4%原则已显老态:2026年更明智的取款策略
The 4 Percent Rule Is Showing Its Age: Smarter Withdrawal Strategies For 2026

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/4-percent-rule-showing-its-age-smarter-withdrawal-strategies-2026

威廉·本根(William Bengen)于1994年提出的“4%法则”长期以来一直被视为退休规划的标准基准。尽管它为确保储蓄能维持30年提供了一个有益且保守的起点,但该法则最初是针对历史上最糟糕的市场情况设计的,而非针对典型的市场环境。若死板地依赖这一法则,可能会导致消费不足,从而无法享受退休生活。 该法则的主要缺陷在于它未能考量“收益顺序风险”——即退休初期糟糕的市场表现可能会耗尽投资组合,而不论长期的平均收益如何。专家强调,退休规划需要一种灵活且动态的方法。退休人员不应仅依赖固定且根据通胀调整的取款额,而应考虑诸如“护栏策略”、储蓄桶系统,或根据年度投资组合表现调整支出等策略。 归根结底,个人的安全取款率是因人而异的,受年龄、预期寿命、固定收入(如社会保障金)及税务效率等因素影响。与其将“4%法则”视为一条严格的准则,不如将其视为一个基准。一个成功的退休计划需要定期的年度审查,以便根据市场现实调整支出,确保你既不会花光积蓄,也不会牺牲舒适的生活质量。

相关文章

原文

Authored by Peter Daisyme via Due,

The 4 percent rule has guided retirement planning for three decades. The idea is simple: withdraw 4 percent of your savings in year one, adjust that dollar amount for inflation each year after, and your money should last about 30 years. It is a useful starting point and a great mental shortcut. But the person who created it has spent recent years telling people it is far more flexible - and often more generous - than the rigid version most savers cling to.

Experts say the best retirement withdrawal strategy adjusts to changing conditions. oneinchpunch/shutterstock

Where The 4 Percent Rule Came From

Financial planner William Bengen introduced the rule in 1994 after crunching decades of historical market data. He wanted to find the highest withdrawal rate that would have survived even the worst market conditions of the 20th century, including the Great Depression and the brutal 1970s. The answer he landed on was about 4 percent, and the figure stuck so firmly that it became gospel.

The crucial detail that gets lost is what "survived the worst case" actually means. Bengen was not describing the typical retirement - he was describing the single most unfortunate starting year in history. For the vast majority of retirees, a portfolio drawn down at 4 percent not only lasted; it grew substantially.

What The 4 Percent Rule Gets Right - And Wrong

The rule's strength lies in its simplicity and conservatism. It forces you to think in terms of a sustainable withdrawal rate rather than a lump sum, and it builds in a margin of safety. The weakness is that the same conservatism can leave you underspending for decades and dying with a fortune you never enjoyed.

"The 4 percent rule - or the newer version of the 4.7 percent rule - is the worst-case scenario. It's really designed for only the most conservative person to use in retirement planning."

That is Bengen himself, quoted by Bankrate. With broader diversification across asset classes, he has argued that retirees may be able to start with withdrawal rates closer to 4.7 percent in some circumstances. In other words, the famous 4 percent figure is better viewed as a conservative baseline than a hard spending limit.

Why 2026 Calls For A Flexible Approach

A fixed percentage ignores what is actually happening around you. Markets rise and fall, and inflation eats into every dollar you pull out. Bengen has called inflation retirees' "greatest enemy" for exactly this reason - a few bad inflation years early in retirement can do lasting damage to a portfolio. Morningstar's ongoing research has landed on a more cautious starting figure in some years, underscoring that there is no single magic number that works in every environment.

The real risk hiding behind the 4 percent rule is called sequence-of-returns risk. If the market drops sharply in your first few years of retirement while you are also withdrawing, you sell assets at depressed prices, and your portfolio may never fully recover. The same average return delivered in a different order can produce wildly different outcomes. That is why when you retire and how you adjust matter as much as the percentage you choose.

A Real-World Look At Sequence Risk

To see why flexibility matters so much, picture two retirees who both start with $1 million and both average the same 7 percent return over time. The only difference is the order of those returns. The first retiree hits a string of strong market years right after retiring; the second runs into a steep downturn in years one and two. Even though their average returns are identical over the long run, the second retiree is withdrawing money from a shrinking portfolio at the worst possible moment, locking in losses they can never fully recover. Years later, the first retiree may have more money than they started with, while the second is watching their balance dwindle.

That is sequence-of-returns risk in plain terms, and it is the best argument against rigidly withdrawing a fixed inflation-adjusted amount no matter what. A retiree willing to trim spending modestly during the early bad years dramatically improves their odds of never running out.

Three Withdrawal Strategies Worth Considering

Instead of locking yourself into one rate, build in flexibility. These approaches all reduce the odds of running dry while letting you spend more when conditions allow:

  • Guardrails: Start near 5 percent, then trim spending in down years and give yourself a raise after strong ones.
  • The bucket approach: Keep one to two years of expenses in cash so you never sell investments during a downturn.
  • Dynamic spending: Tie withdrawals to portfolio performance rather than a rigid inflation adjustment, so your spending breathes with your balance.

Each acknowledges a simple truth: real retirees do not spend the exact same inflation-adjusted amount every year for 30 years. They flex, and a strategy that flexes with them is more realistic and usually more efficient.

How To Set Your Own Number

Your personal safe rate depends on several factors the rule of thumb ignores:

  • Your retirement age and realistic life expectancy.
  • How much of your spending is covered by guaranteed income, such as Social Security or a pension?
  • Your asset mix and your tolerance for spending cuts in a bad year.
  • Whether leaving a large inheritance is a goal or a non-issue.

A 70-year-old with a pension and modest spending can safely withdraw far more than 4 percent. A 55-year-old early retiree with no other income should probably start at a lower level. The number is personal, which is exactly why a one-size-fits-all rule eventually breaks down. The healthiest approach is an annual check-in where you review your balance, spending, and remaining time horizon, and then adjust. Early in retirement, when sequence risk is highest, these reviews matter most.

Don't Forget Taxes In Your Withdrawal Plan

Your withdrawal rate is only half the equation; the order in which you tap your accounts matters too. Pulling money tax-efficiently - generally from taxable accounts first, then tax-deferred accounts like a traditional 401(k), and finally Roth accounts - can stretch your savings meaningfully further than withdrawing haphazardly. Required minimum distributions, the taxation of Social Security, and Medicare premium thresholds all interact with how much you withdraw and from where. A retiree who coordinates withdrawals with taxes can often support a higher effective spending rate than one who ignores them, simply by keeping more money out of the government's hands. It is one more reason the rigid 4 percent rule is just a starting point rather than a complete plan.

The Bottom Line

Treat the 4 percent rule as a floor for planning, not a ceiling for spending. Run your own numbers, account for your guaranteed income and time horizon, stay flexible enough to adjust in volatile years, and revisit the plan annually. Done right, you avoid both nightmares: running out of money too soon and reaching the end of a long life having denied yourself a retirement you could easily have afforded. If you want a deeper framework, our retirement planning guide can help you pressure-test your assumptions before you stop working.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com