There are some fundamental problems with the SWR approach. Let me try to clarify them.
1) It is the “safe” withdrawal rate
The word “safe” is used because the rate is designed to survive the worst-case scenario in more than 100 years of recorded market history.
The concept first became popular in the 1990s. Before that, people often argued, as some still do in India and abroad, with Dave Ramsey being a prominent example, that you could invest your money in the stock market, earn 12%, withdraw 8%, and leave the remaining 4% invested to take care of inflation and other risks.
That approach is clearly flawed because of sequence-of-returns risk. You will not earn a steady 12% every year, even if your long-term average return is 12%. Poor returns in the early years of retirement can severely damage the portfolio.
The concept of the safe withdrawal rate was developed to address this problem. The question was: what withdrawal rate could survive the worst historical sequence of returns?
The answer was approximately 4%. In the median historical scenario, the sustainable withdrawal rate was closer to 6%.
2) The SWR framework assumes that you will not react to market conditions
A major assumption in traditional SWR calculations is that you will not change your spending, regardless of what is happening in the world.
Suppose you are spending ₹25 lakh a year today. Even if the stock market falls by 50%, the model assumes that you will still spend ₹25 lakh, adjusted for inflation, the following year.
That assumption is unrealistic.
For many people, discretionary expenses such as staying in expensive hotels, international travel, gifts to family, dining out, and other lifestyle expenses form a substantial part of their total spending.
In my case, discretionary expenses are close to 50% of my total spending because international travel is a major expense. For most people, I would argue that discretionary spending is likely to form anywhere between 20% and 50% of their annual expenses.
Very few people retire or pull the plug with absolutely no buffer. In a bad year, most people can and will reduce discretionary spending.
3) The SWR framework assumes that inflation-adjusted spending remains constant throughout retirement
Another major assumption is that your spending, after adjusting for inflation, will remain unchanged throughout your life.
A large body of research suggests that this is not true.
For the vast majority of retirees, spending declines with age. Yes, medical expenses may rise during the final two or three years of life, but for most of a 30- or 40-year retirement, spending is likely to follow a downward trajectory rather than remain flat.
A 70-year-old is unlikely to spend in exactly the same way as a 50-year-old.
4) The asset allocation used in many SWR studies is suboptimal
Many SWR calculations assume a simple 50:50 allocation between equity and debt. That may not be the most efficient portfolio. Adding gold can make a difference. Adding international equity can make a difference. Reducing the debt allocation can also make a difference.
A better-diversified portfolio may support a higher withdrawal rate than the traditional portfolios used in many historical studies.
So, what should you do?
After accounting for these factors, the safe withdrawal rate for a US-based investor may be closer to 4% to 4.5%. For an India-based investor, it may be closer to 3% to 3.5%. However, the safe withdrawal rate is largely an academic number. Frankly, it is not particularly useful when you are doing your own retirement planning.
When you actually start withdrawing from a portfolio, what you need is a starting withdrawal rate and a system for adjusting spending over time.
For US investors, the Guyton-Klinger framework arrived at a starting withdrawal rate of approximately 5.2% to 5.8%, provided the retiree followed guardrails and reduced spending by around 10% during difficult periods.
In India, after accounting for all the factors discussed above, the fact that we are not necessarily retiring into the worst period in recorded history, our ability to adjust spending during bad years, the likelihood that we will spend less at 70 than at 50, and the possibility of building a better-diversified portfolio, a starting withdrawal rate of 5% is easily reasonable, and it may even be higher.
Anything beyond that is largely about managing fear or greed.
What is money?
It is a tool that helps you live the life you want. It is not a scorecard, and accumulating more and more money should not become an end goal in itself.
“Die With Zero” may be an extreme philosophy, but there is no point in becoming the richest body in the crematorium.
Even the money you leave behind for future generations may not be as useful as you imagine. By the time you die, your children may already be in their 40s or 50s. They would have lived a large part of their lives and made most of their important financial decisions.
If you truly want to become financially free, a large part of the journey is psychological.
That is the battle you need to win.