Regarding the discussion of 30 years v 60 years... Here we go, numbers!

cFIREsim. 60/40, leaving everything else default.

After 30 years, 60/40 had a 94.83% success rate. 80/20 had 96.55% success rate.

1MM portfolio on 4% see on cfiresim is a full 10% better success with 80/20 vs 60/40.

Not sure where you got a 10% difference, as I'm seeing under a 2% difference. My inputs as above, what did you use?

Digging deeper into the numbers, I downloaded the year by year results for 60-40 and 80-20. I took out the failures, since what I posited was that if you succeed at 30 years, you're likely to succeed at 60. If you failed at 30, obviously you'd fail at 60.

Then I took the median.

60-40: 1,105,525

80-20: 1,724,751.5

More equities obviously gives you a lot more in the end, but at the cost of a much bumpier ride.

The inflation adjusted withdrawals at this point is still 40k, as it's gone up just to match inflation each year. Running the numbers of 40k inflation-adjusted withdrawals on our new portfolio amounts, we get a 99.14% success rate (60-40) versus 100% (80-20).

Now, naturally, if times are worse in the future, having the extra cash from the 80/20 is good. If you can stomach the volitility.

I think everyone should be at least 80/20, if not 90/10, and work on training themselves to not worry about market fluxuations.

But most of the time (most being defined as > 50%), if you make it with 60/40 to 30 years, you'll be able to make it to 60 years, as your WR will have declined as your portfolio increased in real terms.

About 3/4ths of the time, you'd have a 50/50 chance or better to make it. The bottom 25% you might not, and that's where the extra money from the 80-20 comes in handy.