Más sencillo...retirando el 4% hay un 95% de posibilidades que el dinero te dure más de 30 años...
El método que propones no es el más eficiente. En el paper que comentaba anteriormente se analizan los siguientes métodos que a mi modo de entender son muy básicos y el de porcentaje constante tiene sus pegas.
1. Constant Dollar Amount: Based on Initial Balance (“Constant Dollar”)
Withdrawal Amount: a fixed amount, increased annually by inflation, based on the initial balance at
retirement
2. Constant Percentage: (“Endowment Approach”)
Withdrawal Amount: fixed percentage of portfolio value
3. Changing Percentage Probability of Failure Fixed Retirement Period (“Constant Failure Percentage”)
Withdrawal Amount: based on maintaining a constant probability of failure over the expected fixed
retirement period
4. Changing Percentage: 1/Life Expectancy Withdrawal Approach (“RMD Method”)
Period Determination: updating based on survivorship experience
Withdrawal Amount: 1 divided by the remaining retirement duration (life expectancy)
5. Changing Percentage: Probability of Failure Mortality Updating (“Mortality Updating Failure
Percentage”)
Period Determination: updating based on survivorship experience
Withdrawal Amount: based on maintaining a constant probability of failure over the estimated
remaining retirement duration
El paper es de Morningstar (pensé que era de Vanguard) y se titula “Optimal Withdrawal Strategy for Retirement Income Portfolios”. Desafortunadamente no tengo su enlace.
bogleheads.es
).
