Dealing with the Demise of the 4% Rule

Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.

Media attention has focused on the long-standing “4% rule” and how economic and demographic realities have reduced that guideline. This article discusses related considerations and provides opportunities for retirees dealing with the new normal.

While most of the recent attention has been focused on inflation and its unwelcome impact, there has been another development that retirees or people planning for retirement should also heed. And it may prove to be an even bigger challenge. For the past 25 years, the so-called “4% rule” has served as a proxy for retirement planning. It was proffered by financial advisor William Bengen to provide an estimate – considering inflation – of how much retirees can withdraw annually over a 30-year period before exhausting their retirement portfolios.

This figure has been endlessly repeated. But there are two considerations to keep in mind. First, the original projection was based on an asset allocation of 50% in stocks and 50% in bonds. Retirees with a more conservative investment portfolio – e.g., a higher allocation to bonds – would already have to lower the original figure to keep from running out of funds. Retirees with a higher allocation to stocks could take more out but would then be subject to “sequence risk” – the very real possibility that they have a negative return while withdrawing funds in the early years of retirement, which could greatly impact their standard of living in retirement.

The second consideration is that the investing landscape has changed from the mid-1990s when Bengen did his research – particularly with regard to interest rates. As a result, many have questioned whether the 4% number is still valid. And indeed, in November, the investment research firm Morningstar weighed in with its research; it concluded that the 4% estimate should be revised downward to just 3.3%. (Bengen has challenged that research with his own updated findings.)