FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
I realize we touched this topic before, but I just watched a YouTube video where the “expert” debunked the 4% rule. His criticism was simply that is not how people spend money. He said nobody lives on the percent they withdraw giving the example that if a person had $1,000,000 and took $40,000 they may need more money for unexpected spending. Thus they will take extra from the $1,000,000
That’s like saying nobody can live on a pension or salary for that matter because they may need more money.
I thought that using a percent withdrawal meant your income from that was the income (plus SS) on which you decided to live. And perhaps aside from a separate emergency fund, all spending was to come from the withdrawal amount.
In other words, the $40,000 in the example is analogous to pension income. Do I have this wrong?
The 4% rule generally assumes retirement savings are the primary source of income, supplemented by Social Security and an emergency fund. The 4% you withdraw is equivalent to your pension income, the amount you decide to live on, while your emergency fund and other income are an additional buffer and are not included in this 4%. In other words, 4% is not a fixed spending ceiling, but a guide to ensure long-term sustainable spending.
Amen
You’ve explained it really well, and I agree with your analogy to a pension or salary—that’s essentially how the 4% rule is meant to work. The “expert” you mentioned isn’t wrong in saying real-life spending doesn’t follow a neat percentage, but that’s also why many people view the 4% rule as more of a guideline than a rigid formula. It’s designed to give you a sustainable baseline withdrawal rate over a 30-year retirement horizon, not to account for every unexpected expense along the way.
That’s where an emergency fund, or even a “flexible spending” mindset, comes in. Some retirees adjust their withdrawals slightly up or down depending on markets and needs—almost like giving themselves a raise or tightening the belt in certain years. So in practice, it’s less about locking yourself into exactly 4% every year and more about having a framework to avoid depleting your portfolio too quickly.
Do you think you’d feel more comfortable with a strict rule for withdrawals, or do you prefer a flexible approach where spending shifts a little depending on life events and market performance?
Flexible for sure, but not by playing with the withdrawals from a designated retirement pool of money. And I would not be comfortable being flexible based on market performance.
My spending is based on a fixed monthly pension, it will never change so to be flexible I need additional resources which I built over decades.
If I were using a withdrawal strategy on my own, I would do the same. I would not attempt to be flexible with my basic income source. That would drive me nuts.
i just don’t think most retirees with less financial sophistication than many HD readers can handle other than a simple more or less fixed withdrawal strategy.
Well we know you ‘d be ill suited to anything other than a fixed annuity because of what you have said in the past. But your temperament doesn’t speak for everyone who by necessity has to determine and adjust to their own withdrawal strategy.
From my perspective it seems like it would be nuts to keep drawing X each month regardless of need, paying tax on drawdown and having to do additional transactions to park it elsewhere. I’d rather (unless there were particular tax advantages I was trying to avail of) have it continuing to accrue and build my “buffer” in the principal.
Again, we know you wouldn’t do this because it might involve having to track said buffer in say that most evil of things, a spreadsheet.
I think your opinion of retirees in general is rather patronising. For everyone who can only budget by receiving an amount in their checking account each month and hoping it lasts the month I hope there are at least some who draw according more to their needs rather than blindly. And yes that sometimes means being careful to define “needs” – I do not see a desire to replace multiple white goods because of a failure in one item as a “need”.
And as for not being comfortable in adjusting withdrawal strategy based on market performance – intuitively this may seem sensible on the what goes up might come down principle. But it’s forgetting that the 4% rule is statistically predicated on worst case scenarios i.e. it should hold from any point in time even if the worst sequence of returns known in history occurs.
Thus if your answer at T0 is $1m*4% = 40k and at T2 your portfolio happens to be worth $1.2m you could theoretically rebase to 48k and reset the clock.
I don’t think patronizing is a fair description. I think you just need to observe the savings rates, the accumulated assets by age, the number of retiree’s relying primarily or only on SS, listen to what people believe about SS and taxes and the stock market.
Many studies show a poor level of financial literacy in several cases only about 35% of people being able to correctly answer four very basic financial questions like what is compounding interest.
What you read on HD pages regarding all this does not reflect the real world of saving, investing or retirement.
Most people need a simple consistent guide to use their money in retirement- or in my view some annuity income plus SS.
But you’re in the wrong place if you’re trying to be this prophet preaching this mythical “simple consistent guide” as people here have read widely, done their own modelling and testing, understand maths and stats and have their own views on risk.
Not that I believe with investment portfolios being highly variable in performance, taxes being what they are and subject to tampering and any number of convoluted rules wrappers anything can be ever “simple”.
I see 4 broad categories of people.
1) Those who never have much of a portfolio to need to manage drawdown. They’ll be living on SS, pension or further earnings as best as they can.
2) Those who do not do anything to take control of a portfolio. They might over or under draw. In some cases they might not even know how much they have stashed (or had stashed for them by benefactors). Generally they’ll be as prudent or profligate as they’ve always been in their lives.
3) Those who act following advice of an advisor. This is bread and butter for Financial planners and PFAs. A good one should ensure that individuals don’t need to worry (and perhaps encourage them to spend upwards and not always make the safety first call). But obviously this comes at a price.
4) Those who are confident making their own strategy and flexing decisions within that. This is either through education or having sufficient surplus/excess assets that they can’t really stuff it up.
You sound like you’re aspiring to help Cat 2 people. But by projecting your own neuroses and biases on to situations it seems unlikely you will be the great prophet.
There are thousands more who read HD and never comment. I suspect at least some of them are seeking the pros and cons of issues they face and perhaps as close to autopilot simplicity as possible.
Let’s ask the silent majority what they think.🤔
Your pension does change. It loses value to inflation every day. Mine is worth about half what is was twenty five years ago.
Retirees are hardly the only group of people faced with unexpected expenses. Most people find ways to cope, usually an emergency fund. Nothing about the 4% rule says you can’t have an emergency fund in addition to your main portfolio.
I was referring to dollar amount, not purchasing power, but of course you are right.
That is exactly what I am saying about funds outside retirement designated funds.
All spending does not have to come from that withdrawal amount and that $40,000 is not analogous to pension income because there are significant differences between a pension and a personal retirement account.
It has been stated many, many, many times that 4% (or 4.68%) is merely a starting point. Some, such as Christine Benz over at Morningstar advocate a more flexible approach in which withdrawals may include guard rails, awareness of market returns, etc.
I’ve seen “experts” make the argument that a 3% withdrawal may be too much! There are hundreds of financial related channels on YouTube with thousands of videos. There are probably a few that will make the case that 10% (or better) annual stock market returns are the new normal and so, even a 5% withdrawal rate is simply too little.
If I dig deep enough I’m sure I’ll find a few who will say whatever it is that I want to hear. That doesn’t make it accurate, prescient or prudent.
Dick, I think you’re right. The 4% number may be right or wrong, but the expert’s objection to it makes no sense.
The commenter is probably right that few people actually live according to the 4% guideline. Also, unlike a pension, if it turns out one needs more than 4% this year, then they do have the option of taking it.
But it’s not a foregone conclusion that’s what will happen. Recognizing there may be an impact on the overall plan if they do this too much, some people may choose to forego whatever “need” was pushing them over the top. Indeed some will take the money, perhaps most, but that’s not the point, and it doesn’t “debunk” anything.
You wrote “I thought that using a percent withdrawal meant your income from that was the income (plus SS) on which you decided to live. And perhaps aside from a separate emergency fund, all spending was to come from the withdrawal amount.”
That’s the way I see it.
There are several things going on here.
1. What’s the value of YouTube videos?
2. What’s the difference between a pension that provides a $40,000 annual stipend and a retirement portfolio that provides the same amount?
3. Are there restrictions on how the money is spent?
4. Is 4% an adequate withdrawal from the retirement account and if not, what then? What if I need more than the pension stream provides? What about long term care?
First, YouTube channels owners are not vetted. Many are influencers and not much else. Some of the videos have provocative titles. That’s a definition of click-bait. I consider most videos to be a starting point, and there may be omissions and other errors.
A pension may have a death benefit. It may be an annuity or lump-sum benefit. This varies. A retirement portfolio which generates $40,000 a year with a 4% withdrawal implies a value of $1 million to heirs, ignoring any taxes. A pension which provides $40,000 a year may not provide a $1 million lump sum to the beneficiary.
A retirement portfolio has some advantages. 1) Withdrawals are flexible. There is no “hard and fast” annual withdrawal number except as dictated by the IRS RMD, and RMD amount is increased each year. 2) Portfolio withdrawals don’t have to be spent. 3) On the death of the owner, all the remaining proceeds go to the beneficiaries. This can be substantial. Pensions may not do this and there may be reduced benefits. 4) Portfolio withdrawals can fund Long Term Care and unusual health care requirement. An ample portfolio can negate the need for LTC insurance. This is not usually available with a pension.
Funds from a pension or retirement portfolio can be spent in any manner one wishes. Need $40,000 + SS to live? Yet, you also want to take that “Bucket List “ Vacation around the world? No problem with a portfolio. Take the withdrawal, pay any taxes due. Of course, one should determine if the remainder of the portfolio is sufficient prior to proceeding.
Is 4% withdrawal adequate? If the pension is fixed at $40,000 per year, that may be a restraint. If $40,000 isn’t enough in a year due to unforeseen circumstances, one can take more from a retirement portfolio. Taking an additional 1% is an additional $10,000 before taxes; if the value has decreased to $500,000 that 1% will be only $5,000. If it is in a Roth, there will be no income taxes. I experienced this when I became gravely ill in 2022. I took a rather large withdrawal from my Roth IRA. There were no tax consequences, and an unspent amount was saved for a rainy day.
Pensions, like annuities, may require no financial action or decisions by the recipient, other than paying any tax due. Retirement accounts require calculating the annual RMD and determining where those funds are to come from. Sell stock or bonds? The IRA broker or an accountant can calculate the RMD amount each year. There may be taxes of some of the proceeds are in taxable (brokerage) accounts.
A retirement portfolio can be designed to generate substantial dividends and interest, requiring infrequent fund sales to generate additional cash. If comprised of Target Date Funds, every couple of years a few shares can be sold and put into very short-term bond ETFs, a money market fund, etc. =
If one wants fully automatic portfolio maintenance, that can be done, but there may be additional fees. These may be 1% annually but can provide peace of mind and full automation of the portfolio.
The above is by no means complete. Simply some of the things I’ve considered with regards to providing for my spouse when I depart. I view an annuity and a pension as having similarities.
Once again this has gotten out of control going in directions that have nothing to do with the original post.
Does or does not the 4% or any % withdrawal strategy assume a steady withdrawal rate plus inflation?
Does the strategy account for additional lump sum withdrawals or not and if they are taken is the original projection for lifetime income placed in jeopardy?
The value of YouTube videos is not relevant to this discussion nor does how the money is used.
If you are going to reference random YouTube videos then the value of such is absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Yes the 4%SWR assumes steady withdrawal plus inflation.
No it doesn’t account for additional lump sum withdrawals because they could be anything. They do not necessarily put the strategy in jeopardy because their impact is very much related to quantum and timing. A major house rebuild in year one might, an extra $10k after years of strong equity growth probably wouldn’t have any impact at all.
But to ask these questions betrays that you don’t understand the purpose of the rule. It’s not to set in stone the “income” a person receives. It’s to provide a sensible guardrail to the amount they can safely draw without fear of running out of money over a 30 year period.
The debate is usually over whether it is too conservative given the way markets have historically performed and thus leaves too much unenjoyed or conversely how resilient it is to black swan downturns.
Focus on the concept, nothing to do with the source of the question. . You either agree with the issue raised or you disagree.
Do people stick with a steady withdrawal percentage or not and if they do not are they putting their income plan at risk. That’s it, that the question.
The percent used for the withdrawal is up for debate. I have no idea what that % should be, but to make it relevant for most people using the strategy is more than a loose guideline.
And as with steady pension income, my opinion is that accumulated assets beyond those generating steady income are necessary as a backup. Not unlike the idea of having six months expenses in saving while working.
The exception may be the person who has so much excess accumulated in retirement assets that how they use them doesn’t matter. I suspect those people are scarce.
I answered your question just not in the way you like so now you’re sea-lioning again. Perhaps not even sea-lioning given the baldness of your command.
And you’ll have to do your own research on that. I’ve given reasons why it may or may not matter.
FWIW my belief is that anyone who has the discipline to accrue a significant portfolio such that the SWR is going to serve them well also probably has the nouse to maintain a separate emergency “pot” or to flex their spending below the “rule” to give such headroom. I’d suspect that more people using the “rule” consciously underdraw on average than overdraw.
But I think you’re really scratching for reasons to crap from height on the 4% rule as something that doesn’t fit with your worldview. It’s never going to be the complete answer to retirement as it does nothing about the expenditure side (budgeting, essentials vs discretionary, capital vs revenue). Reality is that most of those fortunate to be choosing discretionary retirement (as opposed to forced) also are capable of turning off or on elements of expenditure through their retirement as other needs emerge.
I would like to help with your confusion; a noble effort on my part,
I would like you to pick one of two people you would like to be at retirement. Person A, has a pension that will pay $40,000 per year and at retirement will start collecting SS of $36000 per year. Person B has a $1000,000 taxable investment portfolio and will also collect $36000 in SS at retirement.
Person A has no savings or financial assets except what has been described. Person B has only what has been described.
In their first year of retirement, they will both face an unexpected $8000 roof repair.
Who would you like to be and why?
Well, given Person A has no other savings they are immediately screwed or in debt.
Person B it may take longer or maybe never. But in my world B should have other asset reserves too.
but again, off the initial question.
Speaking only for myself, whatever guideline or “rule” I might choose as a withdrawal strategy, a key consideration is at the beginning of each year, I start over and recalculate. Takes less than a couple minutes to do.
As I mentioned in a recent side note to Dick, all my spending comes from the year’s planned distribution, meaning I escrow cash each month earmarked for future unpredictable but inevitable large expenses, such as new car purchases, home remodeling and repairs, and of course our contributions to six 529 plans.
I violated my own rule for the first time this month, selling some shares of stock from a brokerage account to supplement the net proceeds from sale of our previous home in order to pay for the one we just moved into. Obviously, our nest egg took a hit, and we will recalculate our withdrawal for 2026. But we have been getting by with 2.5% per year for the past 7 years so I am not worried.
Another contributor (I forget who) mentioned Karsten Jeske Ph.D. of http://www.EarlyRetirementNow.com While he is prominent in the FIRE community, his writings are in depth and enlightening. He gives the higher level math he uses but also clearly explains it to folks like myself. His SWR series includes some 60 or so posts. Some of the engineering types on this cite along with Adam and others would probably enjoy some of the intricate
findings. Suffice to say he is not a fan of exceeding 4% as a safe withdrawal rate assuming a 30 year year horizon. Even if you don’t want to spend hours slogging through the posts, he offers a free downloadable “tool” in which you can plug in your own numbers, select your time horizon, and percent if any, of residual real portfolio value at the end of the specified period.
The 4% rule has become an oversimplified meme. If you sincerely want to understand what Bill Bengan was trying to do I would recommend reading his original paper and avoiding YouTube. His assessment was extremely conservative. As Bengen frequently states, his original study showed the actual minmum SWR was 4.15%, but it was rounded down to 4%. The paper shows that at a 4% withdrawal rate, in all the historical cases he considered, the portfolio lasted at least 35 years. At a 5% withdrawal rate in all cases considered the portfolios lasted at least 20 years,.and more than 75% lasted 30 years or more. So there would appear to be some margin of safety for occasional extra needs.
The obvious difference between portfolio withdrawals and a pension is the pension doesn’t grow. For example, consider someone who retired at the beginning of 2024 with $1M who withdrew $40,000 on Jan1. The remaining $960,000 invested in a 50/50 portfolio grew at about 6.7%, so the portfolio value at the end of year was $1,024,320. If you have some fortunate years of investing, there is an opportunity for increased withdrawals beyond the inflation adjustment. Sadly, my pension does not allow for that.
The 4% is the Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR), not a Safe SPENDING Rate. It is just a way to turn one’s retirement savings into an annual paycheck based on market historical returns. How you spend this “retirement paycheck” is determined similar to the way you did previously with your work paycheck.
If you use the 4% SWR as proposed by the research paper, then no deviation. I know absolutely no one who lives life by implementing economic theory. If you use it as a heuristic to arrive at a reasonable assumption of how much is required before even considering retirement, then I guess it depends on your own personal strategy.
Ad hoc lump sum withdrawals beyond the 4% will reduce the likelihood of the strategy successfully lasting the 30-year time frame. That’s just how it is…just don’t ask me for the probability and failure curves, that’s above my pension withdrawal pay grade 😉
Here is the original paper with tables showing “failure rates”.
Thanks Rick.
I think some of the problem people are having with the 4% rule is that they are taking it too literally i.e. they’re thinking concretely, rather than abstractly, in this instance.
The 4% rule is a guideline. It is not an absolute. If you have spent your $40,000 in September on a $1 million portfolio, and the roof starts to leak, as mentioned below, you go beyond the 4% “barrier” and you take the money out of your portfolio and fix the leak.
Clearly adjustments will need to be made in the future – perhaps drawing less than 4% in subsequent years, or earning income in some fashion, to maintain the portfolios viability for the future.
Never has anyone said or implied that you can’t EVER spend more than 4%. As we all know, spending tends to fluctuate from year to year, therefore, for people who live close to the edge, if they do need to go over 4% in a given year, they would then need to make adjustments subsequently.
Now for the fun part ! What do you think of immediately after reading the next sentence?
“The squeaky wheel gets the grease”……..
Those who think concretely answer that the bicycle tire that’s squeaking or car tire that’s squeaking, will be the one to get the grease to stop the sqeak.
Those who think abstractly respond that someone who speaks up, and/or makes a nuisance of themselves, or does something to make themselves noticed, will be the one that gets the attention or be noticed.
Still my favorite pearl from my Psychiatry rotation in Med School !
For a more complete explanation – Googles AI response:
A concrete thinker relies on literal interpretations and facts from the observable physical world, focusing on tangible objects and present circumstances rather than abstract concepts, metaphors, or inferences. This thinking style is a literal form of reasoning that takes information at face value and is closely associated with the developmental stage of early childhood, though it remains a valid approach for many adults. Concrete thinking contrasts with abstract thinking, which involves conceptual, philosophical, and imaginative reasoning beyond the immediate and tangible.
Characteristics of Concrete Thinking
Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking
So, you agree, you can’t deviate from the % withdrawal strategy regardless of the % and still live only on that strategy and thus hope the retiree has the ability to make some of the adjustments you suggest.
I’m not 100% sure I’m understanding what you’re saying ? Did you mean to say “can” rather “can’t” in the first line ?
I think we should view 4% as a guideline rather than an impenetrable barrier than can never be crossed. Going over ones threshold percentage a small number of times (don’t know how many), without extreme over withdrawals (don’t know much), is not likely a big deal.
One can certainly deviate from spending 4% though that will lead to an increase in the likelihood of portfolio failure, but it is certainly not an all or none situation- going from a 4% spending rate to 4.25 or 4,5 % spending rate reduces the likelihood of portfolio success, but by no means is it a guarantee of failure. Even less so with a bit of time to make future adjustment downwards if needed, as I mentioned.
You can’t deviate from the basic strategy and still count on the predicted success.
Agree. Thats what i was trying to say in the last paragraph.
Mark, you had me at The 4% rule is a guideline.
4% or 4.7% or any percent may be a guideline, but the concept of regular percentage withdrawals with inflation adjust is not a guideline it is a basic principle of the strategy.
The basic and only question here is this. Does the percentage withdrawal strategy work throughout retirement if the withdrawals deviate (lump sums) from the method used in that strategy?
The literature I read says no, I have no expertise, but deviating would make me nervous.
It would be very helpful if you defined “failure” and your cited your sources. Bengen’s study was about portfolio longevity. As I presented in the comment above, the analysis of historical worst-case returns showed 4.15% provided at least 30 years portfolio longevity in all cases, and 5% withdrawal provided 30 or more years in 75% of cases, and at least 20 years in all cases. So if a retiree takes modest extra withdrawals, failure might mean their portfolio lasts 28 or 29 years. And that is in the worst market conditions we’ve experienced.
Well i guess it depends on the definition of modest. I just never heard of the strategy considering withdrawals beyond the established percent and if I Google the risks you saw what i got.
Your Google response said “A large lump sum withdrawal fundamentally changes the equation by significantly reducing the total amount of money you have invested.” Spending $500K on a boat would have an impact. Your example of a $15K repair on a $1M portfolio hardly meets that definition.
Dick, doesn’t it just boil down to basic money management? Whether our income is from salary, pension or savings (4%), we live on what we have. Those without savings, but with reliable income from another source, might borrow money to fix the roof–if they don’t have an emergency fund to cover it. If we take an extra lump sum from savings for a large purchase, then we have to consider it “borrowed money”, and “pay it back” by reducing future spending. We also need to consider that we lost some growth of the money we withdrew early.
Ed, for people who live on a pension or any steady income stream you are right. I’m in the process of replacing appliances. We are taking the money from savings.
But let’s say our income, only income, was 4% of our savings which covered all our ongoing expenses, but now comes along a major unplanned expense. Where do I get the money?
I say it must come from sources other than from the assets which generate our 4% regular income. The % rule assumes only the % plus inflation adjustments come from those retirement investments.
What I have always read is that taking extra amounts like a lump sum, screws up the entire strategy – even if you pay it back so to speak, or reduce expenses temporarily because you may face sequence of withdrawal/return issues.
In other words, you need extra funds for emergencies OR have the % large enough with supporting investments to build up savings and account for extra spending along the way and not make extra withdrawals.
Just for fun I ask this question of AI. Here is the answer. That’s what I thought.
“Taking a large, extra lump sum withdrawal from your savings while following the 4% rule is generally not considered safe and can significantly jeopardize the longevity of your retirement funds. Here’s why:
For those of us without a pension, the 4% is analogous to a pension. But like the youtube dude says, you may have additional needs beyond 4% on a given year.
I equate this to living paycheck to paycheck during one’s working years, and not having an emergency fund. I contend that if retirees are going to spend the entire distribution, they’d better have adequate emergency funds available aside from the account(s) they live from.
I’m even more conservative; we do everything we like and use far less than 4%. I feel no need to force myself to spend more.
Yes. You also have to have an emergency fund. That is how I see it too, Dan. Chris
Interestingly, I think you’re both right. You understand it exactly as it is designed.
But, he’s probably right that no one actually does retirement that way. For me, as a pre-retiree, the 4% rule is helpful to understand how much I need to save to live on $Y per year. In other words, whatever I think I’ll be spending per year, I should save 25X that amount for safe withdrawals given the sequence of returns risk.
Whether I will actually pull out exactly 4% per year or any such amount is unknown, but probably not make or break. If it’s 3.5% or 4.5% it’s probably prudent to keep it somewhere in that general range.
I understand, but would you take say an extra $15,000 from your balance to fix a roof, etc. wouldn’t doing something like that throw off your entire plan?
Yeah, fix the roof and hope that your early returns make up for the extra pull from your nest egg.
I’d rather skip retirement funded by “hope” 😢
So you wouldn’t fix the roof?
Ah, now that comment truly deserves a 🔻
Surely you know that is not the point of the comment, but rather to illustrate the risk extra withdrawals could cause to a retirement plan, but I suspect you knew that.
You think my comment is disingenuous. I think the whole post is disingenuous. As Edmund says, this situation is no different for a retired person on a fixed income than an employed one on a fixed salary.
Oh yes it is, it matters how the income is generated I would think.
And you believe this “expert” because…?
It’s not a matter of believing, it is a matter of understanding the basic concept.
If a person relies on a lifetime of income using the % withdrawal strategy, how can they make it work if they deviate and take additional amounts from those assets?
I don’t think they can or that doing so is part of the % withdrawal concept.
I live on a fixed pension which meets all our ongoing regular needs. That’s our fortunate version of the % rule.
However, we have other assets, mainly a rollover IRA from a 401k so if something comes along that our pension can’t handle we have backup.
Can the accumulated assets from which the % is withdrawn also safely be such a backup? I never thought that was the case.
If you have all your assets under the 4% SWR regime, then yes—no further withdrawals beyond your yearly distribution can occur with a true implementation of the scheme. Personally, I don’t use the system. If I did, I would have a substantial cash balance and maybe even a small balanced portfolio outside the scope of the SWR structure.
To be clear, SWR is a rigid framework that brooks no deviation from its core tenets. It works as an economic textbook theory, but I feel it doesn’t translate into real-world reality.
That’s the point. If you accept the research that developed it, there is no deviation. The simple answer as I see it is to have your retirement designated funds and also something extra in a different set of investments not part of any withdrawal strategy.
if my pension was $40,000 a year it would be no different than $40,000 using % rule. My pension amount is fixed, I can’t get more out of it so I have to look elsewhere. I would view $40,000 from withdrawals the same way, except that includes inflation adjustment.
Totally agree. Use the SWR for your “pension” and seperate funds for any top-up beyond the 4%