So we have a set of facts which is the data and then we have interpretations of the data. How you view the data/facts is important. We all have biases.
My bias is to maximize my happiness. To me that means working as little as possible to get to a level where I can live a lifestyle that provides me maximum happiness. My job is a negative input into my happiness so I want to minimize this over the course of my life. I need to feel financially secure which means being really comfortable with my numbers and being open to my situation. I have to take some risk because 100% safety isn't possible and it's not the right mindset to view the problem from.
There is also a flip side. You can't remove the work longer variable out of the equation completely.
Maybe. It depends. That approach is not a guarantee. This is an important point because you have to try not to let your bias impact your interpretation of the facts. The key problem with this approach is defining your expenses over your life. It's impossible. If you save a relative small stash external hits can impact you more.
A portfolio worth 1 million handles an increased expense of 10 thousand dollars a lot better than a portfolio of 500k.
Agreed to a point. You have to think a whole bunch of parameters through. I suppose the 4% rule is the wrong question. The question should be how do you define your safety level in relation to your financial situation. You have to consider everything including the cost of working.jacob wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:57 pmFor example, my WR is now <0.66% so I've allocated some 10-15% to short-term TIPS which is enough to carry me for 15+ years until SS kicks in; the other 85% invested is just bonus. Different risk-profile entirely. All I have to worry about in terms of "liquidity" is a collapse of the US government as a going concern.
This is not investment advice. It is, however, advising to consider where you sit in the parameter space of savings rates, needs/wants ratio, absolute spending, ... in terms of whether whatever rule is dead or alive. IOW, you don't have to have this problem---it is not a given problem, it is a chosen one based on which financial terrain you're fighting in (see Sun Tzu, chapter 9 IIRC).
It is chosen by the variables you're willing or capable of considering.
You can't though hide the work/life balance trade off unless that isn't a factor to you which doesn't make sense to me. Why ever quit ? It becomes a non financial decision.
The thing is if I don't run out of money I have worked too long. I've done that on a 5% WR. I reckon this is going to be the case. From my perspective getting lower than 5% is definitely a non optimal approach. I don't actually believe that to be the case because how other people implement their learnings from the data (or facts) will be completely different and unique. It's sort of the wrong question when you put it down to an individual level of detail.
Form a future prediction perspective who really knows. It might be. It might not be.