@low_tech

Who cares about the 4% "rule" when most bond funds are paying that and more, maybe much more? Just take the bond interest instead of eroding the asset base by selling anything.

Let's test the above. BND(US total bond index) the most recommended bond fund made only 1.6% annually in the last 10 years.
SPY made "only" 12+%.
Using PV with 4% withdrawal for 10 years shows that starting with one million ended at $779K(rounding) while SPY ended at 2.23 million.
Another proof that total return is always the most important aspect of investing. Many investors, especially retirees, also care about risk-adjusted performance.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=2yCWNHHnyii8C3LxrBfKrb

Who cares about the 4% "rule" when most bond funds are paying that and more, maybe much more? Just take the bond interest instead of eroding the asset base by selling anything.

brilliant, really.
****************

Isn't it obvious? I don't get the obsession and wasted "ink" over "buckets", or sticking to some percentage which will be different for everyone, etc.
My obsession for years was to get a big enough asset base to provide income for retirement (I only have SS, no pensions).
I was trying to avoid (and did) having an asset base that I would have to sell off for retirement income, and hoping it would last til I croak. But if you need 4% to cover expenses, then back to my original point of just taking bond interest and leaving the base alone.

"I would also add that my preference would be for equity funds that are managed by a group of advisors, such as at American Funds. (But I'm not at all pushing American Funds in any way.) Over the years here at MFO I've seen way too much anguish about funds led by some sort of wizard, who either loses his magic wand, quits to go somewhere else, retires, or dies."
I've been burned by funds due to various "star manager" issues over the years.
When selecting actively-managed funds, I now choose funds which have multiple portfolio managers.

@hank said- "I would advise younger investors who are dollar averaging in, saving for retirement and still in their 20s and 30s to go 100% equities... I’d probably split it into 3 different equity funds for safety if had to do it over."
And I strongly agree with all of that. I would also add that my preference would be for equity funds that are managed by a group of advisors, such as at American Funds. (But I'm not at all pushing American Funds in any way.) Over the years here at MFO I've seen way too much anguish about funds led by some sort of wizard, who either loses his magic wand, quits to go somewhere else, retires, or dies.

Cash cushions, or emergency funds, are different from investments in those getting-started years.
It's hard to think about retirement when you're hoarding soda bottles for their deposit value.
Ahhh, the good old days in San Francisco when a Bohemian life-style was still possible.
I did end up taking penalties on what little I had in IRA's to help come up with a down payment on a house in Marin. Might be the smartest thing I've ever done with money besides paying cash for used cars.

MikeM said- "I personally won't be taking 5% because I don't need to, but the thought of taking 3% sure sounds safer."
And of course the key words there are "because I don't need to". So it's evident that there really is no percentage "rule" that fits everyone. Everyone's portfolio is different and everyone's needs are different. We, for example, have been retired over 20 years, are in our 80's, and have yet to need to take any percent from our portfolio/savings. In fact that has grown significantly since retirement.
Neither of us came from wealth- I retired as a radio tech and my wife as a teacher. We both were super fortunate to have pensions and SS retirement income. But we began planning for retirement in 1970, and were very careful about expenditures. Being blessed (so far) with good health is a really major factor also.
To reiterate: everyone's needs are different. There is no one percentage that fits all.

In general, models like these are helpful to me, but I rarely do exactly what they recommend
It is difficult I have found to accurately predict what your spending will be in retirement. I ran multiple [plans over the years but the reality in retirement has proven most of them were too high, especially when you look at just the necessities, ie food utilities rent and insurance
One of the reasons we have adequate savings in retirement is we were rather frugal when we were working. We splured only on the kid's education which paid of. Small house, cheap cars camping vacations mean we don't have to worry about running out of money.
M only regret about my early financial decisions is not having our retirement accounts 100 % inequities when I was in my 30s and 40s. But I wanted to sleep at night!

Let's examine some of these assertions.
"Bogle, and Burton Malkiel's Book, Random Walk proved decades ago that if you buy and hold the SP500 you would likely beat most investors and mutual funds for decades to come."
Adding a low-cost S&P 500 fund to your portfolio can be part of an effective investment strategy.
But what if an investor doesn't have the risk capacity or risk tolerance to be 100% invested in equities?
If someone heavily invested in the S&P 500 needed to make withdrawals
from 2008 - 2011 how would this have impacted portfolio longevity?
"Many writers are very educated but it has nothing to do with market performance So, they discuss mostly economics or tell you what happened already; they repackage the same articles they published before with changes to fit whatever."
This is no different than what some posters do on investment sites.
They regurgitate essentially the same information (with minor intermediate changes) ad nauseam.
"We also know that most predictions are useless.
After decades of listening and reading thousands of articles and interviews, I came to a conclusion based on facts that the economy, inverted yield, PE, PE10, valuation and many more can't predict what markets would do next 1-4-16 weeks or even months and years."
Many predictions turn out to be inaccurate.
However, longer-term "predictions" may be useful in setting expectations which can be valuable for planning.
Unfortunately, there are no simple metrics that can reliably and consistently predict future market performance.
"I have been reading this type of articles for years, and they follow the above. I just do it because investing is my passion. None made me real money."
Reading numerous articles which are deemed not worthwhile seems like an awful waste of time.

Here is something that big retailers are doing to their suppliers. Walmart has been doing this for years in order to lower their prices, and consolidating the retailers, killing off the mom and pop retailers, for example.
https://reuters.com/article/world/wal-mart-puts-the-squeeze-on-suppliers-to-share-its-pain-as-earnings-sag-idUSKCN0SD0CY/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20Suppliers%20of%20everything,from%20the%20retailer%20last%20week.
A more recent article.
https://retailwire.com/discussion/will-walmart-throw-high-price-suppliers-off-the-shelf/
Question is this anti-competitive practices good for the consumers?
The proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons is facing the same question.

The biggest problems with investment articles:
1) Bogle, and Burton Malkiel's Book, Random Walk proved decades ago that if you buy and hold the SP500 you would likely beat most investors and mutual funds for decades to come. There is not much to discuss after that, but many still do.
2) Many writers are very educated but it has nothing to do with market performance So, they discuss mostly economics or tell you what happened already; they repackage the same articles they published before with changes to fit whatever.
If economics was the best way to make money, Profs would be the richest people on earth.
3) We also know that most predictions are useless.
After decades of listening and reading thousands of articles and interviews, I came to a conclusion based on facts that the economy, inverted yield, PE, PE10, valuation and many more can't predict what markets would do next 1-4-16 weeks or even months and years.
4) Some "experts" are smart and use history for their predictions. Example: Prof Siegel basically has 2 long term opinions a) Stocks will make money next year; b) Stocks will make more than bonds...I say duh. Since 1980, the SP500 has been positive about 80%.
He missed every down year. To see other experts, read (link).
5) I have been reading this type of articles for years, and they follow the above. I just do it because investing is my passion. None made me real money. I got a lot more great ideas from handfuls of posters on several sites, including this one.
6) This is why I created my own site. This (link) has several learning articles.

"Investors have been conditioned for decades to believe they can withdraw only 4% a year
through a theoretical 30-year retirement, adjusted for inflation."
"But several studies and retirement experts now view 4% as too conservative and inflexible.
J.P. Morgan, in a recent report, recommended about 5%.
David Blanchett, who has a doctorate in personal financial planning and has studied retirement withdrawal rates for years, says 5% 'is a much better starting place, given today’s economic reality and people’s flexibility.'”
"The inventor of the 4% rule agrees.
Retired financial planner Bill Bengen tells Barron’s he is revising his benchmark in an upcoming book,
and that a rate 'very close to 5%' may be warranted."
This article (link below) places too much emphasis on bucket strategies.
While a formal bucket strategy can be beneficial for certain investors, it is not essential.
The "4% rule" is not an ironclad rule - it's only a decent starting point for retirement withdrawal rates.
1) What are your thoughts regarding retirement withdrawal rates of ~5% for the general population?
2) Which withdrawal strategy do you utilize and why:
a) fixed real withdrawal amount (FRWA); b) FRWA which skips inflation adjustment after annual portfolio loss;
c) RMD method using IRS Life Expectancy Tables; d) "guardrails" plan developed by Guyton and Klinger;
e) other strategy.
Portfolio Withdrawal Strategies

If such a process works consistently, it would be of interest. It may be just another gimmick.
The Deletions ETF (NIXT) is essentially a bet on long-term reversion to the mean. Index deletions are typically followed by sell-offs. Arnott hopes to find value in unusually depressed stock prices.
“.... historical evidence that they win by 5% a year for the next five years, at least.”

Thanks. Makes sense.
I feel I learn a lot by scanning a list of 15-20 funds, stocks or indexes at the end of the day. These are things I may never own. But together they tell a story. Takes less than 60 seconds out of each day. My $1.95 monthly app from Apple makes this extremely simple. Everything updates continuously and syncs across my devices.
The observations rarely produce “actionable” information. Rather, they add in small degree to my understanding of how various market components interact. Daily the tid-bits of data are meaningless. Over months and longer periods I think there is something to be learned.
Many profess not to care what markets do. Say they never look. Never react. Yet, many visit boards like this where markets and approaches to investing are discussed daily. It strains credulity to think we are all passive investors blithely sitting on the same mutual funds or stocks we’ve owned for 15 years - rarely bothering to look.

I do not track it daily or even yearly, though I have owned it for more than 15 years.

@BaluBalu - “Not looking” is commendable. But you must take note of BRK’s price movement sometimes. How else could you have known it was down 3% yesterday? Here’s your post from a day ago:

down nearly 3% today.

The unknown outcomes from future management of money and operations does make me nervous but not much I can do about it. I do not track it daily or even yearly, though I have owned it for more than 15 years.

I have come across Gunjan in media over the years. I follow her on Twitter but I have not accessed my account forever. She is [has been] as balanced as they come from WSJ. I am surprised she is not already offered a TV job she could not refuse.
I do not see high correlation between intelligence and education or age. ( I have learned more life lessons from small kids and animals than from people who are older than I am.)
I thought the title of the article appropriately conveyed the necessary sarcasm.

Hi @hank et al
Other generations of adults have their own discoveries and life experiences; as well as their parents.
Within our neighborhood (mostly middle class) finds a range of problems, of which; some are results of a changing economy/and investing markets over the past 20 years.
We have parents who have helped some with buying a first home, we have several who still have a young adult child living with them; as there isn't enough money for the young adult child to afford an apartment and a few households where the siblings did move from the household, but had to combine their incomes with one another, and in some cases, a boy or girl friend in order to afford an apartment.
The age range is part of both of these groups:
--- Millennial's, ages 28 - 43
--- Gen Z, ages up to 27 years
I know some of these parents/children are aware of the impacts of the negative financials of markets/jobs and work related over the past 20 years, which apparently have affected the ability, from lack of sufficient money, to cause the 'above' that I wrote.
So, IMHO; there are other 'modern' age groups having perhaps a similar monetary experience as could have taken place with the grandparents and parents of 'baby-boomers'.
LASTLY, I do believe this is a common circumstance within many areas of the U.S.
Remain curious,
Catch

I know Gunjan very well. We've spoken on various market issues over the years. She is smart, educated, and articulate. Journalism has become more sensationalist and everyone needs to keep their jobs. In terms of market knowledge, she is as smart as they come.

+1 Thanks for sharing.
My jest was directed toward her relatively young age (compared to many of us here), the silliness of the title and what I consider to be an overly euphoric public attitude toward stocks - which the article accurately portrays. I also realize that it is the editor (not the author) who usually creates / assigns the title (mostly to grab eyeballs). The title may also have different variations depending on where it gets published..

I know Gunjan very well. We've spoken on various market issues over the years. She is smart, educated, and articulate. Journalism has become more sensationalist and everyone needs to keep their jobs. In terms of market knowledge, she is as smart as they come.

Any fresh thoughts re investing a few bucks here?
A number of companies package up variable rate demand notes into bank account-like accounts. Features may vary slightly (e.g. min required, check writing ability, min transaction amount) but the underlying investments are similar as are the way these accounts work.
Companies that offer these accounts seem to be rated BBB or A and are using these accounts as a relatively cheap way to get cash. Some BBBs: Duke, Dominion, GM, and Ford. Some As: Toyota, Mercedes-Benz (only accredited investors), and Caterpillar
A couple of webpages from 2021 on these types of investments:
MyMoneyBlog: https://www.mymoneyblog.com/big-list-of-car-demand-notes-non-fdic.html
Bogleheads thread: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=340088
And a 2021 WSJ article cited in the Bogleheads thread (subscription or library card required):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-maker-notes-attract-investors-seeking-short-term-yield-11605781801

Called "variable denomination floating rate demand notes," the securities are basically unsecured bonds, paid by the company's cash from operations. There is no public market and investors can typically withdraw their money at will. Rates can be changed at any time by the company, which can call the securities at its discretion.

What's the risk?
For my money (pun intended), I'd rather go with a Treasury MMF yielding around 5.1%; since it's state tax exempt that's not much different from 5.5% fully taxable and a whole lot safer.
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/Publish/Content/application/pdf/GWMOL/ICCRateSheet.pdf
If I had to go with a single issuer, I'd look at the A rated companies.
A nuclear accident that bankrupts the company?
Not likely.

[The] Price-Anderson [Act has since 1957 freed] nuclear plant operators and all firms involved in nuclear construction and maintenance of any liability for offsite accident damage. The only chance for additional compensation lies in the act’s declaration that if accident damages exceed the legal limit “Congress will thoroughly review the particular incident” and will “take whatever action is determined to be necessary” to provide full compensation to the public. In short, a Fukushima-level accident would toss the costs of compensation and cleanup unto the lap of Congress.

https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/
This was recently extended (for another 40 years) and expanded with little publicity. It's a sizeable and relatively unknown industry subsidy.
What was publicized were billions of dollars allocated in the Inflation Reduction Act for maintaining existing nuclear plants and building new ones.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/inflation-reduction-act-keeps-momentum-building-nuclear-power