Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst time to retire?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

@wageslave23 I'll just tell you that you need to go to FireCalc, use 40k spending 820k starting portfolio, and adjust the inflation rate to 8% (available in spending models tab) and see that the success drops to 11.4%. 

There is a lot more to this discussion than I want to get in to.

Edit, wrong numbers, 18% drop is 820k remaining

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying 820k portfolio value and 43k spend. Vand I believe explained it up thread.

OK, run your analysis on FireCalc with 8% inflation rate and tell me what your success rate is.  Thanks.

That's not what I'm doing though. But I dont think you are actually interested in listening.  You can go to firecalc.com and use a portfolio value 820k and 43k expenses and see the results for yourself.  If they hadn't retired in 2021 but were deciding if they wanted to retire now, their expenses would be 43,200 (40,000 in 2021 x 1.08 inflation)

There's probably someone else on these forums who also works with present values, who can explain it better than I am.

I sent you a DM to have this discussion offline.

[vand]

A 75/25 US-TSM/US-10YGB starting in Sept 2021 (my personal preferred starting point) was down to 74% of it's starting value in real terms at the end of Feb 2023.  So probably hovering around 70-71% right now.  Or to put it another way, market movements, inflation, and ongoing withdrawals have turn your original 4% withdrawal rate into a 5.8% current withdrawal rate.

It's not difficult to envisage how a visit to new lows would tip this towards likely worst case outcome in the long run, but we don't know if that will happen. I have to say that markets look like they could easily drop precipitously if this mini banking crisis really gets out of control..

But it's worth remember too that the Sept-21 retiree now has a year and half of retirement under their belt already - while none of us get to choose what the market does, we do get to choose, to a greater or lesser extent, what we do with our time regardless of how much money we have, and those who retired in 2021 will, I'm sure, not regret what they have done so far.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

There is also much better yield available on bonds and inflation seems to be dropping.  Hard to tell if equities will drop this year or not, but at least we don't seem to be headed for a repeat of 2022.  Could be wrong though, inflation could flare back up.

[Villanelle]

I wonder how many people who retired in Jan-Sept 21 (so those who have some time since quitting) have blindly continued to withdraw their inflation-adjusted 4%, exactly on schedule and without cuts, or bringing in additional income, or anything else. 

Whether or not it proves to have been the "worst time to retire" or nearly worst, that's what really matters as far as individuals heading toward failure or not. 

If DH and I had retired in that time frame, we'd likely be picking up a few thousand dollars (or perhaps much, much more) in additional income, and perhaps scaling down some plans.

[nereo]

I wonder how many people who retired in Jan-Sept 21 (so those who have some time since quitting) have blindly continued to withdraw their inflation-adjusted 4%, exactly on schedule and without cuts, or bringing in additional income, or anything else. 

Whether or not it proves to have been the "worst time to retire" or nearly worst, that's what really matters as far as individuals heading toward failure or not. 

If DH and I had retired in that time frame, we'd likely be picking up a few thousand dollars (or perhaps much, much more) in additional income, and perhaps scaling down some plans.

I’ve yet to encounter anyone who has blindly followed a 4% withdraw strategy for thirty years with annual inflation increases, without earning any money, or taking more or less on a given year, or benefiting from a larger than expected windfall.

What is remarkable about this economic period is how strong the job market has been (so far). A top fear of many retirees is that they won’t be able to find work should the SHTF. So far this has been a dream market to pick up supplementary income.

[Villanelle]

I wonder how many people who retired in Jan-Sept 21 (so those who have some time since quitting) have blindly continued to withdraw their inflation-adjusted 4%, exactly on schedule and without cuts, or bringing in additional income, or anything else. 

Whether or not it proves to have been the "worst time to retire" or nearly worst, that's what really matters as far as individuals heading toward failure or not. 

If DH and I had retired in that time frame, we'd likely be picking up a few thousand dollars (or perhaps much, much more) in additional income, and perhaps scaling down some plans.

I’ve yet to encounter anyone who has blindly followed a 4% withdraw strategy for thirty years with annual inflation increases, without earning any money, or taking more or less on a given year, or benefiting from a larger than expected windfall.

What is remarkable about this economic period is how strong the job market has been (so far). A top fear of many retirees is that they won’t be able to find work should the SHTF. So far this has been a dream market to pick up supplementary income.

Right.  That's exactly my point.  The math completely fails to account for common sense, which I think most retirees are going to have in at least some amount, which will lead them to spend less of their retirement savings when markets are down and inflation is up.  So it's nice to talk about in a theoretical way, and it does at least give people a rough target to aim for before quitting***, but anyone who is paying attention will be significantly more likely to success than "the math" suggests, no matter what year they retire. 

*** This was probably the #1 thing MMM did for me.  I had done many retirement calculators, and got wildly different numbers, and I knew intuitively that basing things on income rather than spend made no sense at all.  But that still left me with no idea how much I needed to have to fund the rest of my life.  "4%" gave me an approximate target.  It's not exact, but it gave me a starting point and some much-needed clarity.  And I also know I'm not going to follow it blindly.  And I doubt almost anyone does, especially not people savvy enough and number-wise enough to get to any kind of early retirement.

[vand]

I wonder how many people who retired in Jan-Sept 21 (so those who have some time since quitting) have blindly continued to withdraw their inflation-adjusted 4%, exactly on schedule and without cuts, or bringing in additional income, or anything else.

Whether or not it proves to have been the "worst time to retire" or nearly worst, that's what really matters as far as individuals heading toward failure or not. 

If DH and I had retired in that time frame, we'd likely be picking up a few thousand dollars (or perhaps much, much more) in additional income, and perhaps scaling down some plans.

Probably.. none?
But that's not a very fair basis for modelling, really.

On the flip side you also can't account for people who see an unexpected increase in their living expenses - and we all know these groups exist too.

The point has also been made several times that you can only optimize so far... the garden variety MMM has already optimized everything to 5 decimal places on their carefully honed spreadsheet.  If it were possible to cut your income by another 30% and meet the same standard of living then you would already have done it.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I wonder how many people who retired in Jan-Sept 21 (so those who have some time since quitting) have blindly continued to withdraw their inflation-adjusted 4%, exactly on schedule and without cuts, or bringing in additional income, or anything else. 

Whether or not it proves to have been the "worst time to retire" or nearly worst, that's what really matters as far as individuals heading toward failure or not. 

If DH and I had retired in that time frame, we'd likely be picking up a few thousand dollars (or perhaps much, much more) in additional income, and perhaps scaling down some plans.

I’ve yet to encounter anyone who has blindly followed a 4% withdraw strategy for thirty years with annual inflation increases, without earning any money, or taking more or less on a given year, or benefiting from a larger than expected windfall.
...

I hear this counter-argument every time and it completely misses the point.  The goal of FI (measured by achieving your own SWR) is to have the freedom and independence to live within that SWR indefinitely.  This gives you the freedom to never work again, or work in whatever way you see fit regardless of the income. 

So while it may be true that folks can tighten their belt or go back to work, it misses the point that you make a decision about having achieved FI and it turns out that it wasn't FI.  That is my definition of 'failure', not necessarily having zero dollars.  During 2008/9, there was a lot of failure in the fact that many who had declared FIRE in 2007 suddenly found themselves worried about running out of money, changing their lifestyle, and questioning if their ER would last...  Certainly seemed like a less 'free' lifestyle than working a little bit longer.  The money that I stashed during 2008/9 in my 401k (as well as having peace of mind during that time) got me from quasi-FI in 2007 to full FI in 2009.  Full FI would have been delayed significantly and some folks never get back to their FI number.

So yes, these models define 'failure' as running out of money and humans do not behave like models, but we also need to stop saying that we can just disregard the results because we'd never run out of money IRL.  Running out of FI happens long before running out of money and is the thing we are actually trying to avoid when we run these models. 

[Metalcat]

I wonder how many people who retired in Jan-Sept 21 (so those who have some time since quitting) have blindly continued to withdraw their inflation-adjusted 4%, exactly on schedule and without cuts, or bringing in additional income, or anything else. 

Whether or not it proves to have been the "worst time to retire" or nearly worst, that's what really matters as far as individuals heading toward failure or not. 

If DH and I had retired in that time frame, we'd likely be picking up a few thousand dollars (or perhaps much, much more) in additional income, and perhaps scaling down some plans.

I’ve yet to encounter anyone who has blindly followed a 4% withdraw strategy for thirty years with annual inflation increases, without earning any money, or taking more or less on a given year, or benefiting from a larger than expected windfall.
...

I hear this counter-argument every time and it completely misses the point.  The goal of FI (measured by achieving your own SWR) is to have the freedom and independence to live within that SWR indefinitely.  This gives you the freedom to never work again, or work in whatever way you see fit regardless of the income. 

So while it may be true that folks can tighten their belt or go back to work, it misses the point that you make a decision about having achieved FI and it turns out that it wasn't FI.  That is my definition of 'failure', not necessarily having zero dollars.  During 2008/9, there was a lot of failure in the fact that many who had declared FIRE in 2007 suddenly found themselves worried about running out of money, changing their lifestyle, and questioning if their ER would last...  Certainly seemed like a less 'free' lifestyle than working a little bit longer.  The money that I stashed during 2008/9 in my 401k (as well as having peace of mind during that time) got me from quasi-FI in 2007 to full FI in 2009.  Full FI would have been delayed significantly and some folks never get back to their FI number.

So yes, these models define 'failure' as running out of money and humans do not behave like models, but we also need to stop saying that we can just disregard the results because we'd never run out of money IRL.  Running out of FI happens long before running out of money and is the thing we are actually trying to avoid when we run these models.

That's not the point though.

The point is that everyone knows that the 4% rule is a starting point, a rough guideline. People who can't easily cut their budget or can't easily being in more income should absolutely have other SORR contingencies.

The point is that, yes, the modeling is great for showing you why you should have contingencies, but it's not likely to indicate anything about actual, real life failure rates.

It comes back to the entire purpose of the modeling, which is that it helps you make decisions in the present based on a flawed but reasonable model of the potential future, it does not predict the future.

Pointing out what people do in reality doesn't invalidate the models, nor make them less useful, but it is important to recognize what they are actually useful for.

The main benefit of the models is to compare options by seeing the relative impact of variables.

So it's essentially meaningless saying that the theoretical retiree who saved exactly 25X their expenses and then quit, never modified their spending, and always spent 4% +estimated inflation, down to the penny, year after year would run out of money by X year.

But it's very useful to compare SORR mitigation strategies: saving to a lower steady WR, vs having a variable WR, having a lower WR and making it variable vs periodically earning some income, vs bond tent, vs cash reserve, which strategy or combination of strategies comes out ahead in an early retirement period like this??

There's no question people shouldn't treat the "safe withdrawal rate" as the "failsafe withdrawal rate," but I think that's been so well established it's just a given by this point.

I would love to see a bunch of analysis of which hedging approach is most effective in a period where the SORR risk is mostly driven by inflation.

Basically, if someone had retired in 21-22, what SORR plan would have worked out best?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

But THAT is the point of this whole thread, that ER in 2021-22 was probably the worst time to retire.  The best SORR mitigation is to not ER, or to go back to work once you realize you are in a higher % failure cohort than you thought.

How much higher % failure is both hard to determine and the timing of it is up to each individual - how far do you push the envelope?  That is the point of this thread.

[Metalcat]

But THAT is the point of this whole thread, that ER in 2021-22 was probably the worst time to retire.  The best SORR mitigation is to not ER, or to go back to work once you realize you are in a higher % failure cohort than you thought.

How much higher % failure is both hard to determine and the timing of it is up to each individual - how far do you push the envelope?  That is the point of this thread.

Okay...

But if we stipulate that realistically almost anyone actually retiring early has SORR hedges, is there not value in assessing which hedges might have held up best in these circumstances?

The answer can't be "no matter what, no matter how well you've prepared, never ever retire under these circumstances, no matter how much you've saved." That just doesn't make sense.

I guess my point is that we have endless discussions of how to proactively prepare for SORR, but mostly focusing on tumbling market values. We know all about bond tents and cash reserves, etc. We have people here with targets of sub 2% WR, surely they wouldn't have to work longer?

How should we all prepare to handle retiring into inflation environments? Working longer won't always be an ideal option for a lot of people, so what plan would best weather this particular type of SORR challenge?

[wageslave23]

I wonder how many people who retired in Jan-Sept 21 (so those who have some time since quitting) have blindly continued to withdraw their inflation-adjusted 4%, exactly on schedule and without cuts, or bringing in additional income, or anything else. 

Whether or not it proves to have been the "worst time to retire" or nearly worst, that's what really matters as far as individuals heading toward failure or not. 

If DH and I had retired in that time frame, we'd likely be picking up a few thousand dollars (or perhaps much, much more) in additional income, and perhaps scaling down some plans.

I’ve yet to encounter anyone who has blindly followed a 4% withdraw strategy for thirty years with annual inflation increases, without earning any money, or taking more or less on a given year, or benefiting from a larger than expected windfall.
...

I hear this counter-argument every time and it completely misses the point.  The goal of FI (measured by achieving your own SWR) is to have the freedom and independence to live within that SWR indefinitely.  This gives you the freedom to never work again, or work in whatever way you see fit regardless of the income. 

So while it may be true that folks can tighten their belt or go back to work, it misses the point that you make a decision about having achieved FI and it turns out that it wasn't FI.  That is my definition of 'failure', not necessarily having zero dollars.  During 2008/9, there was a lot of failure in the fact that many who had declared FIRE in 2007 suddenly found themselves worried about running out of money, changing their lifestyle, and questioning if their ER would last...  Certainly seemed like a less 'free' lifestyle than working a little bit longer.  The money that I stashed during 2008/9 in my 401k (as well as having peace of mind during that time) got me from quasi-FI in 2007 to full FI in 2009.  Full FI would have been delayed significantly and some folks never get back to their FI number.

So yes, these models define 'failure' as running out of money and humans do not behave like models, but we also need to stop saying that we can just disregard the results because we'd never run out of money IRL.  Running out of FI happens long before running out of money and is the thing we are actually trying to avoid when we run these models.

That's not the point though.

The point is that everyone knows that the 4% rule is a starting point, a rough guideline. People who can't easily cut their budget or can't easily being in more income should absolutely have other SORR contingencies.

The point is that, yes, the modeling is great for showing you why you should have contingencies, but it's not likely to indicate anything about actual, real life failure rates.

It comes back to the entire purpose of the modeling, which is that it helps you make decisions in the present based on a flawed but reasonable model of the potential future, it does not predict the future.

Pointing out what people do in reality doesn't invalidate the models, nor make them less useful, but it is important to recognize what they are actually useful for.

The main benefit of the models is to compare options by seeing the relative impact of variables.

So it's essentially meaningless saying that the theoretical retiree who saved exactly 25X their expenses and then quit, never modified their spending, and always spent 4% +estimated inflation, down to the penny, year after year would run out of money by X year.

But it's very useful to compare SORR mitigation strategies: saving to a lower steady WR, vs having a variable WR, having a lower WR and making it variable vs periodically earning some income, vs bond tent, vs cash reserve, which strategy or combination of strategies comes out ahead in an early retirement period like this??

There's no question people shouldn't treat the "safe withdrawal rate" as the "failsafe withdrawal rate," but I think that's been so well established it's just a given by this point.

I would love to see a bunch of analysis of which hedging approach is most effective in a period where the SORR risk is mostly driven by inflation.

Basically, if someone had retired in 21-22, what SORR plan would have worked out best?

I agree that's interesting but it should be another thread. This topic (whether the hypothetical retiree in 2021/2022 will fail without any mitigation strategies is interesting to some, including me. Especially because it then becomes a jumping off point to other discussions such as, yes it would have failed - now what? What mitigation strategies would have prevented failure. 

I think some people on here, not you Metalcat, are taking this thread personally as if the topic was "did YOU make a mistake by deciding to retire in 2021/2022" or "are YOUR fire plans stupid". To me it's only a dry technical discussion with as few variables as possible so that one specific year can be compared to other years across recent history. One personal circumstances and opinions and emotions get involved it clouds the technical analysis. 

[Metalcat]

I agree that's interesting but it should be another thread. This topic (whether the hypothetical retiree in 2021/2022 will fail without any mitigation strategies is interesting to some, including me. Especially because it then becomes a jumping off point to other discussions such as, yes it would have failed - now what? What mitigation strategies would have prevented failure. 

I think some people on here, not you Metalcat, are taking this thread personally as if the topic was "did YOU make a mistake by deciding to retire in 2021/2022" or "are YOUR fire plans stupid". To me it's only a dry technical discussion with as few variables as possible so that one specific year can be compared to other years across recent history. One personal circumstances and opinions and emotions get involved it clouds the technical analysis.

Well then this should be a very short thread, maybe just a few dry math analysis posts, and perhaps with a different title.

Did 21-22 present the worst SORR risk for early retirees?

No one would argue if the math is clear that that was the worst SORR risk period in history. But worst time to retire comes down to individual factors and just how vulnerable that individual is to SORR vs other risks. That's why people keep arguing.

But it turns out it's just a stupid semantic argument.

If the question really is just to analyze if this is the worst SORR period, with no discussion as to how to manage that risk, then by all means, keep it dry, because there's really no debating that, just observing.

ETA: but my favourite part about ERN is that it discusses strategies for managing risk. I love seeing how the math points towards strategic solutions.

[wageslave23]

I agree that's interesting but it should be another thread. This topic (whether the hypothetical retiree in 2021/2022 will fail without any mitigation strategies is interesting to some, including me. Especially because it then becomes a jumping off point to other discussions such as, yes it would have failed - now what? What mitigation strategies would have prevented failure. 

I think some people on here, not you Metalcat, are taking this thread personally as if the topic was "did YOU make a mistake by deciding to retire in 2021/2022" or "are YOUR fire plans stupid". To me it's only a dry technical discussion with as few variables as possible so that one specific year can be compared to other years across recent history. One personal circumstances and opinions and emotions get involved it clouds the technical analysis.

Well then this should be a very short thread, maybe just a few dry math analysis posts, and perhaps with a different title.

Did 21-22 present the worst SORR risk for early retirees?

No one would argue if the math is clear that that was the worst SORR risk period in history. But worst time to retire comes down to individual factors and just how vulnerable that individual is to SORR vs other risks. That's why people keep arguing.

But it turns out it's just a stupid semantic argument.

If the question really is just to analyze if this is the worst SORR period, with no discussion as to how to manage that risk, then by all means, keep it dry, because there's really no debating that, just observing.

ETA: but my favourite part about ERN is that it discusses strategies for managing risk. I love seeing how the math points towards strategic solutions.

I think you nailed the crux of the issue. I'm not the OP, but I'd love to see this thread be a periodic update on hypothetical retiree's portfolio balance in 2021 dollars. And current success rate %. That's what I was trying to do, but got derailed. 

[dividendman]

I agree that's interesting but it should be another thread. This topic (whether the hypothetical retiree in 2021/2022 will fail without any mitigation strategies is interesting to some, including me. Especially because it then becomes a jumping off point to other discussions such as, yes it would have failed - now what? What mitigation strategies would have prevented failure. 

I think some people on here, not you Metalcat, are taking this thread personally as if the topic was "did YOU make a mistake by deciding to retire in 2021/2022" or "are YOUR fire plans stupid". To me it's only a dry technical discussion with as few variables as possible so that one specific year can be compared to other years across recent history. One personal circumstances and opinions and emotions get involved it clouds the technical analysis.

As someone who actually pulled the plug in Feb. 2022 (pretty much the market peak - I'm great at timing), I don't feel like this is the worst. I think if it was 1929-1932 timeframe and stocks were down ~73%ish I'd be worried.

Right now my net worth is down, nominally ~8.7%, my spending increased year over year by about 10%, but is still a bit below by budgeted amount. I didn't sell any stocks or bonds because I had short term cash and took a loan (that I lucked out with @3% early 2022) and used interest/dividends to pay for my expenses. I'm still implementing my reverse equity glidepath.

My largest expense, a home mortgage, is fixed rate for 27 more years at 2.8%, which is nice.

My planned withdrawal rate (spending) at retirement was 3.2%, my actual withdrawal rate (spending) over the last year was 2.8% vs my net worth in Feb 2022, and 3% vs my net worth now.

I'm not worried and going back to work hasn't even entered my mind.

ETA: What has entered my mind a lot recently is all of these deaths of people/celebrities who seemed healthy/fit dying at around 60. I'm 40 and not fit... I should have retired earlier :(

[EscapeVelocity2020]

But THAT is the point of this whole thread, that ER in 2021-22 was probably the worst time to retire.  The best SORR mitigation is to not ER, or to go back to work once you realize you are in a higher % failure cohort than you thought.

How much higher % failure is both hard to determine and the timing of it is up to each individual - how far do you push the envelope?  That is the point of this thread.

Okay...

But if we stipulate that realistically almost anyone actually retiring early has SORR hedges, is there not value in assessing which hedges might have held up best in these circumstances?

The answer can't be "no matter what, no matter how well you've prepared, never ever retire under these circumstances, no matter how much you've saved." That just doesn't make sense.

I guess my point is that we have endless discussions of how to proactively prepare for SORR, but mostly focusing on tumbling market values. We know all about bond tents and cash reserves, etc. We have people here with targets of sub 2% WR, surely they wouldn't have to work longer?

How should we all prepare to handle retiring into inflation environments? Working longer won't always be an ideal option for a lot of people, so what plan would best weather this particular type of SORR challenge?

This FIRE stuff would be a lot more interesting right now if the movement were actually coming up with good ideas to the very question you pose.  Instead of regurgitating the 'spend less' (we're already there) and invest more (yes, we continue to invest as much as we can and avoid withdrawals) - we need more content like ERN and folks that are navigating the high inflation optimally.  I feel as though MMM no longer really leads a low cost, ER in the face of inflation lifestyle.  He's talking about how to remodel kitchens while FIRE folks are looking how to keep their grocery bills down...  Are solar panels the answer?  Getting chickens?  What forms of home garden are best?  I don't know, I'm not a FIRE blogger that is coming up with new things to say, but surely there are interesting things going on these days that FIRE should be trying to figure out, as well as how to avoid SORR better.

[wageslave23]

I agree that's interesting but it should be another thread. This topic (whether the hypothetical retiree in 2021/2022 will fail without any mitigation strategies is interesting to some, including me. Especially because it then becomes a jumping off point to other discussions such as, yes it would have failed - now what? What mitigation strategies would have prevented failure. 

I think some people on here, not you Metalcat, are taking this thread personally as if the topic was "did YOU make a mistake by deciding to retire in 2021/2022" or "are YOUR fire plans stupid". To me it's only a dry technical discussion with as few variables as possible so that one specific year can be compared to other years across recent history. One personal circumstances and opinions and emotions get involved it clouds the technical analysis.

As someone who actually pulled the plug in Feb. 2022 (pretty much the market peak - I'm great at timing), I don't feel like this is the worst. I think if it was 1929-1932 timeframe and stocks were down ~73%ish I'd be worried.

Right now my net worth is down, nominally ~8.7%, my spending increased year over year by about 10%, but is still a bit below by budgeted amount. I didn't sell any stocks or bonds because I had short term cash and took a loan (that I lucked out with @3% early 2022) and used interest/dividends to pay for my expenses. I'm still implementing my reverse equity glidepath.

My largest expense, a home mortgage, is fixed rate for 27 more years at 2.8%, which is nice.

My planned withdrawal rate (spending) at retirement was 3.2%, my actual withdrawal rate (spending) over the last year was 2.8% vs my net worth in Feb 2022, and 3% vs my net worth now.

I'm not worried and going back to work hasn't even entered my mind.

ETA: What has entered my mind a lot recently is all of these deaths of people/celebrities who seemed healthy/fit dying at around 60. I'm 40 and not fit... I should have retired earlier :(

I'm totally not trying to pick on you. But this is exactly the personal type of response that isn't relevant to the question is 2021/2022 better or worse than say year 1929 or 1963 or 2020, etc. It's kind of like a lender writing an article about if now is a good time to refinance and discussing the history of interest rates and the future of interest rates. And then the comments are full of people saying yeah but I need to refinance because my child broke his leg and I don't have health insurance, or I don't need a mortgage because I paid cash for my house or I'm a renter.

[dividendman]

I agree that's interesting but it should be another thread. This topic (whether the hypothetical retiree in 2021/2022 will fail without any mitigation strategies is interesting to some, including me. Especially because it then becomes a jumping off point to other discussions such as, yes it would have failed - now what? What mitigation strategies would have prevented failure. 

I think some people on here, not you Metalcat, are taking this thread personally as if the topic was "did YOU make a mistake by deciding to retire in 2021/2022" or "are YOUR fire plans stupid". To me it's only a dry technical discussion with as few variables as possible so that one specific year can be compared to other years across recent history. One personal circumstances and opinions and emotions get involved it clouds the technical analysis.

As someone who actually pulled the plug in Feb. 2022 (pretty much the market peak - I'm great at timing), I don't feel like this is the worst. I think if it was 1929-1932 timeframe and stocks were down ~73%ish I'd be worried.

Right now my net worth is down, nominally ~8.7%, my spending increased year over year by about 10%, but is still a bit below by budgeted amount. I didn't sell any stocks or bonds because I had short term cash and took a loan (that I lucked out with @3% early 2022) and used interest/dividends to pay for my expenses. I'm still implementing my reverse equity glidepath.

My largest expense, a home mortgage, is fixed rate for 27 more years at 2.8%, which is nice.

My planned withdrawal rate (spending) at retirement was 3.2%, my actual withdrawal rate (spending) over the last year was 2.8% vs my net worth in Feb 2022, and 3% vs my net worth now.

I'm not worried and going back to work hasn't even entered my mind.

ETA: What has entered my mind a lot recently is all of these deaths of people/celebrities who seemed healthy/fit dying at around 60. I'm 40 and not fit... I should have retired earlier :(

I'm totally not trying to pick on you. But this is exactly the personal type of response that isn't relevant to the question is 2021/2022 better or worse than say year 1929 or 1963 or 2020, etc. It's kind of like a lender writing an article about if now is a good time to refinance and discussing the history of interest rates and the future of interest rates. And then the comments are full of people saying yeah but I need to refinance because my child broke his leg and I don't have health insurance, or I don't need a mortgage because I paid cash for my house or I'm a renter.

Haha, I know, but I purposefully responded because I do think "feel" counts, for a lot. We can try to extrapolate inflation/market downswings into the numbers discussion you want, but if the market tanks 50% in a year like in the great depression I think a lot of people would be going back to work regardless of whether it was the worst year or not historically speaking (with regards to inflation etc.).

[Fru-Gal]

Hi, I’m class of 2021. I don’t think this forum is lacking in discussion around currently changing economic environments, or failing to point people to discussions to re-evaluate their current asset allocations, draw-down plans, etc. Arguably, MMM’s lifestyle choices and blogging topics are a perfect example of living the dream he laid out for us to follow. I definitely would not rather he started down some sort of scary bear market rant path. I do think it’s too soon to tell if this is “the worst time” or if “this time it’s different”.

Most of us who followed the recommended sequence of savings/investments up to 25x expenses, locked in good mortgage rates and eliminated excess debt have all the skills needed to navigate forward.

[Villanelle]

I wonder how many people who retired in Jan-Sept 21 (so those who have some time since quitting) have blindly continued to withdraw their inflation-adjusted 4%, exactly on schedule and without cuts, or bringing in additional income, or anything else. 

Whether or not it proves to have been the "worst time to retire" or nearly worst, that's what really matters as far as individuals heading toward failure or not. 

If DH and I had retired in that time frame, we'd likely be picking up a few thousand dollars (or perhaps much, much more) in additional income, and perhaps scaling down some plans.

I’ve yet to encounter anyone who has blindly followed a 4% withdraw strategy for thirty years with annual inflation increases, without earning any money, or taking more or less on a given year, or benefiting from a larger than expected windfall.
...

I hear this counter-argument every time and it completely misses the point.  The goal of FI (measured by achieving your own SWR) is to have the freedom and independence to live within that SWR indefinitely.  This gives you the freedom to never work again, or work in whatever way you see fit regardless of the income. 

So while it may be true that folks can tighten their belt or go back to work, it misses the point that you make a decision about having achieved FI and it turns out that it wasn't FI.  That is my definition of 'failure', not necessarily having zero dollars.  During 2008/9, there was a lot of failure in the fact that many who had declared FIRE in 2007 suddenly found themselves worried about running out of money, changing their lifestyle, and questioning if their ER would last...  Certainly seemed like a less 'free' lifestyle than working a little bit longer.  The money that I stashed during 2008/9 in my 401k (as well as having peace of mind during that time) got me from quasi-FI in 2007 to full FI in 2009.  Full FI would have been delayed significantly and some folks never get back to their FI number.

So yes, these models define 'failure' as running out of money and humans do not behave like models, but we also need to stop saying that we can just disregard the results because we'd never run out of money IRL.  Running out of FI happens long before running out of money and is the thing we are actually trying to avoid when we run these models.

Why do you get to define failure for other people?  For me, saying, "Gosh, markets are shit.  Why don't we do a local vacation this year instead of flying to Europe?", isn't even clse to failure.  Even saying, "hey, I'll see if I can snag another freelance client for an extra 2-4 hours a week, and DH, why don't you activate your availability on the substitute teaching list", isn't failure.  If it is failure for you, fine.  But it's not for me. 

Getting to quit at some younger age and enjoy that time?  That seems like financial independence to me.  And success. 

I'm much more likely to define as failure having hundreds of thousands of dollars left at the end of my life, if we kept working because we weren't sure we had enough. 

I acknowledged above that the 4% rule and the modeling is useful and helpful.  As a starting point.  As an approximation.  A launching point from which someone can adjust for their own circumstances and values.  If those values are "I want to get as close as possible to being 100% sure I will never have to do paid work for one minute again, for the rest of my life, and I never want to have to cut anything from my plans or my budget,  then maybe 4% isn't enough.  If your values include ending work as early as possible, then perhaps you can quit earlier and plan for 4%, or higher, knowing your have fat in your budget to trim as needed and a realistic ability, and willingness, to earn at least a few thousand dollars in retirement. 

I do agree that personal situations aren't really relevant for determining the worst time ever to retire.  But it is relevant to how concerned someone needs to be about whether the time they choose/chose to FIRE will end up being "the worst".  Because even if it is, there are levers they can pull to adjust and still be just fine. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Just trying to come up with some sort of consistent definition for FIRE failure.  The way you describe it, especially 'dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars', would be an awfully confusing concept of failure.

[deborah]

FIRE has always been a double edged concept. If you FIRE too soon you fail because you don’t have enough money to pursue your goals. If you FIRE too late, you fail because you end up with too much money and you could have had more time to pursue your goals.

It’s even more complex because some people believe they cannot pursue their goals when they’re too old, and expect to go back to work at some stage, so going back to work isn’t necessarily a FIRE failure.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

How would you define failure? Because in a very reasonable, real sense, dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars is failure. The only conditions you need for there to be at least some truth to that is that you don't have a significant desire to leave money to someone or something and you don't really, really love you job. If those two are true, then you traded hours of your life/freedom making money you didn't need to doing something you wouldn't have done at all or at least as much if you knew you didn't have to.

So, is failure to you not ruining out of money, not needing to ever get paid again, and not needing to cut back  spending? Because, if so, that is a personal choice, which is fine, but it's not the way I define it.

[Metalcat]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

It's because the thread title should be "Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?"

"worst time to retire" is more ambiguous and invites the kind of commentary you say you don't want.

[PhilB]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

It's because the thread title should be "Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?"

"worst time to retire" is more ambiguous and invites the kind of commentary you say you don't want.

It's not just the title.  The original post is also leans much more towards "we're all doomed!" than "let's have a technical discussion about whether or not we are witnessing one of the periods when a blind 4% rule 'fails'."

I very much agree that it would be great to have a long-running technical thread monitoring the performance of the pure 4% rule, rather than the actual performance of a real life FIRE cohort.  I don't think you have much chance of converting this thread into that though.

[nereo]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

It's because the thread title should be "Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?"

"worst time to retire" is more ambiguous and invites the kind of commentary you say you don't want.

I think you have highlighted what many of us have been implying, though less directly. The source of disagreement is whether we look at economic conditions beyond the stock and bond markets included in popular portfolio modeling programs like cFireSim.

This thread has highlighted at least two conditions that might have an unexpectedly large impact on whether a FIREee from the ‘21 cohort is experiencing “the worst time ever to retire”. The first is the historically low interest rates available then. Some (@dividendman) held mortgages and other loans purposeful into retirement. As the “4% rule” always increases with inflation people who have a sizeable portion of their expenses fixed are in a much different position than those who’s entire spending is subject to near-double digit inflation. This is massively different than the “stagflation” environment of the late 70s/early 80s (often thought of as “the worst time to retire”) when interest rates were high for years earlier.

Then there’s opportunities for those who have been hit hard by SORR. You can argue that picking up work is a “failure” and there is some validity to that viewpoint. But if we are going to call this be “The Worst!” we should consider what other options people have. Again, those retiring in the late 70s had historically terrible conditions, and likely has difficulty mitigating their SORR loses. Right now we are in a unique situation of very low unemployment and considerable stimulus.

Which brings us back to the observation that virtually no one had this set it and forget it 4% WR strategy. Which means we have to look at a more holistic picture

[eyesonthehorizon]

Although I recognize the appeal of limiting variables, I just can’t imagine the FIREe’s experience of inflation matching up to the overall CPI, even for one year (let alone all 30), because we recognize how much of our spending is elastic. Situational flexibility, willing substitution, & embrace of diverse experiences are the main tools in pursuit of FIRE, so continuing to use them thereafter is an odd definition of “failure” to me. My expenses have been flat in the face of 8% inflation with zero quality of life shift.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

How would you define failure? Because in a very reasonable, real sense, dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars is failure. The only conditions you need for there to be at least some truth to that is that you don't have a significant desire to leave money to someone or something and you don't really, really love you job. If those two are true, then you traded hours of your life/freedom making money you didn't need to doing something you wouldn't have done at all or at least as much if you knew you didn't have to.

So, is failure to you not ruining out of money, not needing to ever get paid again, and not needing to cut back  spending? Because, if so, that is a personal choice, which is fine, but it's not the way I define it.

Unless your plan includes knowing exactly when you die and that you'll maintain the spend you had in ER toward that day (not to mention knowing the returns on bonds and equities every year of retirement so that your SWR is pretty much spot on - kept low when you are healthy and might spend more, high when you are older and less active) then we are all bound to fail under your definition.

Dying with hundreds of thousands can simply mean you started your 4% SWR in a good sequence of returns series - hardly your fault it wasn't hugging the die with zero line.  It could also mean you died early, probably also not your fault.

I'm trying to get a definition that has utility.  I think most 'normal people' would be on board with FIRE success being - "not running out of money, not needing to ever get paid work for pay again, and not needing to cut back spending"

[PhilB]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

How would you define failure? Because in a very reasonable, real sense, dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars is failure. The only conditions you need for there to be at least some truth to that is that you don't have a significant desire to leave money to someone or something and you don't really, really love you job. If those two are true, then you traded hours of your life/freedom making money you didn't need to doing something you wouldn't have done at all or at least as much if you knew you didn't have to.

So, is failure to you not ruining out of money, not needing to ever get paid again, and not needing to cut back  spending? Because, if so, that is a personal choice, which is fine, but it's not the way I define it.

Unless your plan includes knowing exactly when you die and that you'll maintain the spend you had in ER toward that day (not to mention knowing the returns on bonds and equities every year of retirement so that your SWR is pretty much spot on - kept low when you are healthy and might spend more, high when you are older and less active) then we are all bound to fail under your definition.

Dying with hundreds of thousands can simply mean you started your 4% SWR in a good sequence of returns series - hardly your fault it wasn't hugging the die with zero line.  It could also mean you died early, probably also not your fault.

I'm trying to get a definition that has utility.  I think most 'normal people' would be on board with FIRE success being - "not running out of money, not needing to ever get paid work for pay again, and not needing to cut back spending"

Oh no they wouldn't, because most normal people don't think of retirement as being a single success / failure thing in that way.  'Normal' people recognise that there will always be uncertainty and that financially they will almost certainly do either better or worse than their forecast position and would never lump everything a penny below forecast as failure and everything a penny above as success.  'Failure' would only have meaning if the outcome was so bad that they seriously regretted their decision to retire.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

How would you define failure? Because in a very reasonable, real sense, dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars is failure. The only conditions you need for there to be at least some truth to that is that you don't have a significant desire to leave money to someone or something and you don't really, really love you job. If those two are true, then you traded hours of your life/freedom making money you didn't need to doing something you wouldn't have done at all or at least as much if you knew you didn't have to.

So, is failure to you not ruining out of money, not needing to ever get paid again, and not needing to cut back  spending? Because, if so, that is a personal choice, which is fine, but it's not the way I define it.

Unless your plan includes knowing exactly when you die and that you'll maintain the spend you had in ER toward that day (not to mention knowing the returns on bonds and equities every year of retirement so that your SWR is pretty much spot on - kept low when you are healthy and might spend more, high when you are older and less active) then we are all bound to fail under your definition.

Dying with hundreds of thousands can simply mean you started your 4% SWR in a good sequence of returns series - hardly your fault it wasn't hugging the die with zero line.  It could also mean you died early, probably also not your fault.

I'm trying to get a definition that has utility.  I think most 'normal people' would be on board with FIRE success being - "not running out of money, not needing to ever get paid work for pay again, and not needing to cut back spending"

Of course, one would fail with that definition of failure, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid definition of failure. It sounds like you're treating failure like it's a moralistic failing - using phrases like "not being your fault." I'm not looking at it like that at all - like it's bad or something or something I should fret over having done and have regrets about - just that it's reasonable to say that given the conditions I had mentioned, that to die with much more than zero would mean that you weren't as efficient as you could possibly be. I fail every year at my income tax goal - to pay nothing and owe nothing, and through no or little fault of my own because circumstances changed or just because it's hard to estimate.

I wrote that example not to even say it's my definition of failure. Just that it's a reasonable one (if you don't absolutely love your job or want to leave something behind wealth-wise), and I don't see anything in your comments that make me change my mind.

However, again, it's not my definition. Mine is easier, as I have kids I'd be glad to leave some money too - there's a buffer that makes what I'm aiming for easier, and I truly would like for them to have something. I'm perfectly fine, though, with them not having 2 million each.

I'm also trying to get to the definition of utility. There is certainly utility in having money left over so you don't come right up to the brink of spending it all. There's also the reality that many people, if they are longer lived, will spend less as they age rather than more. It's a complex and nuanced issue.

Thank you for sharing your explanation of what failure is. I don't think it's reasonable to say that most 'normal people' subscribe to it, simply because  what is a normal person? Normal for MMM? Normal for mainstream? It's very challenging. I will say that most of what you say seems fairly normal off the cuff as many people do not want to have to work for money after retirement and would consider needing to go back to be at least a partial failure. I do disagree strongly that it's a normal definition to "not need(ing) to cut back spending" because people do that all the time. I do that now, and I'm not even on any sort of "restricted income." I alter what I spend and what I buy all the time based off of how expensive things are, what else I'm doing in the year to maintain a level of spending, etc. I think a great number of people who don't have extraordinary assets do that. I see no reason why I wouldn't do that in retirement.

I feel a reasonable definition of failure is needing to go back to work, full time, at a job that I either like less than the job I had when I retired or at a similar job to what I had when I retired for equal or less pay. It's a sort of failure, but even in that situation, I may have had 3, 5, 10+ years of good experiences when I was healthier than I would be later on, hanging out with my kids while they're still here or my older family while they're alive.

[mistymoney]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

I was actually somewhat groaning with the resurgence of a conversation this thread seems to have recycled through 3 or more time. "not this again" I thought. but then, I thought it took something of turn that has really highlighted a few things for me. Previous reiterations of the conversation seemed to circle around the RE part. What is RE? How risky is RE? What is fail of RE? etc.

Maybe a subtle difference, but this time I think there's been more a magnifying glass put onto the FI (I think comments by @EscapeVelocity2020, but could be wrong!).

So what your definition of and more importantly your goals around FI really shape how SORR impact your plan and your identified threats.

The calculators, as someone pointed out, don't count an ending balance of $542.23 to be a fail when evaluating the simulations. That scared the pants off of me! So you can add 10 extra just in case years there and see what happens.

But since first getting into the idea of FI - I have taken a more historical view of it, like Mr. Bennet's "love of independence" being the only thing that reigned in Mrs. Bennet's spendthrift ways. Where the capital is always preserved and nothing is lost over time in terms.

So I think there is quite the divide between financing your life comfortably through to the end, and never losing captial*. Both interms of philosophy as well as the pot of money needed to execute those goals.

*I think capital is harder to define in modern terms/modern stock market, as my impression (based entirely on jane austen and other authors!) is that the money was more like treasuries/CD, invested at 4 or 5% in perpetuity or long term (as in generational) rents from land. Even just relying on dividends int he current environment may not be a good facsimile if you have closed end funds, and then regular company dividends are far less stable and may need to sell shares if recession has many companies cutting dividends.

So I think this is a huge fundemental difference, and influences the sides of this discussion.

[Holocene]

I'm trying to get a definition that has utility.  I think most 'normal people' would be on board with FIRE success being - "not running out of money, not needing to ever get paid work for pay again, and not needing to cut back spending"

I'm not sure if this is true, at least not for the FIRE community.  My plans include a combination of a low WR, a decent discretionary (travel/fun) budget that can be cut, and willingness to go back to work if really needed.  I won't argue that cutting spending and doing paid work could be considered failures if you absolutely do not want to ever do those things again once you FIRE.  But if you accept a small chance of doing these things as part of your plan in order to achieve FIRE earlier, I don't really consider it a failure.  I think it's a much bigger failure to keep working if you don't enjoy it and continue to OMY to get that last .1% of potential success rate.

The reality is that humans are incredibly flexible and will adapt to what they have.  And there's no way someone in their 20s, 30s, or 40s is going to be able to accurately predict what their expenses are going to be or what their life will look like for the next 50+ years.  I think it's smarter to just acknowledge this and be ok with adapting your plans as you go along.  The 4% SWR is a good starting point to see if you have somewhere in the ballpark of enough.  But your analysis should never stop there.  Someone who's smart and dedicated enough to save enough to retire early is not going to be blindly following the 4% rule until they go broke.  That's why these threads always devolve into this.

Personally, I find it much more useful and interesting to hear about people who retired in 21-22 about how they're doing and what if any changes if any they've made to their plans.  It's too early to tell if the hypothetical retiree strictly following the 4% rule would have chosen the worst time to retire or not.  It's not looking like a great start.  But individuals who retired in 21-22 seem to mostly be doing fine and naturally being a bit more careful or cutting back without significant quality of life impact.  Everyone is in their own unique situation, so it might not apply to you and you may decide you want a bulletproof retirement.  That's fine.  Just understand what you're giving up to get to that point.  And many of us consider working too long a failure too.

I'm working part-time now rather than doing full RE in 2022 as I intended.  I did take 6 months off completely first.  It was mostly a non-financial decision for me.  But I'm sure the poor stock market returns and high inflation at least somewhat subconsciously played a part.  I still think I'd be fine financially without my part-time income.  It's nice to have it though and has allowed me to spend a bit more rather than cut back.  I went on an expensive vacation in 2022 and just bought a new car.  My life would've been just fine without these things, and I probably would've just delayed them rather than cut them completely if I was fully RE.  But it's definitely a tougher time to be starting out retirement.  I don't think anyone is denying that.  Staying at my old job out of fear would've been a much worse decision for me than retiring early though.  If I could not have worked out the sabbatical and new part-time job, I don't think 2022 would have been the worst time to retire for me.

'Failure' would only have meaning if the outcome was so bad that they seriously regretted their decision to retire.

I agree with this.  I think this is a much better definition of failure!

[wageslave23]

What in the actual hell is going on with these MMM forums? Can nothing be discussed in rational, hypothetical terms so that individuals can then tailor the general, hypothetical situation to suit their definition of "FIRE", personal circumstances, etc. At some point you have to stop changing the definition of terms. If everyone of a dozen people have their own definition of every term, then there is no way to have a discussion about anything. Try to think "what is the general definition" of this term, when having a discussion with others. When a question is asked to a general audience,  try to think what is a general answer? It does no one any good to respond to a general question with a specific answer that is only relevant to your specific situation.  Unless it's a case study, no one cares about your specific circumstances, because it probably doesn't apply to anyone else's specific circumstances.  If someone refers to "dollar" use context to determine that "dollar" means usda since most posters are American. It doesn't matter that you might live in Australia or Canada, think in terms of what is most likely being referenced based on context. This same principle applies to words like "FIRE ", retirement, success rate, work, etc. Omg people, there are plenty of other thread that discuss individual meanings of words, plus journals, and case studies. 

[mistymoney]

FIRE has always been a double edged concept. If you FIRE too soon you fail because you don’t have enough money to pursue your goals. If you FIRE too late, you fail because you end up with too much money and you could have had more time to pursue your goals.

It’s even more complex because some people believe they cannot pursue their goals when they’re too old, and expect to go back to work at some stage, so going back to work isn’t necessarily a FIRE failure.

However, I would think that with a few exceptions, the pot of money you start out with doesn't vary that greatly between diminishing the pot and having it grow in perpetuity - at least if we look at average yearly stock gains and it being a nominal amount of average monthly gain/loss of just 100-200 dollars. Not alot either way granted! But the compounding effects of couse would be magnified each year into the 30 (or 40-50) year model.

Hitting it at the goldilocks "just right" is way too dificult! imo. What drives me crazy - and likely no one else here! I get that! - is thinking that just a few months of continued work could make the difference between a pot that increases over time vs one that decreases over time. Again - my own emotional concern. Because - I do not want a pot that decreases over time - even by just a little bit. Maybe just a few dollars would be ok :).

But the SORR is about the not-average, negative stock market impacts or other economics such as high inflation during the earlier years. So - 2022 was one of those. And the question now (at least to me and some others on the thread) is will the returns over the course of retirement for the 21 and 22 cohorts recover sufficiently to be in the success vs fail outcomes? And that is largely unaswerable for quite a long time. The question of course is different for those in those cohorts - which of course is what, if anything, should I do differently and if/when does that need to happen? And what would that action be base on? size of stache, needed WR? Lot of posters have listed these out already. And I think anyone who starts out at 4% but will eventually pay off a mortage and get social security down the road has a lot of safety built in already.

For the modeling question, even if this is the start of 5 bad years, it could well be followed by a decade averaging 15% annual gains with low inflation and it all evened out for the cohorts.

To my issue on where the edge of increasing vs decreasing pot, it becomes much more difficult. Likely there is a point where a few more months of working will cross from one to the other, but just like the success/failure - impossible to tell for a decade or more, so really just a theoretical issue to grapple with.

[mistymoney]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

It's because the thread title should be "Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?"

"worst time to retire" is more ambiguous and invites the kind of commentary you say you don't want.

It's not just the title.  The original post is also leans much more towards "we're all doomed!" than "let's have a technical discussion about whether or not we are witnessing one of the periods when a blind 4% rule 'fails'."

I very much agree that it would be great to have a long-running technical thread monitoring the performance of the pure 4% rule, rather than the actual performance of a real life FIRE cohort.  I don't think you have much chance of converting this thread into that though.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm having a very hard time teasing out exactly what differences there are between these.

Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst time to retire?
Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?
let's have a technical discussion about whether or not we are witnessing one of the periods when a blind 4% rule 'fails'

with the last - it is more general and not postulating the "worst" year, but otherwise, these all look like the same topic to me.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Yeah, we're not making very much progress when folks just want to subjectively define FIRE success and argue semantics.

Ironically, to actually 'die with zero', most folks in this forum are going about it the wrong way.  They should match their liability (all their future expenses) to assets and then buy 30 year bonds, TIPS, and an annuity.  It isn't the most efficient way to go about it, but by this thread you'd think it was the only way to be successful in FIRE.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I missed the shift to folks rushing out to buy bonds and shun these unpredictable equities?

[Metalcat]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

It's because the thread title should be "Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?"

"worst time to retire" is more ambiguous and invites the kind of commentary you say you don't want.

It's not just the title.  The original post is also leans much more towards "we're all doomed!" than "let's have a technical discussion about whether or not we are witnessing one of the periods when a blind 4% rule 'fails'."

I very much agree that it would be great to have a long-running technical thread monitoring the performance of the pure 4% rule, rather than the actual performance of a real life FIRE cohort.  I don't think you have much chance of converting this thread into that though.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm having a very hard time teasing out exactly what differences there are between these.

Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst time to retire?
Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?
let's have a technical discussion about whether or not we are witnessing one of the periods when a blind 4% rule 'fails'

with the last - it is more general and not postulating the "worst" year, but otherwise, these all look like the same topic to me.

They aren't the same. For any given individual, SORR is just one risk to be managed.

Different people have different levels of susceptibility to SORR depending on their plans.

So they're related concepts, but not identical concepts.

[mistymoney]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

It's because the thread title should be "Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?"

"worst time to retire" is more ambiguous and invites the kind of commentary you say you don't want.

It's not just the title.  The original post is also leans much more towards "we're all doomed!" than "let's have a technical discussion about whether or not we are witnessing one of the periods when a blind 4% rule 'fails'."

I very much agree that it would be great to have a long-running technical thread monitoring the performance of the pure 4% rule, rather than the actual performance of a real life FIRE cohort.  I don't think you have much chance of converting this thread into that though.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm having a very hard time teasing out exactly what differences there are between these.

Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst time to retire?
Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst SORR time to retire into?
let's have a technical discussion about whether or not we are witnessing one of the periods when a blind 4% rule 'fails'

with the last - it is more general and not postulating the "worst" year, but otherwise, these all look like the same topic to me.

They aren't the same. For any given individual, SORR is just one risk to be managed.

Different people have different levels of susceptibility to SORR depending on their plans.

So they're related concepts, but not identical concepts.

To you. And you've done a great job of explaining these other variables. But that was in no way the original intention of the OP to my read.

I would never interpret the topic to be "Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst time to retire and this applies to every single individual within the cohort no matter what anyone's individual personal circumstance may be?"

[Metalcat]

To you. And you've done a great job of explaining these other variables. But that was in no way the original intention of the OP to my read.

I would never interpret the topic to be "Did the Great Resignation class of 21-22 just pick the worst time to retire and this applies to every single individual within the cohort no matter what anyone's individual personal circumstance may be?"

I don't want to get into rehashing arguments I've already made in this thread multiple times. I was asked to clarify a statement. I clarified it.

[Villanelle]

Not to mention, if you've played with FireCalc, 95% success includes loads of 30 year series where you die with hundreds of thousands of dollars, so 'failed'?  The point is, we don't know the 30 year sequence that matches ours, so we don't know which SWR gets us to die with zero.

I thought this thread was doing pretty well until we got derailed with more of the 'Stop Worrying About the 4% Rule' rehash.

How would you define failure? Because in a very reasonable, real sense, dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars is failure. The only conditions you need for there to be at least some truth to that is that you don't have a significant desire to leave money to someone or something and you don't really, really love you job. If those two are true, then you traded hours of your life/freedom making money you didn't need to doing something you wouldn't have done at all or at least as much if you knew you didn't have to.

So, is failure to you not ruining out of money, not needing to ever get paid again, and not needing to cut back  spending? Because, if so, that is a personal choice, which is fine, but it's not the way I define it.

Unless your plan includes knowing exactly when you die and that you'll maintain the spend you had in ER toward that day (not to mention knowing the returns on bonds and equities every year of retirement so that your SWR is pretty much spot on - kept low when you are healthy and might spend more, high when you are older and less active) then we are all bound to fail under your definition.

Dying with hundreds of thousands can simply mean you started your 4% SWR in a good sequence of returns series - hardly your fault it wasn't hugging the die with zero line.  It could also mean you died early, probably also not your fault.

I'm trying to get a definition that has utility.  I think most 'normal people' would be on board with FIRE success being - "not running out of money, not needing to ever get paid work for pay again, and not needing to cut back spending"

How do you define your life being a success or failure?  I'm guess there are as many answer to that as therr are humans.  There's no one definition.  And I think the same is true of FIRE.  You asked above how dying with a ton of money could possibly be failure.  Well, because it means several extra years wasted working instead of doing things that actively bring someone joy.  (This doesn't apply to SWAMIs, which just reenforces the point that there is on one definition that is going to be universal.) 

You claim people are "changing definitions", but I'm not changing anything.  That's always been my plan for FIRE, and my definition of success has always been--roughly--quitting as soon as possible, knowing that it may means some budget cuts in down years, and maybe even taking on some very part time, not unpleasant work. 

If that would be a failure for you, fine.  I'm not going to argue that an extra X years spent at a job you don't enjoy (if you in fact don't enjoy it) is a much better waste than a dozen hours a month spent working, for a short time *IF* required.  That math doesn't work out at all for me, but I'm not the one trying to apply my definition to everyone else. 

Put another way, my plan specifically includes those possibilities, in order to allow DH and me to quit as soon as we want to.  So by your definition, having to do the things that are specifically part of my plan is somehow a failure?  Now whose definition is diverging from the typical denotation of the word failure?  Enacting a plan exactly as, well... planned is failure?  Nah. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

How do you define your life being a success or failure?  I'm guess there are as many answer to that as therr are humans.  There's no one definition.  And I think the same is true of FIRE.  You asked above how dying with a ton of money could possibly be failure.  Well, because it means several extra years wasted working instead of doing things that actively bring someone joy.  (This doesn't apply to SWAMIs, which just reenforces the point that there is on one definition that is going to be universal.) 

You claim people are "changing definitions", but I'm not changing anything.  That's always been my plan for FIRE, and my definition of success has always been--roughly--quitting as soon as possible, knowing that it may means some budget cuts in down years, and maybe even taking on some very part time, not unpleasant work. 

If that would be a failure for you, fine.  I'm not going to argue that an extra X years spent at a job you don't enjoy (if you in fact don't enjoy it) is a much better waste than a dozen hours a month spent working, for a short time *IF* required.  That math doesn't work out at all for me, but I'm not the one trying to apply my definition to everyone else. 

Put another way, my plan specifically includes those possibilities, in order to allow DH and me to quit as soon as we want to.  So by your definition, having to do the things that are specifically part of my plan is somehow a failure?  Now whose definition is diverging from the typical denotation of the word failure?  Enacting a plan exactly as, well... planned is failure?  Nah.

Not sure how we keep talking past each other, but you really don't seem to be absorbing my comments and progressing your counter argument.  I'm not the arbiter of success and failure, just trying to come up with a good universal definition so we can all discuss using the same ground rules.  I have, many times, explained why dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars will be a terrible measure of success or failure.  Even a successful 'die with zero' FIRE will have $200k (assuming 40k/yr spending, $1M portfolio) on year 25.  That would look a lot like failure?

[Sandi_k]

Not sure how we keep talking past each other, but you really don't seem to be absorbing my comments and progressing your counter argument.  I'm not the arbiter of success and failure, just trying to come up with a good universal definition so we can all discuss using the same ground rules.  I have, many times, explained why dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars will be a terrible measure of success or failure.  Even a successful 'die with zero' FIRE will have $200k (assuming 40k/yr spending, $1M portfolio) on year 25.  That would look a lot like failure?

Nope. It means they planned prudently, because we cannot know the future.

If this person came down with cancer? Or their house ends up flooded in an area that was never identified as a flood plain before? Having some elasticity in their funding - that "extra" $200k - is SMART.

Since we cannot know OUR future in advance, we use economic models to give us a "best plan." That might be the 4% rule, with some tweaks. If you're into Liability Matching Portfolios, maybe you buy 30 years of TIPS. If you're a Boglehead, maybe you use the Variable Percentage Withdrawal.

You won't know what the best model was, for you, until you hit Year 30.

[Villanelle]

How do you define your life being a success or failure?  I'm guess there are as many answer to that as therr are humans.  There's no one definition.  And I think the same is true of FIRE.  You asked above how dying with a ton of money could possibly be failure.  Well, because it means several extra years wasted working instead of doing things that actively bring someone joy.  (This doesn't apply to SWAMIs, which just reenforces the point that there is on one definition that is going to be universal.) 

You claim people are "changing definitions", but I'm not changing anything.  That's always been my plan for FIRE, and my definition of success has always been--roughly--quitting as soon as possible, knowing that it may means some budget cuts in down years, and maybe even taking on some very part time, not unpleasant work. 

If that would be a failure for you, fine.  I'm not going to argue that an extra X years spent at a job you don't enjoy (if you in fact don't enjoy it) is a much better waste than a dozen hours a month spent working, for a short time *IF* required.  That math doesn't work out at all for me, but I'm not the one trying to apply my definition to everyone else. 

Put another way, my plan specifically includes those possibilities, in order to allow DH and me to quit as soon as we want to.  So by your definition, having to do the things that are specifically part of my plan is somehow a failure?  Now whose definition is diverging from the typical denotation of the word failure?  Enacting a plan exactly as, well... planned is failure?  Nah.

Not sure how we keep talking past each other, but you really don't seem to be absorbing my comments and progressing your counter argument.  I'm not the arbiter of success and failure, just trying to come up with a good universal definition so we can all discuss using the same ground rules.  I have, many times, explained why dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars will be a terrible measure of success or failure.  Even a successful 'die with zero' FIRE will have $200k (assuming 40k/yr spending, $1M portfolio) on year 25.  That would look a lot like failure?

I agree we are talking past each other. If you define my hypothetical FIRE, in which I'm blissfully happy and thrilled DH and I didn't work even longer--as a failure, I'm okay with that.

I think I'm absorbing your argument.  I just think that fundamentally, there isn't a universal definition of "FIRE success", unless it's something nebulous like, "is the FIREee satisfied with the outcome and choices, on what turns out to be their very last day?". Again, it is comparable to trying to define what makes a life successful.  Do you actually think there's a universal definition of that?   

I understand why you want a universal definition.  I just don't think it exists.  Would you really define my hypothetical FIRE as a failure I'm thrilled with it until the day I day, and I wouldn't do anything different if I was able to magically go back?  If yes, do you not see how that's... odd and sort of condescending?  And if no, then that seems to acknowledge the fact that it's too complex a concept for a concrete universal definition? 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

How do you define your life being a success or failure?  I'm guess there are as many answer to that as therr are humans.  There's no one definition.  And I think the same is true of FIRE.  You asked above how dying with a ton of money could possibly be failure.  Well, because it means several extra years wasted working instead of doing things that actively bring someone joy.  (This doesn't apply to SWAMIs, which just reenforces the point that there is on one definition that is going to be universal.) 

You claim people are "changing definitions", but I'm not changing anything.  That's always been my plan for FIRE, and my definition of success has always been--roughly--quitting as soon as possible, knowing that it may means some budget cuts in down years, and maybe even taking on some very part time, not unpleasant work. 

If that would be a failure for you, fine.  I'm not going to argue that an extra X years spent at a job you don't enjoy (if you in fact don't enjoy it) is a much better waste than a dozen hours a month spent working, for a short time *IF* required.  That math doesn't work out at all for me, but I'm not the one trying to apply my definition to everyone else. 

Put another way, my plan specifically includes those possibilities, in order to allow DH and me to quit as soon as we want to.  So by your definition, having to do the things that are specifically part of my plan is somehow a failure?  Now whose definition is diverging from the typical denotation of the word failure?  Enacting a plan exactly as, well... planned is failure?  Nah.

Not sure how we keep talking past each other, but you really don't seem to be absorbing my comments and progressing your counter argument.  I'm not the arbiter of success and failure, just trying to come up with a good universal definition so we can all discuss using the same ground rules.  I have, many times, explained why dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars will be a terrible measure of success or failure.  Even a successful 'die with zero' FIRE will have $200k (assuming 40k/yr spending, $1M portfolio) on year 25.  That would look a lot like failure?

What was your explanation of what is wrong with dying with zero as a goal point or not dying with zero (or at least relatively close to zero) as a failure point? I couldn't tell what it was in your response to me, other than it's not something that's achievable to perfection?

Also, I agree that coming up with a general universal definition of success and failure is a good idea. You didn't respond to why reducing spending is something that should be considered failure. This one boggles my mind, as it is literally one of the most normal things people do when it comes to spending (at least if they're fiscally responsible) - meaning they reduce spending depending on their situation. The success or failure of dying with zero isn't my biggest point. I just see it as an extreme but rational possibility. The hard line in the sand of not reducing spending makes no sense to me. It's one of my biggest plans to mitigate risk - knowing I can spend extra thousands of dollars on trips that factor into my 4% budget that I can reduce at will if things start going down as well as knowing I can reduce general spending - eating out, splurges, etc. I am not able to see how that in any way is failure. I also see picking up some part-time work doing something I enjoy to get an extra 5-10k a year or keeping up certifications so someone can go back for 10-15 hours a week to help out with things as not failure either.

This is not arguing semantics or being idealistic. It's (especially reducing spending) a very logical, easily achievable form of risk mitigation that doesn't involve working many extra years to reduce 4% to 3.5%, 3%, etc. But if failure is rigidly defined as never ever needing any form of money again outside of investments, never reducing spending, etc. then that definition of failure has significant drawbacks.

[wageslave23]

I think the issue is that some people are familiar with several blogs/websites such as ERN, firecalc, etc and realize that failure and success rates for given swr have a standard universal definition of portfolio failure being running out of money within 30 yrs. So within the FIRE blogosphere its generally accepted that 30 yr timeframe, not adjusting spending, not earning extra income is generally accepted unless you specifically start otherwise such as when ERN states that he is going to change the assumptions to 40 yrs or having less 250k left, etc. When the Trinity study and 4% rule are mentioned, I generally understood that the 95% success rate is for 4% withdrawal rate, inflation adjusted, and a >0 balance after 30 yrs. If you don't accept that as the definition of failure then that's fine, just know that in general discussions this is assumed.

Also consider context, and think "does my interpretation of the question render it a meaningless question?" If so, then you are probably interpreting it wrong. If my answer to the OP's question is well I qualified for a defined benefit pension that pays 100% of my expenses in 2021 - I should probably consider that my personal circumstances probably don't apply to the question being asked. Or any other personal variation that is unique to myself and not applicable to a theoretical/hypothetical.

[mistymoney]

How do you define your life being a success or failure?  I'm guess there are as many answer to that as therr are humans.  There's no one definition.  And I think the same is true of FIRE.  You asked above how dying with a ton of money could possibly be failure.  Well, because it means several extra years wasted working instead of doing things that actively bring someone joy.  (This doesn't apply to SWAMIs, which just reenforces the point that there is on one definition that is going to be universal.) 

You claim people are "changing definitions", but I'm not changing anything.  That's always been my plan for FIRE, and my definition of success has always been--roughly--quitting as soon as possible, knowing that it may means some budget cuts in down years, and maybe even taking on some very part time, not unpleasant work. 

If that would be a failure for you, fine.  I'm not going to argue that an extra X years spent at a job you don't enjoy (if you in fact don't enjoy it) is a much better waste than a dozen hours a month spent working, for a short time *IF* required.  That math doesn't work out at all for me, but I'm not the one trying to apply my definition to everyone else. 

Put another way, my plan specifically includes those possibilities, in order to allow DH and me to quit as soon as we want to.  So by your definition, having to do the things that are specifically part of my plan is somehow a failure?  Now whose definition is diverging from the typical denotation of the word failure?  Enacting a plan exactly as, well... planned is failure?  Nah.

Not sure how we keep talking past each other, but you really don't seem to be absorbing my comments and progressing your counter argument.  I'm not the arbiter of success and failure, just trying to come up with a good universal definition so we can all discuss using the same ground rules.  I have, many times, explained why dying with hundreds of thousands of dollars will be a terrible measure of success or failure.  Even a successful 'die with zero' FIRE will have $200k (assuming 40k/yr spending, $1M portfolio) on year 25.  That would look a lot like failure?

What was your explanation of what is wrong with dying with zero as a goal point or not dying with zero (or at least relatively close to zero) as a failure point? I couldn't tell what it was in your response to me, other than it's not something that's achievable to perfection?

Also, I agree that coming up with a general universal definition of success and failure is a good idea. You didn't respond to why reducing spending is something that should be considered failure. This one boggles my mind, as it is literally one of the most normal things people do when it comes to spending (at least if they're fiscally responsible) - meaning they reduce spending depending on their situation. The success or failure of dying with zero isn't my biggest point. I just see it as an extreme but rational possibility. The hard line in the sand of not reducing spending makes no sense to me. It's one of my biggest plans to mitigate risk - knowing I can spend extra thousands of dollars on trips that factor into my 4% budget that I can reduce at will if things start going down as well as knowing I can reduce general spending - eating out, splurges, etc. I am not able to see how that in any way is failure. I also see picking up some part-time work doing something I enjoy to get an extra 5-10k a year or keeping up certifications so someone can go back for 10-15 hours a week to help out with things as not failure either.

This is not arguing semantics or being idealistic. It's (especially reducing spending) a very logical, easily achievable form of risk mitigation that doesn't involve working many extra years to reduce 4% to 3.5%, 3%, etc. But if failure is rigidly defined as never ever needing any form of money again outside of investments, never reducing spending, etc. then that definition of failure has significant drawbacks.

Isn't is semantics, though? If you can easily cut back spending by a significant amount for years at a go, then didn't you really have 3 or 3.5% WR and included some overstuffed idealized spending in there?

If you were relatively lean FIRE at 4%, then it's going to actually be more diffult to cut significantly, and be more impactful on day day living, and high inflation with market declines is going to jeopardize FIRE.

So if 10% or more of your budget is really only optional spending, then this conversation doesn't really apply to you at all.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

What was your explanation of what is wrong with dying with zero as a goal point or not dying with zero (or at least relatively close to zero) as a failure point? I couldn't tell what it was in your response to me, other than it's not something that's achievable to perfection?

Also, I agree that coming up with a general universal definition of success and failure is a good idea. You didn't respond to why reducing spending is something that should be considered failure. This one boggles my mind, as it is literally one of the most normal things people do when it comes to spending (at least if they're fiscally responsible) - meaning they reduce spending depending on their situation. The success or failure of dying with zero isn't my biggest point. I just see it as an extreme but rational possibility. The hard line in the sand of not reducing spending makes no sense to me. It's one of my biggest plans to mitigate risk - knowing I can spend extra thousands of dollars on trips that factor into my 4% budget that I can reduce at will if things start going down as well as knowing I can reduce general spending - eating out, splurges, etc. I am not able to see how that in any way is failure. I also see picking up some part-time work doing something I enjoy to get an extra 5-10k a year or keeping up certifications so someone can go back for 10-15 hours a week to help out with things as not failure either.

This is not arguing semantics or being idealistic. It's (especially reducing spending) a very logical, easily achievable form of risk mitigation that doesn't involve working many extra years to reduce 4% to 3.5%, 3%, etc. But if failure is rigidly defined as never ever needing any form of money again outside of investments, never reducing spending, etc. then that definition of failure has significant drawbacks.

I assume that everyone here is familiar with FireCalc.  Just the most basic 4% SWR run (40k/yr spending, 1M portfolio, no 'other income', CPI inflation, etc.) has the following result:

[EscapeVelocity2020]

With those results in mind (all those series that end with hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the handful that go to zero), you should not need to have all these tailored "well it's not failure if" caveats.  Just one example, you shouldn't NEED TO reduce spending during a successful FIRE.  Maybe calling it 'failure' is what is throwing everyone off, but if reducing spending is necessary, it's not 'financial independence' and if you need to work for income then it's not 'retirement', just so we can have ground rules.

Each of us will do all sorts of individualistic tweaks to our FIRE, but those details are part of a different discussion (like this one - https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/how-are-you-successfully-beating-inflation/ and this one - https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-type-of-re-person-are-you/).

Plenty of threads out there to discuss the FI / ER tweaks you plan to employ, but it is derailing this thread at this point.

[MrGreen]

I mentioned in the first couple replies on this thread that the answer to the OP's question was "it's too early to tell," but to get us back on track I'll just drop this 2022 update to my vaunted SORR chart.

Ironically, my thresholds for Green, Orange, and Red highlights of the "Starting Year" column do not match the success definition that people are arguing over in absolute math terms, but rather the psychological terms that someone is actually going to live by. Green means you ended the 30 year period with more than you started with. Orange means you have less than what you started with but more than 200k. Red means you have less than 200k.

I arbitrarily chose "less than 200k" as my psychological failure scenario because I think that is a reasonable line below which people will really start freaking out unless they know they're on death's doorstep. I'm know some would argue that line is even higher.

To the original question, the correlation of returns during the first decade and portfolio failure (actual zero) are so strong that one can practically bank on that data as a indicator of how they will fare over 30 years. And as you can see, the average return over the first 10 years has to be really bad for a stash to be beyond saving by a strong second and/or third decade. Returns essentially have to be zero or worse after 10 years to know your portfolio is going to fail. Though even then it's not a guarantee. Look at 1970. And there are multiple starting years with returns worse than 2022 where the portfolio was fine after 30 years.

In summary: It's too early to tell.

Note: My SORR graph uses cfiresim to track a $1MM portfolio of 100% equities with 0.08% fund fees and a 4% WR

P.S.  - I do find it humorous that so much time is spent arguing over the definition of something that will not be used in the practice of one's life.