The 2.7% Rule for Retirement Spending

What people said

throw0101c · 2025-03 · Reference

> What if your hypothesis is that the fundamentals have changed? There's been recent research on survivorship bias in market returns, especially with regards to the US: > Using international data, we quantify the magnitude of survivorship bias in U.S. equity market performance, and find that it explains about one third of the equity risk premium in the past century. We model the subjective crash belief of an investor who infers the crash risk in the U.S.~by cross learning from other countries. The U.S. crash probability shows a persistent and widening divergence from the implied global average. We attribute the upward bias in the measured equity premium to crashes that did not occur in-sample and to positive shocks to valuations resulting from learning about the probability. * [LINK] * [VIDEO] I'm Canadian, so I have a different home market, but that is correlated to the US economy (cf. tariffs), but my portfolio (TSX:VGRO) also has non-US/CA equities.

Read the original HN comment ↗

kwere · 2023-02 · Reference

4% is specific to 60/40 US portfolio with 30 years horizon to not die poor at the end of it , a safer rate would be 2/2.5%[0] [0] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

cko · 2022-12 · Reference

For early retirees, Ben Felix has found the SWR to be closer to 2.7%. The oft-cited 4% depends on US data and studied 30-year time horizons. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗