Isn't that advice based on retiring at 55-65, with the expectation of 20-25 years of life ahead of you - such that even with zero growth you could expect never to burn down your retirement fund entirely?

If you expect to live longer than that, 4% seems aggressive - it's far more than you'll make annually in interest in low-risk investments, and arguably more than you can expect from the stock market in recent conditions, especially after accounting for inflation.

From what I understand of the parent post, the goal is to draw 4% a year in interests and never touch the principal. Agree that 4% is a bit aggressive (depends if you’re talking real or nominal, i.e. do you allow for inflation as well) but :

* your investment horizon is > 10 years, so you can afford riskier investments

* at that level of money, you’re eligible for private banking / personal wealth management and thus to better deals and performance than you would make on your own (I’m thinking Berkshire Hathaway for instance)

* presumably you don’t keep the principal intact until you die (except if you want to pass it on to your kids) so really all you have to do is earn enough interest to last ~ 50/60 years. That means doubling your original investment in 50 years, so less than 2% interest. Seems reasonable even using “safe” investments (and with a 50 year horizon, pretty much any investment is safe).

I’m curious what average yearly returns wealth managers can sustain, and if it’s significantly better than 3-4%

If you check the Quora link I shared (https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-do-you-think-you-need-t...), I further link to a Google sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-JRc0MUy5S8jE49XGCjR...) where you can play with the numbers yourself :)

>at that level of money, you’re eligible for private banking / personal wealth management and thus to better deals and performance than you would make on your own (I’m thinking Berkshire Hathaway for instance)

But why would you want to pay for "private bank / personal wealth management", when, quite frankly, the "managed" investments at best only outdo unmanaged investments by a tenth or two of a percent?

Actually, it presumes your investments are growing at ~the rate you're drawing out of them.

Because you could retire at 50, and be hit by a bus the next day.

Or retire at 50 and live to 95.

The math doesn't change.

Appreciate the info! That's a nice way to look at it