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 Continue Reading…