Comments by "" (@Green__one) on "Azul" channel.

That's because it literally IS the 4% rule.
12
It isn't. It is literally the 4% rule that he's quoting here. It's exactly the same.
6
Yup. He says that you shouldn't use the 4% rule, and that you should use the 4% rule instead....
2
According to the actual study the 4% rule came from, if you withdraw 4% of your savings in the first year, and adjust that amount for inflation every year thereafter, there is a 95% chance that you will not run out of money in a 30 year retirement based on the entire history of the stock market as far back as we have reliable data. That's the entire 4% rule. Many people however misinterpret the rule, especially in the "FIRE" movement, to be a 100% chance of success, and lasting forever. It's not a bad rule, but understand what it actually is. That said, while there's still a 5% chance of running out of money, there's a huge chance that you'll end up growing your savings, and a good chance it will last MUCH longer than 30 years. New studies were done by the original authors who now state that it could be closer to a 4.5% or even 5% rule.
2
Which means it's actually much worse than it appears, because someone's primary residence isn't really a liquid asset they can spend in retirement
1
You are confounding two things, yes the 45% rule is the same as the 10 times your salary rule. But they are very different from the 4% rule. The first two are trying the impossible task of correlating to completely unrelated numbers, income and expenses. There is no world in which they will ever provide a useful answer. The 4% rule on the other hand is looking exclusively at expenses, which can be estimated, and then comparing to the entire documented history of the stock market to decide how much can safely be withdrawn from retirement account over a 30-year time horizon. This is actually a useful method.
1
Summary: HOAs suck.
1
I'm right on that cusp at the moment, did a career change a few years ago to a job working fewer hours, (and therefore making less annually) and drastically cut how much I add to my savings. My new job is flexible, and I get to choose how much I work. Still trying to work out what's right for me at the moment, My savings are pretty decent, but it's hard to know if it's "enough" for my plans if I start withdrawing instead of waiting longer. I always thought I could do this all without a financial planner, but I'm starting to think there are just too many variables between government pensions, withdrawal strategies to minimize tax, factoring my spouse's stuff, fluctuating markets, etc. I plan to talk to a fee only planner this year to setup a plan, and who knows, they may tell me to cut my hours back even further!
1
Another rule trying to figure out how much you're going to spend in the future based on how much you earn now. Those two things are not in any way related, never have been, never will be. You can immediately discount it any and all retirement advice from anyone who comes up with future needs based on current earnings. The only way to know how much money you are going to spend, is to look at spending. I could earn $100,000 and spend twice that, or I could earn 50,000 dollars and save over half of it, there's no way to know if all you're looking at is my earnings!
1
If you're talking about fidelity's numbers, use whichever you want, they'll be completely inaccurate either way. If you're talking about actually calculating how much money you need in retirement, you should completely forget the 45% rule, and figure out how much you actually spend in a year, try to estimate how much that will go up in retirement, and then you use the 4% rule to figure out how much money you need. There is zero correlation between income and expenses, it is impossible to calculate one from the other, and any financial advisor that pretends it is possible should be avoided at all costs
1
Take it whichever way you want, it's 100% irrelevant and useless either way. How much you earn has no bearing at all in any way shape or form on how much you spend. Therefore any calculation based on income is completely guaranteed to be wrong. In fact, when talking to financial planners, this is one of the things I use to eliminate the most useless of them. The instant they come up with a formula for spending that is based on how much I earn, I walk out the door. If they can get something that simple so wrong, there's no way I'm going to trust them with anything more complicated!
1
I have a foolproof way to retire, if I quit my job, my income will drop to zero, and therefore I won't need any money to retire! It's perfect! I mean we all know that the only factor to how much money you need in retirement is how much income you have, expenses are irrelevant!
1
The formula is to use a random number generator. It will be just as accurate as the fidelity 45% rule. There's no correlation between earnings and spending, so there is no possible way to calculate one from the other.
1