Skip to content 
This Friday Feature gets deep into the weeds discussing the 4% Rule (of thumb) as a safe withdrawal rate that is considered to be very unlikely to deplete one’s retirement funds over a reasonable retirement timeframe.
I must admit that I altered the title from “Doesn’t Work” to “May Not Work.” That slight change may result in fewer pageviews – people react more strongly to black and white messaging — but the truth is that there are very few absolutes in retirement planning.
Well, we do know that the government’s going to take some of it, so be sure you factor in taxes when calculating your future annual spending. Federal income tax may be zero, but it’s essentially not possible to avoid all taxes unless your annual spend is zero.
This detailed post with the formerly heretical title was originally published on Cashflows and Portfolios.
The 4% rule is a common rule of thumb in many retirement planning circles, including the Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) community in particular.
What does the 4% rule actually mean?
Should the 4% rule be used for any FIRE-seeker?
Does the 4% rule really matter to retirement planning at all?
Read on to find out our take, including what rules of thumb (if any) we’re using at Cashflows & Portfolios for our early retirement dreams.
The 4% rule is really a starting point for a safe withdrawal rate
Unlike 2 + 2 = 4, the 4% rule is not really a universal truth for any retirement plan at all.
It is, however, in our opinion, a great starting point to understand the impacts of asset decumulation, related to inflation, over time.
As you’ll read more about in the sections below, the 4% rule is fraught with many problems. None more so than for an early retiree or FIRE-seeker. In some cases, for the FIRE community, we believe the 4% rule should no longer be used at all.
Are any financial rules really rules?
Backing up, here is the source for the 4% rule.
The article from 1994!
Despite the geeky photo, by all accounts, Bill Bengen was one heckuva guy and a smart guy as well!
Potentially no other retirement planning rule of thumb has received more attention over the last 25-30 years than Bengen’s publication about the 4% rule. This publication in 1994 has triggered a new generation of devotees and arm-chair financial planners that are using this quick-math as a way to cement some retirement dreams. We believe that is a mistake for a few reasons.
First, let’s unpack what the 4% rule really means.
What does the 4% rule actually mean?
From the study:
“In Figures 1 (a)-l(d), a series of graphs illustrates the historical performance of portfolios consisting of 50-percent intermediate-term Treasury notes and 50-percent common stocks (an arbitrary asset allocation chosen for purposes of illustration). I have quantified portfolio performance in terms of “portfolio longevity”: how long the portfolio will last before all its investments have been exhausted by
withdrawals. This is an intuitive approach that is easy to explain to my clients, whose primary goal is making it through retirement without exhausting their funds, and whose secondary goal is accumulating wealth for their heirs.”
Unpacking this further, for those that do not want to read the entire study, here is something more succinct from Bengen:
“Should be safe”.
Again, the theory is one thing. Reality is something different and the financial future is always subject to change. Furthermore, if you’re blindly following this formula without considering whether it’s right for your situation, let alone putting in some guardrail approach to monitor your portfolio value at various checkpoints, you could end up either running out of money prematurely or being left with a huge financial surplus that you could have spent during your retirement. We’ll prove that point in a bit from another leading author.
Should the 4% rule be used for any FIRE-seeker?
Probably not. For many reasons.
Recently, Vanguard published an outstanding article about the need to revise any thinking about the 4% rule for the FIRE movement – a driver for this post.
Although the 4% rule remains a decent rule of thumb we believe most FIRE-seekers should heed the cautions in the Vanguard post. Here are some of our thoughts based on the article’s contents.
- Caution #1 – FIRE-seekers should not rely on past performance for future returns
We agree. In looking at this Vanguard set of assumptions below, and based on our own personal investing experiences, we believe historical returns should not be used to guarantee any future results.
Source: Vanguard article – Fueling the FIRE movement
While the FP Canada Standards Council doesn’t have a multi-year (10-year) return model in mind, they did highlight in their latest projection assumption guidelines that going forward, investor returns may not be as juicy as in years past.
This means for any historical studies, while interesting, may not be a great predictor of any future outcomes.
- Caution #2 – The FIRE-seeking time horizon is longer
Bengen noted in his 1994 study:
“Therefore, I counsel my clients to withdraw at no more than a four-percent rate during the early years of retirement, especially if they retire early (age 60 or younger). Assuming they have normal life expectancies, they should live at least 25-30 years. If they wish to leave some wealth to their heirs, their expected “portfolio lives” should be some longer than that. “
Bengen goes on to say:
“If the client expects to live another 30 years, I point out that the chart shows 31 scenario years when he would outlive his assets, and only 20 which would have been adequate for his purposes (as we shall see later, a different asset allocation would improve this, but it would still be uncomfortable, in my opinion).
This means he has less than a 40-percent chance to successfully negotiate retirement–not very good odds.”
To paraphrase, Bengen’s study was relevant to 30 years in retirement. Not 35 years. Not 40 years and certainly not 50 years like some FIRE-seekers may need if they plan to retire at age 40 and live to age 90 (or beyond).
This is simply a huge reminder that your time horizon is a critical factor when it comes to retirement planning.
- Caution #3 – FIRE-seekers may need to live with more stocks
Bengen’s 1994 study was based on the following:
“Note that my conclusions above were based on the assumption that the client continually rebalanced a portfolio of 50-percent common stocks and 50-percent intermediate-term Treasuries.”
What might happen if the Bengen portfolio was adjusted to 75% stocks and 25% fixed income?
“Would a higher percentages of stocks, given their higher rates of return, be beneficial to the client?”
Yes.
From the study:
“Clearly, the heavier weighting in stocks in Figure 3(a) has produced some fairly significant improvements. Fully 47 scenario years result in portfolio longevities of the maximum of 50 years,
while only 40 scenario years attained that pinnacle in the earlier chart. The only penalties occur in portfolio year 1966, which is shortened by one year, from 33 to 32 years, and in 1969, which is shortened from 36 years to 34. All the other scenario years have equal or greater longevity.”
The takeaway message is (historically speaking) to achieve a higher rate of return and to support portfolio longevity, one must consider a higher, longer-term weighting in stocks over fixed income.
The Bengen study was based on a 50-50 stock to fixed income allocation. We believe FIRE-seekers should at least consider a 75% weighting in their portfolio to stocks: to fight inflation and to mitigate portfolio longevity risks.
- Caution #4 – FIRE-seekers must consider dynamic spending
The reality is, your spending today in your asset accumulation years is dynamic – spending is not a straight line. Therefore, we wouldn’t expect such spending to fall into any straight-line thinking either.
From the Vanguard article:
“The 4% rule uses a dollar-plus-inflation strategy. In your first year of retirement, you spend 4% of your savings. After your first year, you increase that amount annually by inflation. This approach allows you to calculate a stable, inflation-adjusted amount to withdraw each year.”
“However, this approach doesn’t take market performance into account.”
Unfortunately with any 4% rule guidelines – it does not account for real-life market fluctuations and your spending patterns to match. Thinking about a dynamic or Variable Percentage Withdrawal (VPW) strategy in our opinion is much more useful and practical.
Physicians and pharmacists, Register with Incrowd for the opportunity to earn easy money with quick "microsurveys" tailored to your specialty.
Variable Percentage Withdrawals (VPW) 101
The essence of this approach is to compute an income payment required to deplete your portfolio at N years assuming asset allocation and portfolio returns during retirement. For example, N years could be age 99 or 100. This method uses variable (and an increasing) percentage (hence the name) to determine withdrawals from a portfolio during retirement.
Each year, the withdrawal is determined by multiplying that year’s percentage by the current portfolio balance at the time of withdrawal. Consider VPW as return-adjusted withdrawals working in a defined timeline.
Consider this VPW table from Bogleheads:
| Variable-Percentage Withdrawal Rates Based on Age and Asset Allocation | |||||||
| Age | 20% Stocks 80% Bonds |
30% Stocks 70% Bonds |
40% Stocks 60% Bonds |
50% Stocks 50% Bonds |
60% Stocks 40% Bonds |
70% Stocks 30% Bonds |
80% Stocks 20% Bonds |
| 40 | 3.2% | 3.4% | 3.6% | 3.9% | 4.1% | 4.4% | 4.7% |
| 41 | 3.2% | 3.4% | 3.7% | 3.9% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.7% |
| 42 | 3.2% | 3.4% | 3.7% | 3.9% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.7% |
| 43 | 3.2% | 3.5% | 3.7% | 3.9% | 4.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% |
| 44 | 3.3% | 3.5% | 3.7% | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% |
| 45 | 3.3% | 3.5% | 3.7% | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.5% | 4.8% |
| 46 | 3.3% | 3.5% | 3.8% | 4.0% | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.8% |
| 47 | 3.3% | 3.6% | 3.8% | 4.0% | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.8% |
| 48 | 3.4% | 3.6% | 3.8% | 4.1% | 4.3% | 4.6% | 4.8% |
| 49 | 3.4% | 3.6% | 3.9% | 4.1% | 4.3% | 4.6% | 4.8% |
| 50 | 3.4% | 3.7% | 3.9% | 4.1% | 4.4% | 4.6% | 4.9% |
| 51 | 3.5% | 3.7% | 3.9% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.6% | 4.9% |
| 52 | 3.5% | 3.7% | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.7% | 4.9% |
| 53 | 3.5% | 3.8% | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.5% | 4.7% | 5.0% |
| 54 | 3.6% | 3.8% | 4.0% | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | 5.0% |
| 55 | 3.6% | 3.9% | 4.1% | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.8% | 5.0% |
| 56 | 3.7% | 3.9% | 4.1% | 4.3% | 4.6% | 4.8% | 5.1% |
| 57 | 3.7% | 3.9% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.6% | 4.9% | 5.1% |
| 58 | 3.8% | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.7% | 4.9% | 5.1% |
| 59 | 3.8% | 4.0% | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | 4.9% | 5.2% |
| 60 | 3.9% | 4.1% | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.8% | 5.0% | 5.2% |
| 61 | 3.9% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.6% | 4.8% | 5.0% | 5.3% |
| 62 | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.6% | 4.9% | 5.1% | 5.3% |
| 63 | 4.1% | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | 4.9% | 5.2% | 5.4% |
| 64 | 4.1% | 4.3% | 4.6% | 4.8% | 5.0% | 5.2% | 5.4% |
| 65 | 4.2% | 4.4% | 4.6% | 4.8% | 5.1% | 5.3% | 5.5% |
| 66 | 4.3% | 4.5% | 4.7% | 4.9% | 5.1% | 5.4% | 5.6% |
| 67 | 4.4% | 4.6% | 4.8% | 5.0% | 5.2% | 5.4% | 5.6% |
| 68 | 4.5% | 4.7% | 4.9% | 5.1% | 5.3% | 5.5% | 5.7% |
| 69 | 4.6% | 4.8% | 5.0% | 5.2% | 5.4% | 5.6% | 5.8% |
| 70 | 4.7% | 4.9% | 5.1% | 5.3% | 5.5% | 5.7% | 5.9% |
| 71 | 4.8% | 5.0% | 5.2% | 5.4% | 5.6% | 5.8% | 6.0% |
| 72 | 4.9% | 5.1% | 5.3% | 5.5% | 5.7% | 5.9% | 6.1% |
| 73 | 5.0% | 5.2% | 5.4% | 5.6% | 5.8% | 6.0% | 6.2% |
| 74 | 5.1% | 5.3% | 5.5% | 5.7% | 5.9% | 6.1% | 6.3% |
| 75 | 5.3% | 5.5% | 5.7% | 5.9% | 6.1% | 6.3% | 6.5% |
| 76 | 5.5% | 5.6% | 5.8% | 6.0% | 6.2% | 6.4% | 6.6% |
| 77 | 5.6% | 5.8% | 6.0% | 6.2% | 6.4% | 6.6% | 6.8% |
| 78 | 5.8% | 6.0% | 6.2% | 6.4% | 6.6% | 6.8% | 7.0% |
| 79 | 6.0% | 6.2% | 6.4% | 6.6% | 6.8% | 7.0% | 7.2% |
| 80 | 6.3% | 6.4% | 6.6% | 6.8% | 7.0% | 7.2% | 7.4% |
| 81 | 6.5% | 6.7% | 6.9% | 7.1% | 7.2% | 7.4% | 7.6% |
| 82 | 6.8% | 7.0% | 7.2% | 7.3% | 7.5% | 7.7% | 7.9% |
| 83 | 7.1% | 7.3% | 7.5% | 7.6% | 7.8% | 8.0% | 8.2% |
| 84 | 7.5% | 7.6% | 7.8% | 8.0% | 8.2% | 8.4% | 8.5% |
| 85 | 7.9% | 8.0% | 8.2% | 8.4% | 8.6% | 8.8% | 8.9% |
| 86 | 8.3% | 8.5% | 8.7% | 8.9% | 9.0% | 9.2% | 9.4% |
| 87 | 8.9% | 9.0% | 9.2% | 9.4% | 9.6% | 9.7% | 9.9% |
| 88 | 9.5% | 9.7% | 9.8% | 10.0% | 10.2% | 10.3% | 10.5% |
| 89 | 10.3% | 10.4% | 10.6% | 10.7% | 10.9% | 11.1% | 11.2% |
| 90 | 11.1% | 11.3% | 11.5% | 11.6% | 11.8% | 11.9% | 12.1% |
| 91 | 12.2% | 12.4% | 12.5% | 12.7% | 12.9% | 13.0% | 13.2% |
| 92 | 13.6% | 13.8% | 13.9% | 14.1% | 14.2% | 14.4% | 14.5% |
| 93 | 15.4% | 15.5% | 15.7% | 15.8% | 16.0% | 16.1% | 16.3% |
| 94 | 17.7% | 17.9% | 18.0% | 18.1% | 18.3% | 18.4% | 18.6% |
| 95 | 21.0% | 21.1% | 21.3% | 21.4% | 21.5% | 21.7% | 21.8% |
| 96 | 25.9% | 26.1% | 26.2% | 26.3% | 26.4% | 26.6% | 26.7% |
| 97 | 34.2% | 34.3% | 34.4% | 34.5% | 34.6% | 34.7% | 34.8% |
| 98 | 50.6% | 50.7% | 50.8% | 50.9% | 50.9% | 51.0% | 51.1% |
| 99 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
You can find more information about VPW on My Own Advisor’s site here.
“Giving yourself more spending flexibility may decrease your income stability, but it increases your long-term chance of success. Our research shows that when a FIRE investor with a 50-year retirement horizon uses a dynamic spending strategy, their probability of success in retirement increases from 56% to 90%.**”
Does the 4% rule really matter to retirement planning at all?
- Portfolio: 80% equities/ 20% fixed income
- Annual Return: 5.70%
- Retirement age: 40
- TFSA Balance: $100,000
- Inflation rate: 2%
- Withdrawal rate: 4% increasing with inflation
The result? Using our retirement projection tools (contact us if you need some help determining if you have enough to retire), assuming a consistent return of 5.7%/year, the TFSA ran dry by age 98. Not bad, using the Bengen 4% withdrawal rule (increasing to inflation), the money lasted a full lifetime (for most).
While achieving consistent returns year after year would be nice, the market does not work that way. Some years will be up, others down which is fine while an investor is accumulating, but in retirement, the sequence of returns really matters. How much? Well, let’s run the same projection using the worst real-world 10-year sequence of returns since 1965.
The result? The same TFSA is depleted by age 65, only 25 years after starting retirement.
This illustrates the damage that can happen to a portfolio when withdrawing a constant amount year after year and not adjusting for down years (see VPW above for a safer strategy).
Final Thoughts
Altogether, if you expect to live for 30 years or less from the date of retirement, then the 4% rule may work for you providing that you have the right allocation of stocks/bonds (at least 60% equities). However, if you are an early retiree in your 40’s or 50’s, and you have a long retirement to pay for, then you may want to consider a safer strategy like the VPW schedule indicated above.
As Vanguard modeled with over 10,000 scenarios, the VPW strategy has a high success rate with longer retirement time frames which is especially important during turbulent times.
4 thoughts on “The 4% Rule May Not Work for Early Retirement”
See what happens when you run the numbers using a correct risk parity portfolio, such as the Golden Butterfly, or several of them. basketball stars
Try running the figures using one or more suitable jigsaw puzzle risk parity portfolios, such as the Golden Butterfly portfolio, and see how much of a difference it makes in the results.
Try running the numbers using one or more proper risk parity portfolios like the Golden Butterfly portfolio and see the difference that makes.
Bit of a mixed message here. The #s provided are well over 4%, but I think it’s critical to point out that VPW is NOT a free lunch. If you increase your stock allocation (fully agree), then you need to be comfortable with more volatility = a steeper drop in your portfolio in an inevitable bear market. 5% VPW of a stock-heavy portfolio that dropped 40% means you’re only getting 40% of what you got the previous year. That’s not mentioned here and would certainly not be fun.
I would say FIRE requires
1. higher stock allocation
2. flexible withdrawals
3. and most important WELL OVER 25X expenses to account for taxes and higher volatility