You seem to continue to ignore that risks are multiplicative. For instance, a 10% chance of surviving to age 90 and a 10% chance of portfolio depletion does not mean that you have a 10% chance of portfolio depletion but rather just 1% (10% x 10%). Given my above analysis, it seems that a .0015% probability of ruin, assuming no changes are made along the way to your withdrawal strategy, is too high for you.Thesaints wrote: ↑Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:24 pmJust look at the table. For just 40 years, a 4% rate fails in at least 10% of cases with any portfolio. And we have already discussed how not failing can mean barely making to 40 years, but not making to 41 (and we have not discussed at all the fact that 90% chance on the table could very well be an 85% chance in reality, if not lower).willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:06 pm But you must determine what thecostof that margin of safety is. Many would argue that 4% already has plenty of safety already built in to it.

It is a bell curve. Planning for 32, while the table says 27 is a puny margin.It could easily take 5-10 years to go f ... ference.

Not everyone can retire when they want, on their terms. Illusion of being able to do so is rather dangerous.

According to the SSA, a 55 year old has ... of safety.

The discomfort won't manifest itself at start, but further along the way.In general, if you're uncomfortable with at least starting retirement with 4% withdrawals, I think that you'd be best served by using some of your portfolio to buy a SPIA.

In layman's terms, the probability of a 60 year old surviving to age 100 is tiny. The probability of a SWR designed for 40 years actually being depleted in exactly 40 years is tiny. The probability that

*both*will happen is basically infinitesimal.