While technically true, that is highly misleading way to present it. We can see how people think 2000 was a bad year to retire and how they start with equal portfolios, which makes no sense at all unless we justify market timing and that we have the ability to achieve perfect market timing.Yeah, that's still starting with a lower withdrawal rate even if you're adjusting it later depending on returns.The key to a heavier stock allocation is taking what the market delivers and getting a safer portfolio through portfolio size. You can spend that same 40000 per year as the 80/20 portfolio and start spending more once you see that your sequence is working well.
It's not the size that makes it safer. It's the size relative to the need. The lower withdrawal rate makes it safer.
This is how people conclude 2000 (where we achieve 54-64x expenses with 10% savings rate and only 28 years of working) was a poor year to retire.
Who cares if the SWR percentage was low, we started with 50-60x expenses. If we only made it to 25x expenses after 1972-2000 accumulation we would have failed in almost any other retirement year with that same (much less than 10%) savings rate.
The portfolio is safer because it is bigger, not because we need to spend less. Using percentages to say we spend a lower percentage misleads people here, as evidenced by the posts here.
Imagine the Japan sequence with a 2.5% SWR, but where you achieved 200x expenses with that same 10% savings rate. 2.5% of 200x expenses is five times as much spending as 4% of 25x expenses. Japan 1980's was even better than US year 2000 retirement, with more than twice the safe spending.
Statistics: Posted by abc132 — Fri Oct 31, 2025 9:54 pm — Replies 154 — Views 15772