Abraham Okusanya beyond the 4 Rule

If readers don`t like this approach, they shouldn`t comment. Ditto if they think it sounds arrogant or complacent. I`m only interested in what I`ve found best to encourage useful discussions on the site. I`m not interested in describing a set of rules or etiquette and then discussing it with trolls. (I fully understand that this is not what *you* are demanding or proposing. But that`s what would happen.) The comments section on Monevator is a benign dictatorship. Thank you for the review. Despite your recommendation, I think I`m going to miss this book because I`m probably already beyond this introductory story. Their arguments against the book`s recommendation for a UK portfolio are both compelling and something that any serious researcher should know, so I wonder if the author is naïve about the correct analysis of the statistical data. I would also add that the composition of the UK stock market varies considerably over time, so it is really wrong to make projections based on the past performance/volatility of this single market (now less than 8% of global stock markets by value). There`s also a handy section at the end that shows how to optimize your SWR based on various “Beyond the 4% Rule” factors that you can incorporate into your plan. They add SWR points for positives such as variable payment strategies and subtract points for negative points such as fees. So far, I have not seen any credible evidence that we should care about the 4% rule.

Those who do seem to add a stupid 1% fee and predict that the future will be much worse than our far from perfect and less prosperous past? 50/50 slots are also not the most effective way to maintain your pots, even if you look inside. Even if you follow the 4% rule, the median of 1m will bring you to 100% equity at 17m! As Britain suffers more in history, it may be 14 million. I still don`t think many will complain about it. Abraham then manages flexible payment strategies (i.e. not just increasing payments through inflation each year) with inflation adjustment options, including Guyton and advanced payment rules like the “ratchet”. The traditional 4% rule is a payment strategy adjusted for constant inflation. You withdraw 4% from your portfolio as initial income. Then you would adjust the year 2 income based on the rate of inflation. Repeat this for each year of your retirement. Like what.

20,000 years 1 portfolio income of £500,000 @ initial SWR of 4%. Year 2 inflation = 3%. Year 2 income = £20,000 x 1.03 = £20,600. With this strategy, the 4% of SWR is only applied in year 1. After that, your income is multiplied by inflation each year to maintain actual spending. PS – Your original steel cable must be decommissioned to account for the impact of capital costs. Show me some really credible scenarios where we should fear the 4% rule, and I`ll consider looking at it. and by credible, I don`t mean the rare 10% of times it has failed or the imaginary land – the future will be worse A small income goes very, very far if you can effectively multiply every £25 based on the 4% rule. Being able to successfully manage my portfolio beyond FI is essential for my future life and for many of our readers. Therefore, I am now steeped in the theory of decocumulation and have been exchanging ideas with Monevator readers on the Living Off Your Money thread for months. @TI, I`ve tapped my ankles [very politely] with comments in the past, not knowing I was breaking rules I didn`t know.

so can I suggest you have a small “comment label” section. That way, everyone will know where they stand, and you don`t need to occasionally remind people to stay polite/thematic? I obviously very much appreciate the effort you put into this quality page, and I`m sure everyone would be happy to maintain this standard – in some articles, the comment itself is surprisingly interesting. Sorry if I didn`t realize that this already exists in one form or another and just missed it.. For me, these pop-up bars are a scourge of the Internet and have introduced unnecessary clutter on virtually every website, as well as an extra click that everyone makes automatically and that, ironically, only further increases the amount of cookie use on the Internet (because the consent you give to make the bar disappear is itself stored in a cookie). But I don`t write the rules. @Survivor — Aside from the obvious (you might think…) not to be offensive for no reason, not to be racist, et cetera, the rule is basically that if I don`t like it or if I think it`s off topic, I can remove it. The 4% rule hasn`t worked as advertised for most countries: advisorperspectives.com/newsletters14/pdfs/Does_International_Diversification_Improve_Safe_Withdrawal_Rates.pdf I don`t see much risk in the 4% rule and things like 2.5%, if you can get more than that in dividends in the UK alone, makes me think people are crazy to go so low. However, the blind 4% would work more than 80% of the time. There`s a better chance you`ll die in your car on your way home from work than the 4% rule will let you down. Yes, Japan is an example. But honestly, they`ve made one mistake after another and their businesses aren`t really profitable – so that`s a rare exception to the rule. But they are getting back on track for now.