RR

[@georgeagan]

This format is great! Noticed there's been lots of content on the 4% rule across the podcasts so good idea to put it all together. 👍

[@timelston4260]

This format will change my viewing habits to how I watch CSI episodes: over and over again over many years. Smart!

[@igorx94]

This format amplifies the access and impact of the amazing content in this channel. Fantastic idea and execution!

[@saxz99]

What a fantastic idea. This is absolute gold, thanks for putting it together.

[@anthonyvazquez8742]

Love this comprehensive overview episode layout. This channel is filled with tons of great information from all your work and interviews. This makes gor a nice succinct way to access some big topics. Thanks!

Great episode. I love it more than usually :) My thoughts on 4 % rule: Like profesor Milevsky said, everybody has ist own version of the 4 % rule. I never took it literally. It never occured to me that somebody would take it as given and really withdraw 4 % + inflation every year without any other adjustments. To me it is just a concept. An idea that there even is something like the safe withdrawal rate - which I did not hear or know about before the 4 % rule. Of course I am going to adjust my spendings if the markets are outperforming or if my portfolio is getting dangerously smaller. Of course I need to be flexible, have other sources of income/be diversified and not rely on my stock portfolio 100 %. Thats why I never understood the bashing of 4 % rule and arguing about if it is safe or not. I just had a different and more flexible version of it in my mind. Now a question: when do you get Big ERN on the podcast? :)

[@BenCarnage]

The simple solve to the 4 % rule is to maximally withdraw 4 % of the current value of the portfolio during a single year. So if the value of your portfolio is halved during a year, the amount you can withdraw is also halved. I do like a bit of liquidity, so I usually keep enough to sustain a year (if carefully managed). I also invest in cost saving meassures, which makes the amount needed smaller and more consistent. E.g. Solar, new appliances, better insulation, water saving attachments. Also passive rental income, which covers a large portion of day to day costs of living. I think the biggest trick to early retirement schemes/perpetual income is to cut spending and to be adaptable. Maybe don't buy a new car during a financial crash ;P. Have good insurance coverage for most things to dodge sudden large expenditures at inopportune times. I'll probably work 50 % or so for quite some time beyond when I have 25 x my annual needs invested. Going straight to retirement might not be smart. Better to try the waters :P See if you can keep yourself busy and entertained.

[@tylermacneill3820]

This format is fantastic. Really excellent video guys, well done!

[@fib6156]

Great show; I suggest you dive into endowment spending rules as it is a close topic and I suspect there is a wealth of insights to be taken from that industry. Maybe not always available to retail investors but still interesting. In other words, it would be great to get some (university) endowments and or family offices on the show. These institutions naturally look for longer time periods to last than 30 to 40 years.

[@midasderrek]

Love the condensing of previous material, hope you do it with other topics you've covered a lot of

[@ElektrikaCo]

WOW! Your podcast has been great, but now you took it to the next level. Please make this type of episode where you dive deeply into a single topic a series :)

[@JB-ov3qx]

Another great video very useful to have all the information in one place. Guideline not a rule is the key bit kf information for me. It's such a difficult thing to plan for because of all the variables in returns/inflation etc. I think the couple of things that are not mentioned much is actually the need for less spending as you get older and less mobile not to mention the increased income when you hit pension age. Very difficult to factor those in to a plan so long before though. Cheers guys keep up the good work

[@miekadriaens]

Amazing video, great work on compiling around such a fascinating topic, more of this please!

[@ghjong001]

This is fantastic; I'm really glad you did this.

[@rafaelcamposdesign]

Fantastic format.

[@casweeden]

Glad you mentioned Big ERN! :)

[@og7952]

Awesome podcast! I am a little bit tired of hearing people say they are going to retire with the 4% but for 50 years +

[@AnhNguyen-bi6vg]

Great idea. Thank you both! Always enjoy listening to your podcasts

[@rudged123]

Excellent summary. Please consider doing a similar podcast on asset allocation.

[@LitoFlautist]

This is a fantastic learning tool - thank you!

[@AnalyticalTips]

This was excellent. Thank you!

[@TheLukaszpg]

have run a simulation on my portfolio mix. Giving up inflation raise works with 4% WR for times when the value of portfolio drops below the initial value adjusted for inflation. Awesome.

[@lorelaimintz3034]

Amazing! I'm particularly fascinated with the idea of not adjusting for inflation if we hit a particularly harsh down market and the impact it has. I had never considered it!

[@ivankauf]

Please do more "review videos" like this, they are very helpful in order to give an overview about the subject.

[@smachsimo]

Longevity risk is the funniest way to describe people living longer than expected.

[@GreenCubeLandscapes]

Excellent podcast

[@stylezNsmilez]

will you guys be commentating on National Bank slashing their commissions to $0 for their direct brokerage business?

[@johnyjsl9219]

Is the conclusion that for a diversified portfolio the worst case scenario 4%?

[@ibrahibrak4210]

The worst 30 year returns since 1926 was 4.6% adjusted for inflation, wich would allow for a 30 year 6%withdrawal, the worst sequences factored in is how u get 4%. The 4% rule becomes even more conservative for younger retirees since theyre not 70 and can be extremely flexible in the first 5 to 10 years where you are most susceptible to sequence of return risk, ben felix mr common sense investing dosent use commons sense🤔. You heard bill Bengen and Michael kitsces both say 3.5% and 4% are very conservative for 50 year periods not even factoring in more flexibilty from younger retirees but you still say 2 to 4%. I wonder why, maybe a financial planner could benefit from larger portfolios🤫. Lastly wade pfaus comments were mind bogglingly bad. 2.8% of 100 is 37 years, if your stock market made zero gains and kept up with inflation the lowest amount you could expect is 3.4% wich is just 30 years cant beleive you couldn't do the simple math. If you beleive in your countries stock market the lowest you could go is 3.4% wich would also make no sense you might aswell just invest into something safer that just keeps up with inflation and you would get a 3.4% withdrawl for 30 years.

[@treyshaffer]

Please have Big ERN on!

[@andremadureira5966]

Does it make sense to withdraw 6.34% ( 1.09/1.025 = 1.0634 ) from what my current portfolio is worth? I mean, if I can expect the stock market to earn 9% nominal and inflation to be 2.5%, then we would have 6.34% real return per year. Then if my portfolio is worth 1 million, I could take 63k out of it. If markets goes down 50%, then I could take only 31.5k that year. Does that make sense? I would like to hear your thoughts about it. Any comment would be really appreciated. Thanks. I'm considering that if that strategy works, then it makes sense to try to reduce volatility in the portfolio with 25% us stocks, 25% reit, 25% international stocks, 25% international REITs. Or going 50% min vol us, and 50% min vol international.

[@ibrahibrak4210]

The snp 500 has averaged about 7% adjusted for inflation. the worst 30 year returns over the last decade were 4.6% adjusted for inflation, wich would allow you to withdraw 6% of your portfolio for 30 years without running out of money. the 4% rule is just taking the absolute worst sequence of returns and giving you the most conservative withdrawal rate. basically the first 5 to 10 years of years in retirement are the most important wich would be hard for someone in theirs 60s and 70s but if you're an early retiree you can be wayy more flexible, something ben dosent understand even though he calls himself common sense investing. Since 1926 there have been 10 10 years periods where you have had 5to7 year negative returns, while there have been 55 10 year periods with 1to3 negative year returns so just start of with a 6% withdrawal and if you get hit with a very unlikely horrible sequence reduce your withdrawals or dont withdraw at all from your portfolio for a few year and if the far more likely sequnces occur then love a good life. 😁

[@austingonzalez1148]

I feel like the focus is too heavy on the most rigid idea of also spending 4% of your portfolio. Anyone who's financially savvy enough to save in excess of 1-2M will understand your spend doesn't scale with the magnitude of your net worth. How would a saver even come to that conclusion. Ah I'm out of college making 45,000 with a negative net worth. Guess I'll spend negative dollars. I've turned 40, now I have a NW of 500,000 guess I must have a 5x spend as compared to when I had 100,000 NW. Fair. Don't blindly spend 4% of your portfolio. But this is restrictive to the point of being in helpful. Maintain a budget in your spending years as you did in your saying years. Real returns in excess of inflation need an investment strategy. Do you spend or invest accordingly.

[@innerscorecard9433]

has anybody modeled Buffett's portfolio foe his wife after he passes. (90% S&P and 10% money market) - how did that do over the years

[@duramajin3118]

Just remember financial advisors have a vested interest to keep you working longer and building a higher balance, this is why Ben is advocating a 1.8% withdrawl rate.

[@BenFelixCSI]

At 59:36 I say a SWR is probably somewhere between 2 and 4%. Throughout the video I am advocating for flexible withdrawals which result in *more efficient* spending (meaning spending more of your money while you are alive). You are of course free to have your opinion, but I do not appreciate the accusation that I am misleading people for my own benefit.

[@ZelenoJabko]

​@@BenFelixCSI I agree, but this episode made no sense. First you folks say 6 percent withdrawal rate is okay, then later you imply it could be as low as 2 percent? And you did not discuss this discrepancy?