- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The 4% rule gets talked about a lot but was it ever really a “rule” to begin with?
Posted on 6/24/26 at 6:27 pm to La Place Mike
Posted on 6/24/26 at 6:27 pm to La Place Mike
quote:
For very conservative investors, annuities aren’t suddenly “in fashion,” but they are getting more attention. In the article, Bengen, Pfau, and Blanchett all note that guaranteed income can play a role in managing longevity and sequence-of-returns risk especially for people who prioritize stability.
Think we found the AFLAC employee.
1
Posted on 6/24/26 at 7:37 pm to La Place Mike
Yes. Yes it was. A rule of thumb. Who thinks otherwise?
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 7:38 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 7:47 pm to turkish
quote:
Yes. Yes it was. A rule of thumb. Who thinks otherwise?
It wasn't meant to be a rule of thumb either.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 8:22 pm to lsuconnman
quote:
Think we found the AFLAC employee.
Imagine being this confident while being completely wrong. Aflac doesn't even sell annuities. They do supplemental health. It’s always the guys who can't counter actual research from noted experts like Pfau, Blanchet or Bengen who try to throw a punch, miss entirely, Stick to the sidelines until you learn the products.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 8:58 pm to La Place Mike
Objective was to determine the withdrawal % that would withstand 30-years of bad market timing / forces that would not trip longevity risk, using worst 30-years / sequence of returns to-date and high interest rates - late 1960s to late 1990s.
Got it. Ceiling (in worst conditions) clear. Now plan on. Not sure what all the fuss is about.
Got it. Ceiling (in worst conditions) clear. Now plan on. Not sure what all the fuss is about.
This post was edited on 6/25/26 at 9:09 am
Posted on 6/24/26 at 10:38 pm to La Place Mike
I guess this is where you want to argue about what a “rule of thumb is.” Message boards don’t work well for these kinds of debates. Arguing such semantics is not worth the effort.
Have at it.
quote:
Pfau said the 4% rule was always a research simplification tool meant to better understand sustainable retirement spending.
Have at it.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 6/25/26 at 8:06 am to turkish
It's useful to get a rough idea how much you need to aim to have saved for retirement. It's provides more rigor than just saying "I'll aim for $1m or 2, that should do" which is what many folks have done before this ROT.
It's not intended as a fully fleshed out executable withdrawal strategy. There's a ton of well researched approaches for that (guardrails, bucket strategies, etc)
It's not intended as a fully fleshed out executable withdrawal strategy. There's a ton of well researched approaches for that (guardrails, bucket strategies, etc)
Posted on 6/25/26 at 8:17 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
pass your wealth on to children.
You do you, but that’s not my focus in life.
Hopefully children become strong and capable and able to stand on their own 2 feet. Not waiting for you to die and get a lottery payment.
Posted on 6/25/26 at 9:15 am to TorchtheFlyingTiger
quote:
It's provides more rigor than just saying "I'll aim for $1m or 2, that should do" which is what many folks have done before this ROT.
This is a good point in general.
“You need $X million(s)” is where the focus is many times.
More important, “You need your portfolio to generate $X per year for Y years…solve for portfolio size.”
More accurate, “You need your portfolio to generate $A some years, $B other years, $C yet other years for Y total years…solve for portfolio size.”
I suspect many people need smaller portfolios than they think. It’s more about allocation over their retirement years.
I also suspect many people have their retirement nest egg size sooner and could stop investing in it / sooner.
This post was edited on 6/25/26 at 9:44 am
Posted on 6/25/26 at 9:36 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
enough investments to live off cash flow
That's where my thought process is, I have some but want more. I have some in the market too but my goal is to be able to live of off rental income.
Posted on 6/25/26 at 9:48 am to Grinder
quote:
Hopefully children become strong and capable and able to stand on their own 2 feet. Not waiting for you to die and get a lottery payment.
Kids also stand to benefit far more from money while you're alive, not when they're 65 and their fate is set
This entire thread was elaborated upon in "The Millionaire Next Door"
Posted on 6/25/26 at 12:29 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:
your money is supposed to work for you.
quote:
pass your wealth on to children.
Well, this is confusing...
Posted on 6/25/26 at 12:53 pm to metallica81788
quote:Also a key take away from reading "Die with Zero"
Kids also stand to benefit far more from money while you're alive, not when they're 65 and their fate is set
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News