By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that Bill Bengen's updated 4.7% withdrawal rate may not be universally applicable due to recent market conditions and the risk of sequence-of-returns. They emphasize the importance of flexibility, dynamic spending, and considering individual circumstances rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all rule.
Risk: Sequence-of-returns risk, especially retiring into a bear market or high-inflation environment.
Opportunity: Dynamic equity withdrawal strategies that adapt to changing market conditions.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Bill Bengen, the creator of the 4% rule, has updated his original calculations several times.
If you want your portfolio to last for at least 30 years, the 4% rule says you can safely withdraw 4% of your portfolio the first year of retirement, and adjust it annually for inflation.
Some investors may be able to safely withdraw more.
As the man best known for developing the 4% rule for retirement withdrawals, financial planner and author Bill Bengen has spent decades explaining and updating his work. Bengen probably never imagined how strongly his research would affect everyday Americans or how tightly some people would hold to the rule.
Today, based on more recent research, Bengen has updated the original 4% rule to better reflect the realities retirees face. He also says it's not actually a "rule," but more of a "guideline." Here, we look at what he means.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
In 1994, Bengen developed the 4% rule based on historical market data. To learn whether there's a way to guarantee that a retirement stash would last 30 years, he ran hundreds of scenarios in which retirees held a balanced portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds.
Bengen analyzed rolling 30-year market periods to determine the maximum sustainable withdrawal rate that would last a retiree at least 30 years. He then looked for the worst-case scenario -- the one that stood out from the others.
Among more than 400 scenarios, Bengen identified a hypothetical account for someone who retired in 1968 during a period of high inflation. For that individual, the safe withdrawal rate was only 4.2%, and the 4% rule was born.
Since that time, plenty has changed, and Bengen's guidelines have evolved. Here's his latest advice:
An updated rate:Based on market performance research, Bengen says that the 4% rule is now the 4.7% rule, and even 4.7% may be overly conservative for some retirees.For those who plan to retire early:Early retirees planning for 50 or 60 more years of life should stick to the safe rate of 4.2%The bite of inflation:Bengen says that inflation is retirees' "greatest enemy," and that they must consistently adjust their withdrawals to account for the higher cost of living.Flexibility:He encourages all retirees to adjust spending based on market conditions rather than stick religiously to the 4.7% guideline. While some may be able to safely increase their withdrawals during times of high inflation, others may need to cut back to stay on track.
Perhaps it's better to consider the 4% rule a starting point. Despite its imperfections, it's a reasonable way to build guardrails that protect your portfolio and offer you peace of mind.
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.
One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these strategies.
View the "Social Security secrets" »
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Bengen's updated 4.7% rate remains too optimistic for portfolios beginning at current valuations and inflation paths."
Bengen's shift from 4% to 4.7% still rests on historical rolling periods ending in 2023 data, yet today's starting valuations (S&P 500 forward P/E near 21x, real yields only modestly positive) imply lower forward equity and bond returns than the 1968-2022 sample. Retirees face concentrated sequence risk in the first decade plus healthcare costs inflating 2-3 points above CPI. The article correctly flags flexibility but underplays how few investors actually cut spending in down markets without behavioral slippage. Early retirees targeting 50-year horizons face an even tighter 4.2% band that already embeds these constraints.
Recent decades show that even starting at elevated valuations, diversified portfolios recovered within 10-12 years; a simple glide path or part-time work buffer could still validate 4.7% for many without the dire outcomes the historical worst-case implies.
"A 4.7% withdrawal rate optimized for 2024's valuation and rate environment may catastrophically underperform in a 1970s-analog scenario, and the article's 'flexibility' framing obscures the behavioral difficulty of cutting spending mid-retirement."
The article frames Bengen's update as good news—4.7% vs. 4%—but this masks a critical problem: the updated rule is built on *recent* market data during a historically low-rate, high-equity-valuation regime. Bengen's original 1994 analysis survived the 1968 stagflation scenario; today's 4.7% rule has never been tested against a 1970s-style environment (high inflation + negative real returns + elevated starting valuations). The article also conflates 'flexibility' with safety—telling retirees to cut spending in downturns is psychologically and practically difficult. Most dangerous: the article doesn't mention sequence-of-return risk or what happens if someone retires into a bear market in year one.
Bengen's research is peer-reviewed and has been stress-tested across multiple market regimes since 1994; dismissing a 4.7% update as untested ignores 30 years of validation. If anything, the article's emphasis on flexibility and guardrails is sound risk management.
"The transition to a 4.7% withdrawal guideline ignores the heightened sequence-of-returns risk inherent in current high-valuation, late-cycle market conditions."
The shift from 4% to 4.7% reflects a recency bias fueled by the post-2008 bull market. While Bengen’s update acknowledges historical volatility, it risks lulling retirees into a false sense of security regarding sequence-of-returns risk. If we enter a 'lost decade' of stagflation or sideways equity returns, a 4.7% withdrawal rate—when adjusted for persistent CPI inflation—could accelerate portfolio depletion. The real danger isn't the percentage; it's the lack of 'dynamic spending' guardrails. Investors should focus on cash-flow matching via TIPS or annuities rather than relying on a static withdrawal percentage that assumes a 60/40 portfolio will always provide the necessary real-rate return.
If equity risk premiums remain structurally higher due to AI-driven productivity gains, the 4.7% rate might actually be too conservative, leaving retirees unnecessarily underspending their capital.
"The central takeaway is that the 4% guideline has evolved into a more flexible, higher starting rate rule, but it remains a guardrail that depends heavily on starting conditions, longevity, taxes, and market sequence."
Bill Bengen's update reflects new market realities, but the piece risks turning a heuristic into a universal rule. A 4.7% starting withdrawal may be reasonable under certain 60/40 portfolios and favorable sequences, yet long bull/bear cycles, rising longevity, and low current yields raise sequence-of-returns and inflation risks that can erase that cushion. The article glosses over taxes, Medicare, Social Security timing, and the fact that starting valuations heavily influence safe drawdowns. It also treats 'flexibility' as a given instead of a commitment that many retirees won't or can't maintain. In short: use a guardrail, not a one-size-fits-all target.
The strongest counter: the article's framing as a universal warning undercuts evidence that higher withdrawal rates can be sustainable for many retirees with disciplined spending and tax-advantaged accounts; the 4.7% update could be robust when paired with dynamic withdrawal and bond-ladder strategies.
"Bengen's historical data already includes sideways markets, so the focus should shift to tax sequencing and TIPS reinvestment risks instead."
Gemini's warning on recency bias overlooks that Bengen's rolling periods already incorporate multiple high-valuation starts like the late 1990s, which still supported higher safe rates when paired with flexible spending. The bigger unaddressed issue is how inflation-linked bonds or annuities introduce their own opportunity costs in a world of rising nominal rates. Retirees locking into TIPS today face reinvestment risk if real yields climb further, potentially making a dynamic equity withdrawal more adaptive than fixed income matching.
"Grok conflates reinvestment risk with valuation risk; the former is manageable, the latter is structural and underpriced in the 4.7% rule."
Grok's reinvestment-risk counterpoint to Gemini is sharp, but sidesteps the core issue: TIPS lock in *known* real returns (currently ~1.3%), whereas dynamic equity withdrawal assumes historical equity risk premiums persist despite 21x forward P/E. That's not opportunity cost—that's assumption risk. If equity returns compress to 5% nominal, a retiree overweighting equities at today's valuations faces worse sequence damage than TIPS reinvestment drag. The real trade isn't bonds vs. stocks; it's certainty vs. hope.
"TIPS provide certainty of real return but guarantee long-term purchasing power failure in an inflationary environment, making equity exposure necessary for 30-year retirement horizons."
Claude, you’re conflating 'certainty' with safety. Relying on 1.3% real yields via TIPS guarantees a slow erosion of purchasing power if inflation remains sticky, which is a structural risk for 30-year horizons. The real danger isn't equity volatility; it's the 'certain' failure of a bond-heavy portfolio to outpace the rising cost of healthcare and services. We are trading sequence risk for long-term insolvency risk. A 4.7% rate requires equity exposure to survive the duration.
"Guaranteed lifetime income streams materially raise sustainable withdrawal thresholds, so a 4.7% rule is only robust if Social Security/annuities are optimized; without them it's fragile."
Gemini’s emphasis on a dynamic withdrawal guardrail glosses over the reality that guaranteed lifetime income, Social Security timing, annuities, or a well-structured Pension-like pillar, can substantially raise a sustainable withdrawal threshold. Without maximizing these inflows, a 4.7% rule rests on a fragile sequence of returns and may crumble in a prolonged inflation bear, even with a dynamic plan. The missing variable is an explicit income floor, not just asset longevity.
The panel generally agrees that Bill Bengen's updated 4.7% withdrawal rate may not be universally applicable due to recent market conditions and the risk of sequence-of-returns. They emphasize the importance of flexibility, dynamic spending, and considering individual circumstances rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all rule.
Dynamic equity withdrawal strategies that adapt to changing market conditions.
Sequence-of-returns risk, especially retiring into a bear market or high-inflation environment.