I'm new to both this forum and Bogleheads but I've noticed some cross-forum discussions like the one below.
Do they have a valid point? How do you feel about their philosophy? Are the same folks on both?
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=266780
Although this is a long thread already, but there are a couple (IMO) important concepts that haven't been touched on very much, so I'll start back up at the top.
We all know the 4% SWR is based on past results. At Bogleheads (generally speaking of course) there is the widely held belief that 4% is in fact too high, and lots recommend 3.5%, 3%, or even lower. And indeed, the lower the WR, the "safer" you. But as fattest_foot points out, that hope of safety requires the guarantee of working longer, or accepting a lower standard of living in retirement.
I personally believe that in all the endless slicing and dicing of WRs, people are ascribing a precision to the data that does not exist. The United States, the world, and financial markets, are all radically different then they were 50 or 100 years ago. But there are other risks besides a too high WR that will blow up your retirement. Dying for example, as illustrated in this excellent thread:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/rich-broke-or-dead-visualizing-probabilities-of-outcomes-in-early-retirement/And there are other risks that are much harder to quantify like divorce or serious illness. There can be no perfect safety in retirement. Yet, there is (literally!) discussion of the merits of a 3.56 vs. 3.66% WR. Two decimal places! Again, that is a precision that is unknowable, and ignores even more probable life events. Remember also that in most scenarios the retiree with a 4% WR becomes filthy rich late in retirement.
There are also a few common sense things that can improve portfolio survival as well. For example, in many cases simply holding onto a mortgage through retirement improves survival. Most of us will have a backstop of Social Security at some point. Many people at BH say that getting a side hustle or returning to work is bullshit. Possibly, but not so fast. Retirement portfolios go bust due to a poor sequence of returns early in the retirement. You'll know within a few years of leaving the work force if you are in trouble. In that case, you probably will be able to go back to work. Depends on your skill set of course, but most people who have the ability to retire early did so because they developed in demand skill sets. I don't like the term "side hustle" very much. I prefer the term "income generating hobby." If you have an income generating hobby early in your retirement, then you vastly increase your chances of portfolio survival. Does an "income generating hobby" sound like work? Maybe, but working extra years to meet that 3.2% WR is definitely work.
IMO, the only sensible thing to do is get the WR pretty close to what would have survived in the past and call it good and recognize there may be a need for course corrections along the way. The second decimal place won't be enough to affect you, and the first one probably won't either.