touch the SORR problem, CAPE10, ECY, and all the important stuff.
@Jaden. I didn’t read anything in that post that negates standard FIRE thinking. All his math comes down to picking NPV. No real conclusions, just saying there is a range of outcomes based on NPV you pick (no big revelation there).
FIRE math isn’t a guarantee, it’s likelihoods based on historical data. Since nobody has a crystal ball, we’re all making assumptions. I don’t see underlying assumptions of FIRE as “so dangerous”. You do you, though.
Excellence article! I think you can expand your expenses by either spoiling your child or have another one lol cheers! 🥂
Giving to charity is always an option.
Per the comments above saying this new withdrawal rate is dangerous, it is very clear you are not retired and actually living through this experiment in real time.
I am.
I can say that withdrawing at 4.17% or 4.70% has shown me so far that a 4% withdrawal rate is not enough. In the 6 years since retiring and withdrawing 4% annually, my investment portfolio has nearly doubled in value. I assume my portfolio will double by year 7 even considering the withdrawals I make annually.
Anyways, I’m sure the negative nillys will say otherwise.
Either way, do what’s mentally comfortable for you.
I’ll add this: how long does inflation take to double?
“It takes about 36 years for prices in the U.S. to double at a typical 2% inflation rate. Historically, this time frame shrinks significantly during periods of high inflation”
Why not increase 2% to 3%. To 4%.
Doesn’t seem to make a difference.
The investment portfolio still outpaces it.
6 Years and you think this is in any way statistically significant? c’mon, read a book
I guess I forgot how I also used a spreadsheet to calculate things for about 20 years while I working to see how things would go were I fully retired during that time.
I don’t know what book you think you want me to read however I do know what more than 26 years of running a spreadsheet has taught me.
Enjoy your mentality of drawing next to nothing annually from your investments (if you have some) in retirement.
That’s not a good way to live.
The money is there to serve you. Not the other way around.
re: Either way, do what’s mentally comfortable for you.
Exactly this! If worrying about your portfolio is keeping you up at night, it’s time to rebalance. 😉
I hope you all use 4.7, 5, 8, 15% SWR. I want to see the see of tears when the bull market ends and you’re one year into your retirement.
you do you!! do it then!
I guess the message is that if you have a 7 figure portfolio, you don’t need to be too afraid to call it quit. This especially applies to those with a few million dollars but still feel not enough, and still are anxious about all the what-ifs.
Very well written and thorough as always. To be honest it was a guideline for us. We retired early as well and maintained our COL or increased it rather when our kids reached highschool and early university.
Withdrawing more made us feel nervous as well as we have a possibility 50 year retirement and not 30.
For now we will use what we need and recalculate each year due to our portfolio circumstances.
One of the least discussed factors in all of this is that spending and even income (as you’ve demonstrated with becoming an author) are not fixed. Those factors can be controlled. Habits can be changed to minimize spending and in a gig economy small amounts of income can be made on the side in various ways if needed.
Thanks for the update on the 4% rule. Knowing that it’s still valid makes me feel a little cozier with my trusty spreadsheets. As your son gets older there will be lots of enrichment opportunities to spend some of that excess cash. Not to mention that older kids are just more expensive. There’s also fancier travel and once in a lifetime experiences that you can splurge on as we have started doing. Just went to a World Cup game in Toronto and it was an amazing experience. Cheers!
To answer the spending question, it depends on your values of course, but I personally appreciate being frugal because it inevitably leads to less waste and consumption. If I ever feel like I could be richer, I remind myself that it would likely only lead to a larger house and a bigger and more wasteful renovation, among other markers of wealth that often amount to more more more.
If I have more disposable income, I like to spend it on ethical choices which can often be more expensive like buying from small business rather than Amazon, organic vs. non-organic, biodegradable packaging vs. low-cost wasteful packaging, electric car vs. gas-powered…etc.
Since you have a young child, you probably haven’t experienced the cash hemorrhage that is after-school and summer camp activities, but you can easily spend $4k – $10k/year/kid on these activities if you include a month or two of overnight camp (which I am very much looking forward to and budgeting for when my kids are old enough!!). My 8-year old is doing one week of overnight camp and 7/9 weeks of day camps this summer and that’s costing $3,750 for the summer. I would happily enrol him in any activity he wanted if money were no issue, and I think this is good value and excellent for his development.
And of course there is charity! Which is also a good little tax break.
Thanks again for your posts!
Living in one of the most beautiful ,but expensive area in California and retired at age 51 has other nasty surprises to deal with like the cost of health and other insurance insurance premiums which are out of control in California. The regular CPI doesn’t seem to apply here.
We own our home here and with our friends here, moving does not sound appealing. The mild climate is priceless, especially when we seem to experience more extreme weather patterns.
We monitor our portfolio and will adjust our spending and withdraw accordingly rather than relying on a prescribed general withdrawal rate. There is always charity and great causes to support. The potential long-term care if we are lucky enough to live longer. The taxes and the tax laws changes vary widely. I am not sure if that’s covered in many calculations.
Many people have known that the 4% rule could be improved upon for some time by (1) using a portfolio actually designed for withdrawing, and not some two or three fund 60/40 thing just because somebody said that was a good idea 15 or 20 years ago; and (2) using flexible withdrawals (which is what people do in practice anyway).
It was nice to see that confirmed in Bill Bengen’s latest book, but the truth is that the entire FIRE community and traditional personal finance communities (e.g., Bogleheads) have been actively ignoring and suppressing this research for a decade or more. Bengen’s research and public articles on this date back to well before 2020.
The real questions is WHY? Why has the FIRE and other personal finance communities been actively suppressing the truth in favor of a bunch of cockamamy b.s. scare tactics and junk about CAPEd crystal balls and portfolios turning into pumpkins after 30 years, while simultaneously urging people to hold BAD two and three fund portfolios in retirement?
And the truth is ugly and hurts: Traditional personal finance IS A HOARDING CULTURE that actively promotes people who plan on accumulating until death and promotes fear of running out of money as one of its highest values. And a lot of FIRE culture has followed that and is only now waking up to that mistake. Many are still fighting tooth and nail to continue promoting hoarding and spreading scare stories.
It’s like a bad family history of abuse being replayed by the next generation. Time to break that cycle.
Here, sort these portfolios by safe withdrawal rates. The one in Bengen’s new book (“Richer Retirement”) is actually in the middle of this pack, but look at what is at the bottom.
Can we start handling the truth now? It’s only been a decade.
https://portfoliocharts.com/charts/portfolio-matrix/
Thanks for all you do Frank. I’ve listened to every episode of Risk Parity radio. You make a more compelling case than big ERN. I think the author of this post is moving in the right direction by aiming to spend more.
Now as to what to spend on: no don’t buy a new car that you don’t even want. The spending that makes us happiest according to research is spending on others and/or experiences. Help fund a trip with family or friends. Give a generous wedding gift to someone you care about or a big gift to newborn parents. Maybe help fund college for a niece or nephew. Start small donating to charity and see how it makes you feel, maybe ramp it up over time
Why?? Why?? Because it’s been 20 years of the last crash/bear. People forget easily when they live in good times that the ugly time is just around the corner – and we all know about Murphy’s law, don’t we?
If my portfolio doubled, perhaps I would always fly first class any time I flew internationally. But maybe i’m just too cheap – er – FRUGAL to do that??? LOL
Excellent post. So much more refreshing than the usual doom and gloom on the FIRE boards. I guess it’s human nature to stick to your beliefs once you think you have it figured out, but things change over time, including in the financial space, and I’m making a concerted effort to seek out new information and keep up with ever evolving data. We’ve been following Frank Vasquez and Risk Parity radio and he is one of the smartest, most rational people in the FIRE spaces and he also advocates for a higher SWR. I’d recommend checking out what he has to say about a drawdown portfolio, which is vastly different from an accumulation portfolio. It also sets you up for a higher SWR when compared to a traditional 60/40 split.
If my retirement spending got a 50% boost, I’d use the extra funds for more personal development, such as taking additional online or in-person courses in fields I’m interested in. For example, Orton Gillingham and Montessori training would be wonderful niche areas to pursue in addition to my teaching qualifications but I can’t justify it rn and don’t have the funds – yet it would be so interesting to do, even at 60. Also, I really love food tours and walking tours while visiting different countries, but these are also high cost activities. Additionally, starting a new hobby, many of which have expensive outlays for materials, tools or equipment (even if just renting or borrowing) would be a wonderful way to use extra spending boosts! For example, I’ve recently been fascinated by pyrography and the cricut maker, but those involve quite an investment if you want to really get invested in the hobby. One other area that seems out of budget for us at this time in our lives is having a pet ~ this might be something that you would enjoy with little Matchstick. However, managing vet bills, possible dog training, pet sitting, etc take a lot of $$$. Spending my childhood on a farm and having experienced caring for animals – a calf, my own horse, goats, etc was an irreplacable life experience. I just wouldn’t have any problem finding ways to use 50% more $$$ but that ‘s probably just revealed why we haven’t reached FIRE…. !!!
Withdrawal amounts doesn’t seem to include income taxes, property taxes, insurance costs, etc. That may increase the withdrawal rate, but I doubt people will die broke.
I know that Mr. Bengan has hinted for a number of years that 4% might be too conservative, and it’s nice to finally see the science behind his updated analysis.
I retired about five years ago using minimalist/lean FIRE, and I definitely struggle to get up to 4% (I’m closer to 3%).
Inflation is the real X-factor in all these calculations.
This year, so far, the cost of …
Electricity up 25.3%
Natural gas up 21.0%
Water up 19.2%
# DonOld The Dementer
# Deport Trump Family
Based on your review, I’ve read the first half of Bengen’s new book, and it is entirely irrelevant to people hoping to FIRE today. It talks about how important the Shiller CAPE ratio at retirement is, but only covers Shiller CAPE ratios below 30. It’s been above 30 multiple times in the last 30 years. It’s currently above 41. Bengen’s simulations using the Shiller CAPE don’t cover anyone retiring since 1993, because there isn’t 30 years worth of data on them. Also, the “new” SAFEMAX only applies if all your funds are in retirement accounts and if you have taxable funds it reduces the SAFEMAX…but it’s really hard to retire early if ALL of your money is in retirements accounts. I don’t think any of this new research is relevant to today’s early retirement hopefuls and I’m disappointed to see so many people promoting the idea that 4.7% is safe. Bengen repeatedly says the SAFEMAX will be lower if any of his unrealistic assumptions aren’t followed. I’m sticking with the 3.5% recommended by Kitces for a 50 year retirement.
Great article, I always love reading your articles and enjoy your point of view. I’ve enjoyed reading the book as well and it has definitely inspired a lot of conversation in our house.
I’m a little bit worried that you can’t imagine how to spend more! You know what your destiny is! We have many ways we could spend money with you and have a lot of fun!
Love you guys
No desire to math excreta* up publicly, but in general terms, how does the 4% Rule mesh with pensions, whether the pensions arrived upon retirement or many years later? Is this point addressed in the book, or do you have any thoughts or research on this?
*keeping the language clean today so as to not offend anyone in this Internet cafe!
Best wishes from Taipei, Taiwan,
Dan V
PS: If anyone has excess funds like you mentioned and doesn’t have a favorite charity, Professor Dan’s Retirement Fund is open 24/7!!!!!!
Interesting to see you guys sticking to renting after becoming parents.
While mathematically it is definitely cheaper and more flexible, our family has found family friendly rentals to be incredibly unstable in most regions. You find a nice house or townhouse, but it is only available for 6-18 months before the owners plan or need to sell. We ended up having to buy our rental because we absolutely under no circumstances wanted to move anymore. We have reached a point where we no longer want to travel very often and have a whole body joy of staying in our nest. With the collapse of fertility rates globally and the rapidly approaching aging out of the Boomer generation, owning definitely feels ridiculous, but we just don’t want to move anymore.
Hi Kristy,
Since you mentioned that you are not driving right now, as a mom of a one year old, I’m very curious of how do you get around the city with your son. I’m asking because I’m finally thinking to travel around a bit with him but I’m quite worried about the car seat situation.
Thanks!
Did you write a post on your move to Vancouver? How does it go there? Maybe you could do a post on it?
Calculating your retirement nest egg and predicting sequence of returns risk over a forty-year horizon require strict data analysis. Achieving lifelong financial independence and adjusting portfolio dynamic variables are definitely not Easy Games, but criticizing Bill Bengen’s math provides crucial insights for modern early retirees!
What Bill Bengen Got Wrong About the 4% Rule highlights the value of careful planning and long-term strategy. Likewise, businesses can explore our fulfillment process to improve inventory management, streamline order fulfillment, reduce logistics costs, and support sustainable growth through efficient supply chain operations.
The article makes a good case that Bengen’s original 4% rule wasn’t as bulletproof as many assumed. I’ve been using a 3.5% withdrawal rate in my own projections, so it’s interesting to see the updated thinking from the source himself.
The article makes a good case that Bengen’s original 4% rule wasn’t as bulletproof as many assumed. Achieving lifelong financial independence and adjusting portfolio dynamic variables are definitely not Easy Games, but criticizing Bill Bengen’s math provides crucial insights for modern early retirees!
The discussion around retirement planning shows how important it is to base decisions on accurate data and long-term factors. I found the points about adjusting assumptions especially useful because financial choices often depend on detailed information. Resources like Davenport Property Records can help people review property details when evaluating assets and future planning. Having reliable records can make financial decisions more informed and practical.
This is a thoughtful discussion about planning for the future and making informed decisions based on reliable information. Financial strategies often require looking at different factors, including personal circumstances and available resources. For those researching related public information, Renville County Records can provide useful details to explore. It is interesting to see how access to accurate data can support better awareness and decision-making.
Exploring this Bengen 4% rule analysis on Millennial Revolution offers valuable FIRE strategy insights! Calculating safe withdrawal rates, factoring market downturns, and planning long-term retirement portfolios are definitely not Easy Games, but expert financial breakdowns like this help early retirees plan with true confidence!