i disagree , no way can you say the pp can support a higher withdrawal rate because if sequence risk and performance are less going forward the good years all portfolio's have end up paying for the bad years .Tyler wrote:Yes, they both were non-events in the sense that a 4% WR is working fine for both. The difference is that the low volatility (paired with reasonably high real returns) allows the PP to support a higher WR than the 60/40 portfolio over identical timeframes. That's what I mean about volatility making a difference. It's a big factor of what determines the SWR in the first place.mathjak107 wrote: correct but so is the conventionally invested retiree fine , it was the same non event for them as it was for the pp retiree ..
i doubt the pp can claim that 90% of the time frames since 1926 30 years later the ending balance is more than you started with and 67% more than double left over .
first off you can't compare because of the gold issue pre 1975 .
if we rule out the two worst time frames a 60/40 mix has a 6.50% safe withdrawal rate and money left over .