MarketWatch article

[dude]

So, to illustrate the effects of a negative sequence of returns early in retirement, they compare two folks with $1 million portfolios who withdraw $62,000 to live on annually (adjusted each year for inflation). $62,000, i.e., a 6.2% initial withdrawal rate. Guy with the bad sequence (10% loss in year one) falls short by 8 years, chick with the steady 7.56% (!) return each year makes it through with $100k to spare.

Why do I suspect that had they used a 4% withdrawal rate, both would have been just fine?  Somebody with better math skills can probably figure it out.  But 6.2%?  Seems a little rich to me.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-time-to-start-safeguarding-your-retirement-investments-2017-10-30

[elementz_m]

Ran some numbers for this, looks like they're assuming 2.3% inflation each year.

If they had withdrawn 40000 initially, all other figures being equal, the total remaining after 30 years is 1.8m in their "bad" scenario. You'd still be fine withdrawing 53000 to start with.

Taking a very pessimistic view of the first three years all at -10% interest, initially withdrawing 40000 you'd run out of money after 28 years.