Posted By Late in October, my monthly MoneySense Retired Money column reviewed three recently published financial books, starting with financial planner William Bengen’s new A Richer Retirement: Supercharging the 4% Rule to Spend More and Enjoy More.
Below we canvassed more than a dozen retirement experts and financial planners in both Canada and the United States about their experiences with the Rule, both the original book as well as the new one.
These experts were gathered by Featured.com, which has been supplying Findependence Hub with quality content for several years now. It has changed its procedure so that editors like myself can request input on particular topics we think will interest our readership. The sources are all on LinkedIn, as you can see by clicking on their profiles below.
Here’s what we asked, followed by their answers, which have been re-ordered by me.
“What do you think of the 4% Rule: CFP Bill Bengen’s guideline about a safe annual Retirement withdrawal amount that factors in inflation? Have you read or do you plan to read Bengen’s just-published followup book: A Richer Retirement : Supercharging the 4% Rule to Spend More and Enjoy More? Do you agree or do you have your own tweaks to the 4% Rule? Looking for both Canadian and American input.”
Here is what these thought leaders had to say.
Adaptive Withdrawals protect Retirement through Market Cycles
The 4% Rule, created by CFP Bill Bengen in the 1990s, remains one of the most referenced retirement withdrawal guidelines. It suggests withdrawing 4% of your portfolio in the first year of retirement and adjusting that amount for inflation each year. The idea was to provide a sustainable income stream for at least 30 years without depleting your savings. Bengen’s newly published book, A Richer Retirement: Supercharging the 4% Rule to Spend More and Enjoy More, revisits this concept using updated data and broader asset allocations. He now argues the safe withdrawal rate could rise to around 4.7%, supported by stronger market performance and portfolio diversification beyond the original stock-bond mix.
I see the 4% Rule as a reliable starting point, but not a fixed rule. It offers structure for retirees who need clarity on how much to withdraw each year, but real-world conditions require flexibility. For U.S. investors, I still begin with 4% as a baseline because it remains simple and conservative. Then I evaluate three major factors before adjusting: market volatility, portfolio performance, and expected longevity. For Canadian retirees, I tend to start lower, around 3.5%, due to differences in taxation, mandatory RRIF withdrawal rules, and the impact of currency and inflation differences compared to U.S. portfolios.
My main adjustment to the rule is to make withdrawals adaptive rather than static. If the portfolio declines by more than 20% early in retirement, I recommend reducing withdrawals by 5% to protect capital. If inflation stays above 4% for more than two years while fixed income returns remain weak, I hold withdrawals steady instead of increasing them. Conversely, if long-term returns outperform expectations, withdrawals can rise modestly. These adjustments keep the retirement plan sustainable through changing market cycles.
The lesson is to view the 4% Rule as a guideline, not a guarantee. Its true value lies in the discipline it introduces. A flexible version of the rule — tailored to taxes, inflation, and market behaviour — helps retirees spend with confidence while protecting their financial future. — Andrew Izrailo, Senior Corporate and Fiduciary Manager, Astra Trust
Real Estate Investors Outperform Traditional 4% Rule
I’ve always thought the 4% rule is a decent starting point, but it’s really built around stocks and bonds. In my world of real estate, combining rental income with property value growth usually blows past that number. Instead of a fixed withdrawal, you can sell a property or pull out equity when the market’s high. That flexibility often makes your money last a lot longer in retirement. — Carl Fanaro, President, NOLA Buys Houses
Balance Freedom and Security in Retirement Journey
Retirement, much like embarking on a long and meaningful journey, is not just about reaching a destination but about learning how to move through each stage of life with purpose and enjoyment.
After reading Bill Bengen’s A Richer Retirement, I found his updated perspective on the 4% Rule both inspiring and practical. He transforms what was once seen as a strict withdrawal formula into a flexible approach that prioritizes experience, adaptability, and peace of mind.
Bengen’s message is that retirement should not revolve around fear or limitation. Instead, it should be about living fully within realistic financial boundaries. By adjusting withdrawals according to personal goals, market performance, and the natural flow of retirement years, retirees can enjoy their savings as a source of freedom rather than anxiety.
The concept feels much like travel: in some seasons, you venture farther, explore more, and spend a bit extra; in others, you slow down, rest, and savor simplicity. This approach is particularly meaningful for those who dream of traveling during retirement. The early, active years can be dedicated to exploring places like Morocco, when energy and curiosity are at their peak. Later on, spending can naturally shift toward quieter experiences closer to home.
Both Canadians and Americans can apply this mindset using tools such as TFSAs, RRSPs, Roth IRAs, or Social Security planning to balance flexibility and security.
In the end, Bengen’s vision reframes retirement as a phase of freedom, not restriction. It invites people to plan wisely but live fully, creating space for exploration, connection, and purpose much like a well-planned journey that leaves room for discovery along the way. — Nassira Sennoune, Marketing Coordinator, Sun trails
Tax-Efficient Withdrawals add 1-2% to Retirement
The 4% rule is a solid starting point, but after 20+ years advising clients, I can tell you it’s not one-size-fits-all. I’ve seen too many retirees lock themselves into unnecessary restrictions because they treat it like gospel rather than a guideline.
Here’s what I actually do with clients: we start with 4% as the baseline, then adjust based on their actual spending patterns and market conditions. I had a couple last year who were terrified to spend more than their calculated 4%, even though their portfolio had grown 30% and they were skipping vacations they’d dreamed about for decades. We bumped them to 5.5% for two years because the math worked and life is short: they finally took that trip to Italy.
The biggest mistake I see isn’t about the percentage itself: it’s that people forget about tax efficiency in withdrawal sequencing. I always look at which accounts to pull from first (taxable vs. tax-deferred vs. Roth) because that can add 1-2% to your effective withdrawal rate without touching principal. One client saved $47,000 over five years just by restructuring their withdrawal order.
I haven’t read Bengen’s new book yet, but it’s on my list. My practical tweak: build a 2-3 year cash cushion in your portfolio so you’re never forced to sell stocks in a down market. That flexibility alone has kept my clients sleeping well through every correction since 2008. — Winnie Sun, Executive Producer,, ModernMom
Canadian Medical Costs require Flexible Withdrawal Rates
Look, the 4% rule is a decent guideline, but it’s not some magic number you can set and forget. I’ve watched people get into trouble because they didn’t account for medical bills, which are a real wild card here in Canada. I always tell people to build in a cash buffer and check in on that withdrawal rate every couple of years instead of just locking it in permanently. — James Inwood, Insurance Broker, James Inwood
Cash Reserves shield Retirees from Market Volatility
I assist clients with retirement and estate planning. Bill Bengen’s original 4% rule was first published in 1994 and took into account a balanced investment portfolio modeled back to 1926. At that time, he projected a 4% withdrawal rate, adjusted annually for inflation, would ensure the portfolio was sustainable for a 30-year retirement. I recommend my retired clients review their portfolio allocation, investment returns, monitor for annual inflation and expenditures and then make adjustments for the next year’s withdrawals.
I plan to read Mr. Bengen’s new book published in August. Mr. Bengen is now recommending a broader asset diversification to add in small percentages of international equities and small-cap stocks in addition to his historic investment portfolio of 50% U.S. large-cap stocks and 50% intermediate bonds. He claims with this broader diversification the safe withdrawal rate could now be up to 4.7% under best case scenario, 4.15% worst case. I agree with Bengen that broader asset diversification can make sense for retirees who are investment knowledgeable and are monitoring annually the data I’ve noted above.
I recommend to my clients that any rule of thumb such as Bengen is simply a data point. Retirees need to take into account their own risk profile as well as their investment understanding before making any significant adjustments to their rate of asset withdrawal. Retirees now have longer life spans and are battling a heightened inflation rate. I recommend my clients have a flexible withdrawal range of 3.5% to 4.5%, monitor assets annually, and continually adjust their annual withdrawal rate as necessary for volatile markets.
I also recommend that my clients have a cash account established of at least two years’ withdrawals to avoid having to sell assets in a prolonged negative market environment. — Lisa Cummings, Attorney and Executive Vice President at Cummings & Cummings Law, Cummings & Cummings
Tax Planning Matters more than Withdrawal Percentages
I’ve spent 40 years managing my own law firm and CPA practice, plus 20 years as a registered investment advisor, so I’ve seen hundreds of retirement plans play out in real life. The 4% rule is a decent starting point, but I stopped treating it as gospel about 15 years into my advisory career.
Here’s what I actually saw with my small business owner clients: their retirement income rarely came from just traditional portfolios. Most had business sale proceeds, real estate holdings, and irregular cash flows that made the 4% rule almost irrelevant. One client sold his manufacturing business at 62 for $2.3 million (US) but kept the building and leased it back: his retirement “withdrawal rate” was completely different because he had guaranteed rental income covering 60% of his expenses.
The bigger issue I noticed was tax planning around withdrawals. I’d have clients rigidly following 4% from their IRAs while sitting on Roth conversions they should’ve done years earlier, or taking Social Security at the wrong time. The sequence of what you withdraw from matters more than the percentage: I’ve seen people save $50K+ in taxes over retirement just by pulling from taxable accounts first while doing strategic Roth conversions.
My tweak: forget the percentage and work backward from your actual monthly expenses, then layer in guaranteed income sources (Social Security, pensions, annuities) before touching portfolio money. Most of my retired clients ended up withdrawing 2-3% because they structured things right on the front end. — David Fritch, Attorney, Fritch Law Office
Flexible Guardrails beat Rigid 4% Retirement Rule
I respect the 4% rule because it gave millions of people a simple mental model. But I do not treat it as a fixed number. Markets, taxes, currency swings, and income sources vary country to country, especially when comparing U.S. vs Canada. I prefer a flexible withdrawal guardrail approach. Start near 4%, then adjust based on portfolio performance, inflation waves, and personal lifestyle shifts. In my sourcing work through SourcingXpro, I learned you never lock into one rigid forecast. You build a system that adapts to real conditions. Retirement planning is similar. The idea is freedom with discipline. The more diversified, flexible, and globally aware your retirement structure is, the safer and more enjoyable your future spending becomes. — Mike Qu, CEO and Founder, SourcingXpro
Startup Success proves Adaptability trumps Fixed Withdrawals
I’ll be honest: I’m a startup founder, not a financial planner, so take this with a grain of salt. But building Rocket Alumni Solutions to $3M+ ARR taught me something crucial about withdrawal rates that parallels the 4% rule: consistency matters way less than adaptability.
When we hit our first revenue milestones, I made the mistake of assuming linear growth and allocated budgets accordingly. Big mistake. Our actual path looked nothing like a straight line–we had quarters where we burned through reserves, then months where cash exploded. I learned to build 6-month cash buffers and adjust spending based on real-time signals, not rigid percentages. That flexibility saved us twice when market conditions shifted unexpectedly.
The parallel to retirement? I watched my parents rigidly follow their financial advisor’s withdrawal plan in 2008-2009 and it crushed them emotionally, even though they recovered. If I were planning retirement, I’d want a dynamic system: maybe 4% in good years, 2.5% when markets tank, 5% when there’s a massive bull run. The math matters less than having rules for when to pivot.
My biggest takeaway from scaling a company is that fixed rules break under real-world pressure. Whether it’s burn rate or withdrawal rate, I’d rather have a framework that breathes with market conditions than a rigid number that forces poor timing decisions. — Chase Mckee, Founder & CEO, Rocket Alumni Solutions – Digital Record Board
Fixed Rules fail Real Estate Entrepreneurs
The 4% Rule never worked for me as a real estate entrepreneur. When I launched Lakeshore Home Buyer, my income bounced everywhere: great years followed by tight ones where every dollar counted. You can’t stick to some fixed withdrawal rate when your paycheck changes month to month. I found more success building business equity and assets that actually throw off cash. The 4% Rule? Maybe use it as a loose starting point, but build your own approach that matches how money really flows through your business. — Ryan Dosenberry, CEO, Crushing REI
Tech Tools outperform traditional Retirement Rules
The 4% rule is a decent starting point, but it wasn’t built for 30-year retirements or today’s markets. My work in FinTech has shown me there’s a better way. Instead of sticking to a strict percentage, you can use tools that adjust your withdrawals based on market performance. If you’re comfortable with tech, this approach can make your retirement money last longer than just following the traditional rule. — Sreekrishnaa Srikanthan, Head of Growth, Finofo
Late-Career Income changes Retirement Withdrawal Math
I spent decades in nonprofit financial management before starting my digital marketing agency at 60, so I’ve seen retirement planning from both sides: the institutional budgeting side and now as someone who actually took the leap later in life.
Here’s what nobody talks about: the 4% rule assumes you’re *done* earning. I left a stable paycheck at 60 specifically because I wasn’t ready to coast. My web design business generates income that supplements what I need to withdraw, which completely changes the math. One of my CPA clients did something similar: semi-retired at 58 but keeps a few key clients, which means his withdrawal rate is closer to 2% some years.
The bigger variable for late-career entrepreneurs is healthcare costs before Medicare kicks in. When I launched FZP Digital, those three years of private insurance premiums were brutal and ate into projections way more than general inflation. If you’re planning to work past traditional retirement like I did, factor in 18-24 months of higher medical costs as a separate line item.
My tweak to the rule: if you’re keeping one foot in the working world (consulting, part-time, passion projects that earn), you can probably push 5-6% in those active years since you’re adding income streams. The rhythm changes: some months my business covers everything, other months I lean on savings more. It’s less rigid than the 4% rule suggests. — Fred Z. Poritsky, Chief Idea Consultant, FZP Digital
Real Estate Income stabilizes Retirement Withdrawals
I follow the 4% rule, but it only works for me when I pair it with real estate. I take a steady 4% from my investments, then throw in profits from property flips and rental income. When market returns are shaky, those extra income streams really hold things steady. For me and my clients, this combo makes retirement feel less of a gamble. — Chris Lowe, CEO, Next Step House Buyers
Retirement Plans should Breathe like Real Life
I’ve always appreciated Bill Bengen’s 4% Rule for what it is, a solid foundation, not a flawless formula. It gives retirees something concrete to hold onto in a sea of financial uncertainty, and that alone makes it valuable. But in real life, people’s spending habits aren’t as neat as a spreadsheet. There are years when you want to travel, spoil the grandkids, or renovate your kitchen, and years when you’re perfectly content tending to your garden and watching your expenses stay still.
I haven’t finished Bengen’s new book A Richer Retirement yet, but it’s definitely on my list. The idea of “supercharging” the rule makes sense, especially now with longer lifespans and unpredictable markets. Personally, I think flexibility is key. Please start with the 4%, but let your withdrawals breathe, adjust when markets soar, or tighten the belt a little when they stumble.
Whether you’re in Canada or the U.S., the core principle is the same, retirement planning should feel like peace of mind, not punishment. — Brian Greenberg, Founder, Insurancy
Bad First Year dooms Fixed Withdrawal Plans
I haven’t read Bengen’s book yet, but in my work I see everyone talking about the 4% rule like it’s gospel. The problem is, I’ve watched people take out too much in the market’s bad first year and then never quite recover. I think it’s better to adjust your withdrawal amount each year. Treat the 4% rule as a starting point, not some unbreakable rule. — JP Moses, President & Director of Content Awesomely, Awesomely
Spend more Early when Dreams still Matter
The 4% Rule has been an indispensable starting point for retirement planning, offering a clear, tangible goal in a process that can feel overwhelmingly abstract. For millions, it transformed the vague notion of “saving enough” into a concrete number, providing a crucial sense of control. Bill Bengen’s original work, and his continued refinements, offer a robust framework for thinking about portfolio longevity. However, after decades of advising professionals on their long-term career and life arcs, I’ve found that the most common point of failure in applying this rule isn’t in the math, but in the assumptions about human behaviour.
The rule’s primary oversight is that it models a financial reality, not a lived one. It presumes a relatively smooth, inflation-adjusted spending pattern for thirty-plus years. Yet, real life rarely follows such a linear path. Most people experience distinct phases of retirement spending: the active, travel-heavy “go-go” years; the quieter, home-centric “slow-go” years; and finally, the “no-go” years, where health-related costs can rise sharply. A rigid 4% withdrawal often feels restrictive in the first phase and potentially excessive in the second, failing to align the distribution of funds with the distribution of energy and desire.
I think of a couple I know who adhered strictly to their calculated annual withdrawal. In their early sixties, they felt a constant, low-grade anxiety about overspending, turning down a long-dreamed-of trip to see the Northern Lights because it exceeded their yearly budget. By their late seventies, health issues had made such travel impossible, and they found themselves sitting on a larger nest egg than planned, but with a shrinking appetite and ability to enjoy it. Their plan was designed to sustain their money, but it failed to sustain their dreams when it mattered most. Perhaps the most important variable isn’t the percentage we withdraw, but the self-awareness to know *when* we’ll truly want to spend it. — Mohammad Haqqani, Founder, Seekario AI Resume Builder
The 3% Rule extends your Retirement Timeline
The 4% Rule has been a much-debated “rule of thumb” for safe retirement withdrawal strategies, developed by CFP Bill Bengen. It posits that retirees can safely withdraw 4 percent of their initial portfolio value and increase that amount annually for inflation without running out of money over a period of 30 years. Although many professionals and authorities have followed this rule, there has been some criticism of it and variations have been suggested.
Bengen covers all of this in his new book, “A Richer Retirement: Supercharge the 4% Rule” (New Reader Media, 2020), which explains more about the 4 per cent rule and how to improve upon it. Whether you’re for, against or undecided concerning the 4% Rule, it’s got people talking about their approach to retirement planning and that can only be a good thing.
The 4% Rule has come under attack (more of which can be said) and there are alternative strategies also. One popular variation is “The 3% Rule” which proposes taking out just 3% from one’s portfolio per year to factor in inflation and possible market crashes. This rule extends the time frame for retirement withdrawals, giving you up to and over 33 years. — Mike Otranto, Founder, Wake County Home Buyers
Protect Portfolio Integrity before Scheduled Payouts
The 4% Rule is fundamentally a Predictive Operational Model. In the world of high-stakes asset management—like maintaining a fleet of heavy duty trucks: we understand models are useful only until they meet real-world volatility. The 4% rule, for American or Canadian planning, provides a necessary baseline for establishing the Financial Solvency Floor.
I find the model acceptable as a starting point, but its critical failure is its rigidity. We operate on the Adaptive Capital Allocation Mandate. This means retirement withdrawals must be treated like operational expenditures: they must shrink immediately when the underlying asset—the investment portfolio—signals a loss of OEM quality performance.
My tweak to the 4% Rule is the Zero-Deficit Contingency Protocol. Withdrawals must be subject to an annual Operational Health Check of the portfolio. If the portfolio suffers a verifiable capital loss of 10% or more, the withdrawal rate drops to a non-negotiable 3.0% for that year. The capital must be allowed to recover before the withdrawal rate is restored.
We prioritize the asset integrity over the scheduled payout. I haven’t read Bengen’s follow-up, but any model that encourages spending more without solving the volatility of the asset base is ignoring the primary risk factor. Certainty must be guaranteed before consumption. — Illustrious Espiritu, Marketing Director, Autostar Heavy Duty
Withdrawal Timing Matters more than Percentage Rate
I think the 4% Rule is great but I think it is over-simplified just like many retirement planning topics. The 4% Rule is a starting point and at best an estimation. It doesn’t account for a financial term called “Sequence of Returns.” When you take distributions is just as important as how much. In a down market, taking out 4% may cause additional negative impact to a portfolio, making it hard to capture returns in the subsequent years. The 4% Rule should be reevaluated at least annually to determine the correct amount to be distributed in any given year. I use the 4% Rule to answer the age old question of “Do I have enough to retire?” The 4% of assets should be a supplement to other forms of income such as Social Security. After you add up all future income sources and expenses, then you can determine how much you can distribute. That number may be 4%, 5%, or even 8% initially. But the strategy is still the same. Use the current year statistics to determine whether you should take more or less to maintain your lifestyle. — Alajahwon Ridgeway, Owner, A.B. Ridgeway Wealth Management, LLC
Featured.com creates community-driven content featuring expert insights. Sign up to answer questions and get published
