Working on a total return strategy is not equivalent to "selling off the portfolio".
I don't think most people here "use" the 4% rule. The "4% rule" is otherwise stated as the 20x expenses rule and says that you need at least 25x retirement expenses in your portfolio in order to be assured of a low probability of failure of your retirement portfolio. This rule of thumb applies regardless of what your strategy is. It even applies to any of the variety of dividend strategies.I realize most people here use the 4% rule & fully intend to
sell off their portfolios in retirement. I have no problem
What dividend strategy are you a proponent of? Is it the 100% high dividend equity strategy? Specifically, are you proposing 100% in the Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund with current SEC yield of 2.985? Or alternatively in the active 100% equity Vanguard Equity Income Fund with current SEC yield of 2.64%?
I don't how knowledge of accounting standards qualifies one to recommend a retirement strategy. In particular, I think that the fact that the author of the article that you quoted links sells a newsletter subscription where he provides the specifics of this dividend strategy he is promoting raises red flags to me about whether he is providing objective advice or whether he is selling his newsletter.I was trying to be opened minded and tell him their are other
ways & show him some articles from CPA's that have run the
numbers & studied it.
Portfolio size isn't really the critical factor in determining acceptable retirement income strategies. For the overwhelming majority of people it's the ratio of their portfolio size to their anticipated retirement expenses in relation to their current age and joint life expectancy. When your portfolio exceeds 50x expenses, every strategy starts to have a vanishingly small probability of failure.My personal opinion is (as I stated up stream) is it depends on
your portfolio size. If you have a huge portfolio you can
use whatever method you want. People with smaller portfolios
have more limited choices. I do not know the size of Carol's
portfolio or his needs or wants (expenses). The point I was
trying to make is everyone is different. My situation is totality
different than your situation. It's not about right or wrong it's
about your personal situation. That's why they call it personal finance.
Every individual is different, but the optimal strategies that we discuss here are generally applicable and can be tailored to specific situations. I assume you're not suggesting that everyone needs to know about whole life and variable annuities just to know all the possible 99.99% bad choices they could make, right?Every one is different. Their is no black or white. It's about you
& your situation.
Are you sure you're not just trying to gaslight people coming to this board for sound advice? You've certainly succeeded in derailing this thread.
OP: The conventional wisdom of this board says to invest in the 3-fund portfolio with an asset allocation that is appropriate to your risk tolerance. If you want to be conservative (which people on this board have increasingly become with shrinking dividend yields and interest rates), you would pick a withdrawal rate that is no higher than 3.5% and if you want to be even more conservative also no greater than the income distribution of your portfolio. This latter constraint currently sits as about a 2% yield. Everyone here will agree that 2% is ultra-conservative and has no chance of failure.