AUTHOR: Fred Miller on 6/3/2025 FIRST: DAN SMITH on 6/3/2025 | RECENT: Scoot Home on 6/8/2025
Comments
Great timing on this article. I literally watched a YouTube video about an hour ago discussing eight common retirement withdrawal strategies, with the 4% rule being just one of them. It’s amazing how many different approaches there are once you move beyond the traditional rule. They discussed methods like the Guyton-Klinger guardrails approach, which adjusts withdrawals based on portfolio performance. One method I didn’t see mentioned, though, was the modern risk-based guardrails strategy, which tries to adjust spending based on both portfolio risk and remaining horizon. I’m curious if anyone here has actually used one of these more dynamic withdrawal strategies in retirement. The theory makes sense—adjust spending as conditions change—but I’d love to hear how it works in practice.
I find it interesting how different people approach this. Your goal is to withdraw as little as possible, while mine is almost the opposite. My goal in retirement would be to maximize what I can safely spend, but ideally with much of that spending being discretionary rather than fixed so it can flex with market conditions. One of my motivations for that approach is that I’d like to see more of my money being used while I’m alive, rather than leaving a much larger portfolio behind simply because I underspent. That discretionary spending could include giving more to charities, helping my kids financially while I’m alive, and simply living life more fully—traveling, seeing more of the world, helping friends in need, and experiencing the joy that often comes from giving directly to others. Of course there’s a balance, but personally I’d rather avoid ending up with two or more times the amount I started retirement with simply because I was too conservative or afraid to withdraw money—or afraid of running out.
Great article, Edmund. You highlighted many of the most common barriers people face. Two additional barriers I’ve noticed over the years as an exercise science professor are environment and delayed gratification. First, our modern environment is incredibly sedentary. It’s very easy for people to sit most of the day and not feel any immediate consequences. Because of that, the social environment matters a lot—when you surround yourself with people who exercise and prioritize health, it becomes much easier to do the same. Second is delayed gratification. Unlike many things in our instant-gratification culture, exercise doesn’t produce visible results overnight. Physiological adaptations often take weeks, which makes it harder for people to stay consistent early on. In many ways, it reminds me of personal finance—small habits compound over time, but the benefits aren’t immediately visible. Thanks again for a thoughtful piece.
People tend to procrastinate, and government is made up of people. As Don pointed out with the 1983 reforms, Social Security doesn’t get fixed early—it gets fixed when the deadline forces action. I expect the same pattern this time.
After learning about credit card churning 3 years ago, I dove in and it’s been a profitable strategy. The learning curve was surprisingly small, especially compared to the rewards. Between me and my spouse, we’ve opened about 14 cards (8 for me, 6 for her) and pocketed thousands in welcome bonuses. My return has always been above $600 (around 15%) even after annual fees — which I only pay the first year, since I close the account before it hits again. And often the returns are even sweeter: one card gave me 80,000 points ($800 value) for $4,000 spend — that’s a 20% return! Honestly, I wish all investments worked like that. Since it usually takes me about an hour (sometimes less) to find and open a new card, my “hourly wage” is about $600 (still $500+ even factoring in the upfront time I spent learning about credit card churning). Easily beats my full time job hourly rate :) I’ve never paid a dime in interest because I always pay off my balance in full. The effect on my credit score has been tiny, maybe a 5–10 point dip here or there and temporary, since inquiries fall off after 2 years. In fact, my score has always stayed above 800 and even hit 832 during my churning streak. And let’s not forget: opening new accounts raises your total available credit, which can actually help your score by lowering utilization. So, between the high returns, the minimal effort, and the fact that my credit has stayed excellent, credit card churning has been well worth it. My “ROI” and “hourly pay” from this hobby might be the best side hustle I’ve ever had and all it costs me is remembering to click “apply now.”
Appreciate the summary, super helpful. I’m glad Bengen is pushing the conversation forward. I see SWR as a planning starting point, not a verdict. The “right” rate lives at the intersection of portfolio mix, sequence risk, retirement age, non-portfolio income (Social Security/pensions), taxes, longevity expectations, bequest goals, and—maybe most important—our willingness to adjust spending when markets get rough. Your points about underspending resonate. A very low withdrawal rate can look prudent on paper but sometimes reflects hidden trade-offs: extra years worked, deferred experiences, or chronic underspending in retirement. On the flip side, diversification and a flexible plan (guardrails/variable spending, cash buffers, delaying SS, etc.) can make a higher initial rate like 4.7% or even 5% reasonable for some households. Averages about spending declines are useful, but they’re just that—averages; health costs and personal preferences vary a lot. For me, it’s less about proving which single number “wins” and more about right-sizing spending to the life we want and keeping room to adjust. Whether it’s 4% or 4.7%, I’d pick the rate that fits our goals, income sources, and comfort level—and revisit it as life (and markets) change. Curious how others are calibrating that balance.
I just had a very brief conversation with my son's swimming instructor about her finances, and she mentioned that she doesn't really understand them, so she hired Edward Jones. I was honestly speechless for a moment. I wanted to encourage her to try managing her own finances, but in that brief pause, I realized how much time and learning it actually takes to feel confident doing that, something many of us on this forum might forget. And while I couldn’t help but wonder how many different high fee funds she’s now invested in (probably more than a few!), I also get why people turn to firms like Edward Jones. For someone who feels overwhelmed, having a familiar, friendly face to guide them, even at a higher cost, can feel reassuring. Still, I hope over time she gains the confidence to take more ownership of her financial decisions.
Thanks for sharing this quiz. I took it, and while I appreciate its depth, I feel there are likely better options out there for assessing personal finance knowledge. Several questions (at least 10) didn’t really apply to me, for example, ones on annuities and life insurance, or didn’t accurately reflect my understanding of personal finance. I say that because I know enough to recognize that annuities and life insurance aren’t a good fit for me, but not enough to answer detailed questions about them correctly. For instance, here’s one question: “True or false: The death benefit from a life insurance policy owned by an individual is income tax free for the beneficiary.” Additionally, I felt a few questions focused more on financial trivia than practical knowledge. For example, “A PE ratio means…”. Yes, I answered it correctly, but I’m not sure knowing that is essential for someone who manages their finances well, especially if they invest primarily in index funds.
That said, there were many strong questions, particularly those related to Social Security, and I do agree the quiz is more extensive and challenging than the 3 question one linked above. Still, I think someone could score poorly on it and still be doing an excellent job managing their finances.
Assuming you meant multiplying the growing balance each time by 1.02, which is the correct method for compound interest, which is what I assume you mean :)
You make a great point, compound interest is key to understanding long-term saving and investing. While the original question doesn't explicitly say "compound," the phrase “left the money to grow” typically implies compound interest. Using simple interest, you'd have exactly $110 after 5 years. But with compound interest, it's about $110.41, a small difference now, but huge over decades. I like your suggested edit to make the intent clearer! By the way, $110.41 is the correct answer if you're compounding annually. However, since most savings accounts compound monthly, the actual amount would be closer to $110.51. The question doesn't specify the compounding frequency, so while annual compounding is typically assumed in these types of questions, either answer could be reasonable depending on interpretation.
Comments
Great timing on this article. I literally watched a YouTube video about an hour ago discussing eight common retirement withdrawal strategies, with the 4% rule being just one of them. It’s amazing how many different approaches there are once you move beyond the traditional rule. They discussed methods like the Guyton-Klinger guardrails approach, which adjusts withdrawals based on portfolio performance. One method I didn’t see mentioned, though, was the modern risk-based guardrails strategy, which tries to adjust spending based on both portfolio risk and remaining horizon. I’m curious if anyone here has actually used one of these more dynamic withdrawal strategies in retirement. The theory makes sense—adjust spending as conditions change—but I’d love to hear how it works in practice.
Post: Forget the 4% rule.
Link to comment from March 14, 2026
I find it interesting how different people approach this. Your goal is to withdraw as little as possible, while mine is almost the opposite. My goal in retirement would be to maximize what I can safely spend, but ideally with much of that spending being discretionary rather than fixed so it can flex with market conditions. One of my motivations for that approach is that I’d like to see more of my money being used while I’m alive, rather than leaving a much larger portfolio behind simply because I underspent. That discretionary spending could include giving more to charities, helping my kids financially while I’m alive, and simply living life more fully—traveling, seeing more of the world, helping friends in need, and experiencing the joy that often comes from giving directly to others. Of course there’s a balance, but personally I’d rather avoid ending up with two or more times the amount I started retirement with simply because I was too conservative or afraid to withdraw money—or afraid of running out.
Post: Forget the 4% rule.
Link to comment from March 14, 2026
Great article, Edmund. You highlighted many of the most common barriers people face. Two additional barriers I’ve noticed over the years as an exercise science professor are environment and delayed gratification. First, our modern environment is incredibly sedentary. It’s very easy for people to sit most of the day and not feel any immediate consequences. Because of that, the social environment matters a lot—when you surround yourself with people who exercise and prioritize health, it becomes much easier to do the same. Second is delayed gratification. Unlike many things in our instant-gratification culture, exercise doesn’t produce visible results overnight. Physiological adaptations often take weeks, which makes it harder for people to stay consistent early on. In many ways, it reminds me of personal finance—small habits compound over time, but the benefits aren’t immediately visible. Thanks again for a thoughtful piece.
Post: Frugal Fitness
Link to comment from March 14, 2026
People tend to procrastinate, and government is made up of people. As Don pointed out with the 1983 reforms, Social Security doesn’t get fixed early—it gets fixed when the deadline forces action. I expect the same pattern this time.
Post: Plan for a Pay Cut
Link to comment from December 27, 2025
After learning about credit card churning 3 years ago, I dove in and it’s been a profitable strategy. The learning curve was surprisingly small, especially compared to the rewards. Between me and my spouse, we’ve opened about 14 cards (8 for me, 6 for her) and pocketed thousands in welcome bonuses. My return has always been above $600 (around 15%) even after annual fees — which I only pay the first year, since I close the account before it hits again. And often the returns are even sweeter: one card gave me 80,000 points ($800 value) for $4,000 spend — that’s a 20% return! Honestly, I wish all investments worked like that. Since it usually takes me about an hour (sometimes less) to find and open a new card, my “hourly wage” is about $600 (still $500+ even factoring in the upfront time I spent learning about credit card churning). Easily beats my full time job hourly rate :) I’ve never paid a dime in interest because I always pay off my balance in full. The effect on my credit score has been tiny, maybe a 5–10 point dip here or there and temporary, since inquiries fall off after 2 years. In fact, my score has always stayed above 800 and even hit 832 during my churning streak. And let’s not forget: opening new accounts raises your total available credit, which can actually help your score by lowering utilization. So, between the high returns, the minimal effort, and the fact that my credit has stayed excellent, credit card churning has been well worth it. My “ROI” and “hourly pay” from this hobby might be the best side hustle I’ve ever had and all it costs me is remembering to click “apply now.”
Post: What is your credit card rewards strategy?
Link to comment from September 13, 2025
Appreciate the summary, super helpful. I’m glad Bengen is pushing the conversation forward. I see SWR as a planning starting point, not a verdict. The “right” rate lives at the intersection of portfolio mix, sequence risk, retirement age, non-portfolio income (Social Security/pensions), taxes, longevity expectations, bequest goals, and—maybe most important—our willingness to adjust spending when markets get rough. Your points about underspending resonate. A very low withdrawal rate can look prudent on paper but sometimes reflects hidden trade-offs: extra years worked, deferred experiences, or chronic underspending in retirement. On the flip side, diversification and a flexible plan (guardrails/variable spending, cash buffers, delaying SS, etc.) can make a higher initial rate like 4.7% or even 5% reasonable for some households. Averages about spending declines are useful, but they’re just that—averages; health costs and personal preferences vary a lot. For me, it’s less about proving which single number “wins” and more about right-sizing spending to the life we want and keeping room to adjust. Whether it’s 4% or 4.7%, I’d pick the rate that fits our goals, income sources, and comfort level—and revisit it as life (and markets) change. Curious how others are calibrating that balance.
Post: Is 4.7% the New 4% Safe Withdrawal Rate
Link to comment from August 23, 2025
I just had a very brief conversation with my son's swimming instructor about her finances, and she mentioned that she doesn't really understand them, so she hired Edward Jones. I was honestly speechless for a moment. I wanted to encourage her to try managing her own finances, but in that brief pause, I realized how much time and learning it actually takes to feel confident doing that, something many of us on this forum might forget. And while I couldn’t help but wonder how many different high fee funds she’s now invested in (probably more than a few!), I also get why people turn to firms like Edward Jones. For someone who feels overwhelmed, having a familiar, friendly face to guide them, even at a higher cost, can feel reassuring. Still, I hope over time she gains the confidence to take more ownership of her financial decisions.
Post: I’m Guessing Most HD Readers Will Score 100%
Link to comment from May 31, 2025
Thanks for sharing this quiz. I took it, and while I appreciate its depth, I feel there are likely better options out there for assessing personal finance knowledge. Several questions (at least 10) didn’t really apply to me, for example, ones on annuities and life insurance, or didn’t accurately reflect my understanding of personal finance. I say that because I know enough to recognize that annuities and life insurance aren’t a good fit for me, but not enough to answer detailed questions about them correctly. For instance, here’s one question: “True or false: The death benefit from a life insurance policy owned by an individual is income tax free for the beneficiary.” Additionally, I felt a few questions focused more on financial trivia than practical knowledge. For example, “A PE ratio means…”. Yes, I answered it correctly, but I’m not sure knowing that is essential for someone who manages their finances well, especially if they invest primarily in index funds. That said, there were many strong questions, particularly those related to Social Security, and I do agree the quiz is more extensive and challenging than the 3 question one linked above. Still, I think someone could score poorly on it and still be doing an excellent job managing their finances.
Post: I’m Guessing Most HD Readers Will Score 100%
Link to comment from May 31, 2025
Assuming you meant multiplying the growing balance each time by 1.02, which is the correct method for compound interest, which is what I assume you mean :)
Post: I’m Guessing Most HD Readers Will Score 100%
Link to comment from May 31, 2025
You make a great point, compound interest is key to understanding long-term saving and investing. While the original question doesn't explicitly say "compound," the phrase “left the money to grow” typically implies compound interest. Using simple interest, you'd have exactly $110 after 5 years. But with compound interest, it's about $110.41, a small difference now, but huge over decades. I like your suggested edit to make the intent clearer! By the way, $110.41 is the correct answer if you're compounding annually. However, since most savings accounts compound monthly, the actual amount would be closer to $110.51. The question doesn't specify the compounding frequency, so while annual compounding is typically assumed in these types of questions, either answer could be reasonable depending on interpretation.
Post: I’m Guessing Most HD Readers Will Score 100%
Link to comment from May 31, 2025