If you have the same after-tax starting value at $78K, then a percentage-based tax is a linear operator. It doesn't matter if you double the money first and then apply the tax, or apply the tax and then double the money.

Correct. This addresses the question: is one better off contributing now to a Roth or to a traditional IRA? In that situation what matters is whether the future tax rate will be higher, lower, or equal to the current tax rate.
I was addressing a slightly different question: does allocation between tax free and tax deferred accounts matter? For that question, it doesn't matter what tax rates you might have been subject to in contributing to the Roth. You've already made your bed. Now you have to lie in it and allocate investments across whatever dollars you've put into the different accounts, traditional and Roth.
You are suggesting that rapid growth of tax-deferred moneys will move some of those assets into a higher future tax bracket vs. the future tax bracket all of those dollars would have been with slower growth. Perhaps. Bear in mind that tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, so the growth rate of import is the excess growth over inflation, not total growth. Still, one hopes with more aggressive investments, that this will be significant.
When one speaks of being in a higher bracket at retirement, one is looking at the size of RMDs. The first dollar gets taxed at one rate determined by considering all other ordinary income and then looking at the marginal rate. Subsequent RMD dollars get taxed at that rate or a higher rate if the RMD extends through brackets. Hence my assumption that the total RMD is taxed at the same marginal rate in retirement.
That's not always true, as you say (below). Often it is. Consider an individual, age 73, in the 22% bracket excluding RMDs. If that individual falls at the top of the bracket, virtually all RMD dollars will be taxed at 24%, whether from fast or slow growing investments. If that individual falls at the bottom of the bracket, they'll have nearly $55K of "space" to fill. They'd need a T-IRA of almost $1.5M for the RMD to exceed that (age divisor is 26.5). Put them at the midway point and the T-IRA would need to be around $750K before the tax brackets mattered.
The 24% bracket is even wider. The bracket where RMD size is most likely to matter is the 12% bracket. That's only $36K wide. If one is at the midpoint in that bracket, then a $500K T-IRA will have an RMD touching the next bracket. And since that next bracket at 22% is a whopping 10% higher, it becomes more important here to try to keep every last RMD dollar out of that bracket.
So it really depends on the situation. Personally, the part of the RMD trap that I'm more concerned about is having RMDs greater than needed for expenses. This is where Roth conversions years before retirement help. And for this purpose, it is better to keep slower growing assets in T-IRAs.

This equivalence only holds true if you assume the tax rate at withdrawal remains constant. In the real world, if doubling your traditional account pushed you into a higher tax bracket in retirement, the "Traditional Doubles" scenario would result in a lower after-tax total.

A place where slower growing assets can be even more beneficial is in HSAs. Suppose someone has been healthy (so has had few medical expenses during accumulation phase) and has a sizeable HSA. Then it is possible even in retirement that total medical expenses will not exceed the HSA value. If that happens, the excess dollars rather than being tax-free can get taxed as ordinary income upon withdrawal.

Not sure why you picked a scenario with both traditional and Roth at same $78K, who actually has that ratio?

The ratios don't matter. I just wanted to provide a concrete example. 100/0 or 0/100 wouldn't work when the question was how to allocate between non-zero T-IRA and Roth accounts. 50/50 is a simple split and it facilitated assuming 50% of the money was invested one way and 50% another.
Had I used a 20/80 split between accounts with the same investment assumption (half fast growth, half no growth), then the 20% account would have been invested one way along with 3/8 of the 80% account. The remaining 5/8 of the 80% account (i.e. half the total assets) would have been invested the other way. Same result, but I'd lose people with all the fractions and percentage.

Answers from AI just depend on which websites they choose to scrape. Perhaps their mood has something to do with it. I got different answers than @equalizer did.
I asked Bing for "5 picks for Roth for next 20 years" and got SPTM, VPMCX, JEPI, RQI, and IBIT.
Google Gemini was coy until I asked for "5 fund picks for Roth for next 20 years." It came up with VTI, VXUS, VUG, FSELX, and SCHD.
Gemini won't tell you which web sites it scrapes for its wisdom. But if you ask the AI available at google search, it will. You can find them to the right. It also gave me a slightly different answer: VTI, VXUS, BND, VNQ, and any target date fund at 2045 or 2050.
I basically got the same sort of diversified lineup from Perplexity: FXAIX, VTIAX, VSMAX, VNQ, and VWELX. Perplexity will clearly tell you what it scraped.
But this doesn't get us to the point of the thread. So I asked a new question: "Name five fund options for a roth account if you could only pick one for the next twenty years."
Bing suggested: VWELX, SPTM, JEPI, VPMCX, or RQI. It suggested: "Each of these funds could be your 'forever' pick depending on your risk tolerance and retirement goals. Want help narrowing it down based on your age or investing style?" I think it's not scraping as hard as it could.
Gemini grokked the question a little better than Bing, and came back with: VT, Fidelity Freedom Index Fund 2045 (no ticker), VTI, FZROX, or SCHD.
Google search AI came back with VOO, VTI, VFORX, VBIAX, or VIG.
Perplexity came back with: VTSAX, FXAIX, Vanguard Target Retirement 2065, VT or VIG.
I decided to get pushier. So I asked: "If you could pick only one fund for a roth for the next twenty years what should it be?"
Bing chose VWELX, Gemini chose VT, Google search ducked with "a target-date fund or a low-cost, total-market index fund," and Perplexity came back with VOO or FXAIX before reminding me about the other usual suspects.
These are no where close to what @equalizer was getting; so I asked one more question: "Give me five non-index funds for a roth for the next twenty years."
Bing: VWELX, VPMCX, JEPI, RQI, and SVOL. Gemini: FCNTX, FBGRX, FSELX, TRBCX, and AGTHX. Googel search: FCNTX, PRDGX, VPMCX, JEPI, and AVGV. Perplexity: VWELX, VWINX, JEPI, USMC, and FCNTX.
Well. At least the conventional wisdom is available without spending money for advice or doing your own homework.

msf,
If you have the same after-tax starting value at $78K, then
a percentage-based tax is a linear operator. It doesn't matter if you double the money first and then apply the tax, or apply the tax and then double the money.
This equivalence only holds true if you assume the tax rate at withdrawal remains constant. In the real world, if doubling your traditional account pushed you into a higher tax bracket in retirement, the "Traditional Doubles" scenario would result in a lower after-tax total.
Not sure why you picked a scenario with both traditional and Roth at same $78K, who actually has that ratio?
Placing your highest-growth investments in a Roth account can yield a significantly higher after-tax return, as all of that growth is completely tax-free.

The time from retirement to ss should be the time to convert as much as possible staying in the desired tax bracket IMHO. I took my ss at 63 and it would have been nice not to take it until later because ss income limits your conversions. Looking back I don't regret taking it at 63 because I converted a LOT even taking ss at 63. I converted a lot from 53 (retirement) to 63 (ss) since I had no other income at that time.

I'm currently trying to help a friend plan investments and cash flows for the next decade, when they will go from retirement pre-SS, to retirement w/SS, to retirement w/SS and RMDs. They also have two inherited IRAs, one traditional, one Roth.
How much should they convert pre-SS to reduce future RMDs (keeping tax brackets in mind)? What about the phasing out of the $6K deduction? They don't even know how much cash they are currently spending, and it could be quite variable.
My head is spinning as well.

Some unconventional thoughts on your allocation/drawdown plans, FWIW:
1. If all the money in your (future) RMDs will be taxed at the same rate, and if your RMDs will (along with other income including SS) will be less than your cash flow needs, then there doesn't seem to be much value in managing T-IRA and T-401(k) differently.
Reasoning: if RMDs are more than you need, then it is better to keep them down (and more assets tax-sheltered) by keeping slower growth assets in traditional accounts and faster growth assets in Roths, as you are doing. You don't want to be forced to draw more out of any sheltered account than you need. But this justification vanishes if RMDs are not sufficient for cash flow needs.
By "all RMD money taxed at the same rate" I mean: Suppose that you add up all your other ordinary income (SS, taxable interest, etc.) .and find that you're, say, in the 22% bracket. Then when you add in your RMD, you find that you're still in the same 22% bracket. Not higher. If this is true then it doesn't matter how you split investments between T's and Roths.
Say you've got $100K in your traditional accounts and $78K in your Roths. After tax, they're each worth $78K. Suppose you allocate assets so that your Roth accounts double and your traditional accounts stagnate. Then your Roth will be worth $156K after tax and your traditionals will be worth $78K after tax for a total of $234K after tax.
If you flip the allocations, then the traditional accounts will double to $200K pre-tax, or $156K after tax. The Roth will be sitting at $78K, for a total of $23KK after tax.
The trick is to keep after tax values in mind when allocating investments. Are there any portfolio trackers that can handle this?
2. Since cap gains don't (for the most part) affect what rate your ordinary income is taxed at, you might be better off holding onto your long term positions in taxable accounts (that are pseudo-tax-sheltered by deferring gain recognition) and instead sheltering cash by using it to pay the taxes on Roth conversions.
Suppose you have $22 in cash (taxable) and $100 in a traditional IRA (worth $78 post tax). That's worth a total of $100 after tax. Convert and you've got $100 in a Roth, also worth $100 after tax.
If you convert, then instead of having to pay tax on the cash as it generates income, you've fully sheltered that $22 in the Roth. As for the securities that you could have sold instead of converting, they'll continue to appreciate, tax-deferred, until you recognize the gain.
3. If you're planning on working past RMD age (currently 73), then you can defer RMDs longer in your 401(k) with your current employer. If that's the case, that may militate for keeping higher growth assets in the 401(k). Otherwise, allocation between T-IRA and T-401(k) doesn't seem to matter. Though the choice of investments available to you in your employer plan(s) could tilt the scales one way or the other.
4. Throwing a money wrench into all of this are oddballs like IRMAA and the 3.8% Medicare surtax. And Trump's $6K above-the-line (sort of) extra deduction for seniors in 2025-2028 that is also income-dependent.
In addition, your state may exempt some or all of retirement income from state taxes. Your state may also give other tax breaks that are income dependent (e.g. property tax reductions). And there's no certainty with respect to future tax rates.
I've been doing incremental Roth conversions since 2010 when the income limit on conversions was eliminated. So when I finally get to being subject to RMDs, their size will be closer to what I want to contribute to charities. And by identifying them as QCDs, I won't have to worry much about tax consequences of my RMDs.

One fund doesn't make any sense to me. For instance, I want my high growth entities in my Roth (PRSCX, TRLGX, TTMIX), next highest growth in IRA (similar, but alongside an index fund), more balanced approach in 401K (Index, growth, CEF, OEF), and a higher concentration of cash, index funds in my taxable (but still a growth component to juice returns).
How I begin to draw that down in retirement (to better manage taxes) is still a work in progress. The first year, I will probably sell some long term one-off positions at Computershare, for simplification. Get them off the books without doing transfers, and absorb the LTCG before I begin any RMDs.
I am thinking of trying to max out our current tax bracket, and take advantage of that before we ultimately end up one bracket higher. Some simplification will occur as I sell off any holdings not at my primary broker, and move funds from employer accounts to my primary broker. I already eliminated/absorbed an inherited IRA account into our current tax bracket this year.

Aug 30th Episode:

Financial planning thought leader Jamie Hopkins discusses why digital asset management is one of the biggest overlooked risks in retirement and estate preparation, and the steps we can take to fix it.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537140/000158064225005639/issachar_497.htm
497 1 issachar_497.htm 497
Lionx-Logo
Class N Shares (LIONX)
Class I Shares (LIOTX)
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III)
Supplement dated August 29, 2025 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated February 1, 2025
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (the “Board”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Issachar Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about September 29, 2025 (“Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments, will no longer pursue its stated investment objective, and will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at 1-866-787-8355.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated February 1, 2025, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-866-787-8355.

Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 9/1/25
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
Restricted RC 5.00%, RA 4.75%
Flexible RCP 4.25%, SRA 4.00%, IRA-101110+ 4.00%
TSP G Fund pending% (previous 4.375%).
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#StableValue #401k #403b #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2185/thread

@mskursh- Having used American Funds primarily for almost fifty years to build our retirement position we now have simplified to MMKT, CD, and Treasury holdings at Schwab. Having used many different American Funds over the years, I'm curious as to which one that you've chosen for your simplification situation.
Thanks- OJ

It was between American Fund Retirement Income Enhanced - FCFWX or simply Balanced Fund of America - BALFX
The distinction is the international exposure in the end. FCFWX is an allocation and BALFX isn't. We decided on FCFWX. its slightly less risky than the balanced fund. 60/40 as opposed to 65/35 and it had more international stocks.
My parents hold 2 years of cash in a money market fund, have a small annuity, and modest SS payments.

@mskursh- Having used American Funds primarily for almost fifty years to build our retirement position we now have simplified to MMKT, CD, and Treasury holdings at Schwab. Having used many different American Funds over the years, I'm curious as to which one that you've chosen for your simplification situation.
Thanks- OJ

am interested if anyone knows a tracker specifically for retirement flows in\out of S&P500 index vehicles.

From the linked article:

More than 100 publicly traded companies now have some crypto assets on their balance sheets. None owns more than Strategy MSTR (formerly known as MicroStrategy), a pioneer of this trend. The firm first started investing in bitcoin in August 2020 and now owns more than 600,000 bitcoins, or roughly $70 billion at current prices. That’s more than 60% of the firm’s market cap, so the stock’s fortunes rely almost entirely on bitcoin. The stock moved almost lockstep with bitcoin until 2024, when Strategy’s growth skyrocketed and began trading at a substantial premium.

Is-cryptocurrency-already-hiding-your-retirement-account?

Are there any concerns that Mr. Giroux might be spread too thin?

Sure I have a concern, plus he's been there a long time and could be considering promotion or retirement at some point. So I watch my PRWCX and would have no problem reducing to a toehold if necessary.
That said, I don't like how they're trying to capitalize on the 'Capital Appreciation' moniker. I get why TRowe would do it, but at times it does make me a bit uncomfortable seeing ithem expand the 'brand' like this.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/914775/000174177325002968/c497.htm
497 1 c497.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
August 22, 2025
BNY Mellon Advantage Funds, Inc.
BNY Mellon Dynamic Total Return Fund
Supplement to Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
The Board of Directors of BNY Mellon Advantage Funds, Inc. (the "Company") has approved the liquidation of BNY Mellon Dynamic Total Return Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Company, effective on or about October 24, 2025 (the "Liquidation Date"). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the Fund's portfolio securities, including the Fund's investments in DTR Commodity Fund Ltd., a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of the Fund organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, will be sold and the Fund may cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about September 26, 2025 (the "Closing Date"), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans if the Fund is established as an investment option under the plans before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder no longer will be accepted after October 14, 2025. However, subsequent investments by Individual Retirement Accounts and retirement plans sponsored by BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. or its affiliates (together, "BNYIA Retirement Plans") pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder (but not by check) will be accepted after October 14, 2025.
Effective on the Closing Date, the front-end sales load applicable to purchases of the Fund's Class A shares will be waived on investments made in the Fund's Class A shares. In addition, as of that date, the contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") applicable to redemptions of Class C shares and Class A shares of the Fund will be waived on any redemption of such Fund shares.
To the extent subsequent investments are made in the Fund on or after the Closing Date, the Fund's distributor will not compensate financial institutions (which may include banks, securities dealers and other industry professionals) for selling Class C shares or Class A shares subject to a CDSC at the time of purchase.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYIA Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Wealth shares of Dreyfus Government Cash Management ("DGCM"). Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of DGCM by calling 1-800-373-9387.
6140STK0825

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217673/000119312525182599/d947285d497.htm
497 1 d947285d497.htm BARON SELECT FUNDS
Filed by Baron ETF Trust
pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act of 1933
Subject Company: Baron Select Funds
SEC File No. 811-06312 and 333-103025
Baron Select Funds®
Baron FinTech Fund®
Baron Technology Fund®
Supplement to Current Summary Prospectuses and Prospectus
For all existing and prospective shareholders of Baron FinTech Fund and Baron Technology Fund:
•Baron FinTech Fund and Baron Technology Fund (each, an “Acquired Fund”) will each be converted from a mutual fund into an exchange-traded fund (“ETF”), which is expected to occur on or about December 12, 2025.
•If you are an existing shareholder of an Acquired Fund, and your account can hold an ETF, your shares will be converted, and no action is needed by you.
•If you hold shares of an Acquired Fund in an account that cannot hold an ETF (i.e., your account is not permitted to purchase securities traded in the stock market), there are certain actions you can take. See the “Questions and Answers” section below for further information.
At a meeting held on August 5, 2025 (the “Meeting”), the Board of Trustees of Baron Select Funds (the “Acquired Fund Trust”) approved on behalf of the Acquired Funds and the Board of Trustees of Baron ETF Trust (the “Acquiring Fund Trust”) approved on behalf of Baron Financials ETF and Baron Technology ETF (each, an “Acquiring Fund” and together with the Acquired Funds, the “Funds”) (the Board of Trustees of Acquired Fund Trust and the Board of Trustees of Acquiring Fund Trust are referred to herein collectively as the “Board”) an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization pursuant to which an Acquired Fund, a series of the Acquired Fund Trust, will transfer its assets and liabilities to its corresponding Acquiring Fund, each a series of Acquiring Fund Trust, in exchange for shares of its corresponding Acquiring Fund in a tax-free reorganization (each, a “Reorganization”). Each Acquiring Fund is, and will be immediately prior to the date of the closing, a shell series, without assets or liabilities. The Board, including all of the
Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Funds (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)), determined that, for each Acquired Fund and Reorganization, participation in the Reorganization is in the best interests of the Acquired Fund and that the interests of existing shareholders of the Acquired Fund will not be diluted as a result of the Reorganization. Each Reorganization is expected to become effective on or about December 12, 2025 (the “Closing Date”).
Each Acquiring Fund will have an identical investment objective and identical fundamental investment policies as its corresponding Acquired Fund, as well as substantially similar investment strategies. Baron FinTech Fund and Baron Financials ETF are diversified, while Baron Technology Fund and Baron Technology ETF are non-diversified. BAMCO, Inc. (“BAMCO” or the “Adviser”), the Acquired Funds’ current investment adviser, will serve as the investment adviser of the Acquiring Funds. The portfolio management team of each Acquiring Fund is the same as that of its corresponding Acquired Fund.
The Board believes each Reorganization will permit shareholders of the Acquired Portfolio to pursue the same investment objective in an ETF structure, which provides multiple benefits for shareholders, including lower costs, the potential for increased tax efficiency, intraday trading and full daily holdings transparency.
Each Reorganization is structured to be a tax-free reorganization under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. As a result, Acquired Fund shareholders generally will not recognize a taxable gain (or loss) for U.S. tax purposes as a result of the Reorganizations (although cash received as part of a Reorganization may be taxable, as noted below).
In connection with the Reorganizations, shareholders of the Acquired Funds will generally receive ETF shares of the Acquiring Funds equal in aggregate net asset value to the number of shares of the Acquired Funds they own. For the avoidance of doubt, the Acquiring Funds shall not issue fractional shares, and cash shall be distributed to Acquired Fund Shareholders in connection with the Reorganizations in lieu of fractional Acquiring Fund shares.
Shareholders who do not want or cannot hold Acquiring Fund shares may redeem out of the Acquired Funds or exchange their Acquired Fund shares for shares of another fund. A redemption or exchange of shares would generally be a taxable event for shareholders holding shares in taxable accounts.
2
If you hold your Acquired Fund shares in an account with a financial intermediary that is not able to hold shares of an ETF such as the Acquiring Funds, like many individual retirement accounts or group retirement plans, as of the Closing date, you will not receive Acquiring Fund shares as part of the conversion. Instead, your Acquired Fund shares will be liquidated, and you may receive cash equal in value to the net asset value of your Acquired Fund shares.
Completion of the Reorganizations is subject to making various filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions (the “SEC”) and a number of conditions under the Plans. The Reorganizations do not require shareholder approval. Acquired Fund shareholders will receive an information statement/prospectus describing in detail both the Reorganizations and the Acquiring Funds, and a summary of the Board’s considerations in approving the Reorganizations.
In anticipation of the Reorganizations:
•on or about October 31, 2025, all Rule 12b-1 fees on Retail Shares of the Acquired Funds will be waived;
•on or about October 31, 2025, all issued and outstanding shares of the Acquired Funds will be closed to new shareholders and subsequent purchases through the time of the Reorganizations.
These dates may be subject to change.
An Information Statement/Prospectus with respect to the Reorganizations is expected to be mailed to Acquired Fund shareholders in October 2025. The Information Statement/Prospectus will describe the Acquiring Funds and other matters. Investors may obtain a free copy of the Prospectus of the Acquiring Funds once the registration statement of the Acquiring Funds becomes effective or by calling (800) 823-6300.
Please retain this supplement for future reference...

@rforno- Interesting to see American Funds EuroPacific and Washington Mutual again after all these years. We used both of them (but class A) fairly heavily when we were in our accumulation phase. American Funds was really good about allowing us to group all of our various IRAs and non-retirement accounts to meet their minimum for no-load purchases.

Thanks—I've enjoyed reading this article!
The so-called 4% rule is a good starting point for determining withdrawal rates
but it is not written in stone and may not be applicable in many situations.
Supposedly, financial advisors often have to encourage their clients to spend more.
Worrying about withdrawal rates is a waste of time for these people.
However, contemplating withdrawal rates is not an "academic exercise" or "distraction"
for many people with less financial security.
I broadly agree with the author's stated beliefs:
Instead of spending hours tweaking your safe withdrawal spreadsheet,
you should spend that time figuring out what matters to you.
What experiences light you up?
What do you want to say yes to before your time is up?
Where are you holding back out of habit, fear, or spreadsheet-based anxiety?
Then spend.
Pivot when needed.
Adjust along the way.
Because your retirement spending isn’t a fixed equation—it’s a living, breathing process.
It should evolve with your life, your priorities, and yes, even the market.
BTW, the benchmark withdrawal rate was raised in Bill Bengen's new book. ;-)
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/64438/safe-withdrawal-rates-bengen#latest

Interesting take on the SWR and why it probably doesn't matter if you know what it is.

The people most concerned about outliving their money tend to be the least likely to actually do so. They stack conservative assumption upon conservative assumption—projecting higher-than-expected inflation, worst-case market returns, maximum sequence-of-return risk—and then underspend out of fear. They end up dying with too much money and too many unfulfilled dreams.
Yes, the 4% rule might give us a loose framework. Yes, financial models have value. But they were never meant to become shackles.
The truth is, you can’t predict the future. Black swan events, long-term care needs, unexpected medical expenses—these things happen. But the bigger danger for this audience isn’t overspending.
It’s under-living.

Link to Article:
why-youre-wasting-time-worrying-about?
also,
A discussion from Reddit regarding SWR and how it is just a rough calculation and not a fine tuned retirement spending strategy:
DIYRetirement/comments/safe_withdrawal_rates_and_variable_cash_flows