Whidrawal rates are a simplification the same as growth rates. They should not be expected to be constant. Withdrawals tend to be absolute (with some flexibility like not taking a trip or not renovating a kitchen or deck) rather than relative to market gains. Also withdrawals can be made in a way that changes your asset allocation (don’t sell your equities in a downswing, sell your fixed income assets for needed liquidity)

All that said, I’m going to read the article now and see if they hit on any of those points.

PS Dave Ramsey is who idiots think is smart, so I pretty much disregard what he says as he says it.

Note that surviving for 30 years is easier than surviving 40/50/etc (for early retirees). As is common knowledge at this point, blindly withdrawing x% every single year is a lot more risky than ratcheting up or down depending on how the market is doing. If the market is bad you should be cutting back on your frivolous spending, which will give you a higher success chance with no extra nest egg required.

Misleading thumbnail, looks like a Greek island. Where does this come from?

Read the article:

In the case of AIVSX (one of the funds Dave has relied on for a long time), this fund has outperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 1% per year going back to 1935.

Ramsay says: “I mean if you’re making 12 in good mutual funds and the S&P has averaged 11.8”

Look at a chart:

🤨

Under those conditions, 97 out of 100 women will be pregnant within one year