Skimming the introduction...from the paper: "The 4% rule has shown diminished effectiveness in recent years"
What the heck does this even mean?!?! Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The question itself is...(words I care not to write or say in public).
Also: "The 4% rule was created in a different era: one of high growth in the market and lower volatility" What? Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The entire framing of the premise is flawed which makes me less inclined to read on. But, the general topic of variable vs fixed withdrawal strategies is of course a valid one. The 4% rule is not a withdrawal strategy and the authors should know that.
I think I'll go back to reading the news. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
[Note this is not a criticism of the OPs post and questions...and there is much education to be had by a subsequent genuine discussion.]
What the heck does this even mean?!?! Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The question itself is...(words I care not to write or say in public).
Also: "The 4% rule was created in a different era: one of high growth in the market and lower volatility" What? Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
The entire framing of the premise is flawed which makes me less inclined to read on. But, the general topic of variable vs fixed withdrawal strategies is of course a valid one. The 4% rule is not a withdrawal strategy and the authors should know that.
I think I'll go back to reading the news. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
[Note this is not a criticism of the OPs post and questions...and there is much education to be had by a subsequent genuine discussion.]
Statistics: Posted by neurosphere — Wed Dec 11, 2024 10:37 am
