Is the 4% Rule Still Safe? | Retirement Withdrawal Rate 2026 Guide

This page was reviewed and updated in August 2026. The withdrawal rate figures were refreshed to the current published numbers from Morningstar and from Bengen’s own updated research⁵. The sections covering market conditions, the order of returns, and inflation were moved to Why the 4% Rule Can Fail so that each page answers one question instead of both answering the same one.

The 4% rule has long been a popular retirement withdrawal strategy, but is it still safe in 2026? Six different sources published six different safe withdrawal rates inside the same year, running from 2.96% all the way to nearly 6%. Here is every one of those numbers, what each one is quietly asking of you, and what I would do with the same money instead.

Get a personalized retirement income plan that protects your essentials no matter what markets do.

Watch: What a Success Score Is Really Measuring

Six minutes on where the 4 percent number came from, what a 90 percent success score actually tests, and what guardrails still ask you to do every year for the rest of your life.

The figures in this video were current when it was recorded. Income factors change over time. The principle does not. The numbers on this page are the current ones.

Want the rest? All of my retirement planning videos sit on a single page.

What Is the 4% Rule?

The 4% rule is a simple retirement guideline: withdraw 4% of your starting balance in year one, adjust that amount for inflation each year, and expect your money to last 30 years. The idea comes from William Bengen’s 1994 research and the Trinity Study, which looked at historical market returns². It was built as a rule of thumb, not a guarantee, and today’s environment is very different from the one it was designed for.

Think about those 30 years for a second. Retire at 65 and the rule stops at 95. J.P. Morgan gives a non-smoking woman in excellent health who is 65 today a 30% chance of being there, and a couple a 44% chance one of them is.⁶ Before you argue about whether the rate should be 4% or 3.9% or 5%, you should know what the odds of getting there really are.

Six safe withdrawal rates, one profession, the same year

• 2.96%, from Pfau and Dokken, for a 30-year retirement with a 40/60 mix and a 10% chance of running out
• 3.9%, from Morningstar, for a 90% chance of not outliving your savings over 30 years³
• 4.0%, Bengen’s original 1994 number¹
• 4.7%, Bengen’s own updated number, from the man who wrote the rule in the first place⁴
• 5.2%, from Morningstar, if you use guardrails and agree to cut back in bad years³
• Nearly 6%, from Morningstar again, if you are willing to let your income move up and down with the market every single year⁵

Notice how the highest number is nearly double the lowest one. What you should be aware of is these are not fringe voices. This is Morningstar, and this is the man who invented the 4% rule, and they cannot agree within two full percentage points.

Now look at how they come up with these numbers.

Bengen’s 4.7% comes from a more broadly diversified portfolio than his original research used. Having a more broadly diversified portfolio is quite defensible, because a lot has changed since 1994.

Please realize the two higher withdrawal rates are very different. Guardrail strategies typically ask you to cut your spending in years when markets fall.

The “near 6%” withdrawal rate can’t even give you a specific number. It is also asking you to accept a paycheck that changes every year for the rest of your life. Neither of those found new money anywhere. They moved the risk off the plan and onto you.

Would you sign up for a raise you might have to give back?

Maybe a better question is… would you consider either having to cut spending or feeling like you need to cut spending to avoid outliving your money to be a successful retirement?

Which one of these is your number?

Here are six answers, published inside the same year, by people who do this for a living.

If you guess low, you spend your retirement being more careful than you ever needed to be. You skip the trips. You see the grandkids less than you meant to.

If you guess high, you may find out too late that you could run out of money, or that you will have to significantly cut spending late in retirement when care costs could be rising.

How is anyone supposed to know which one to choose, or how much certainty it will actually give you to spend what you want to spend in retirement?

What does every one of these numbers ask of you?

They all assume the same thing, and none of them say it out loud. Your entire portfolio is committed to this job.

The rate only has a chance of holding if the account is left alone to do exactly what the rate says. Take out $40,000 for a new roof, or a truck, or to help a grandchild, and you have not simply spent $40,000. You have likely reduced the income the rest of it can safely produce, or you have raised the odds it does not last long enough. Sadly, it is likely both.

Essentially, traditional planning is asking you to take your whole portfolio and pledge it to a number that six different sources cannot agree on.

Does that sound like a recipe for retirement success to you?

Every one of those numbers is fighting the same set of problems. Stock valuations sitting well above their long-run average, the order in which your returns happen to arrive, inflation, fees and taxes. Here is what each of those does to a fixed withdrawal rule, and what I would use instead.

There is another way to use the same money, and it does not ask for all of it. You take a portion, not the whole thing, and turn that portion into income guaranteed for life. Depending on your age, the contract, and when you commit to the strategy, that portion can produce as much income as these rates would have produced from the entire account, and it does not stop when you turn 90. It lasts as long as you do, and if you’re married it lasts as long as the surviving spouse lives.

The amount you’re not allocating to your guaranteed lifetime income strategy, which we call Protected Lifetime Income (PLI), stays invested. What is key here is this money is no longer being asked to pay your bills. What does that mean for you? You’re not forced to sell it in a down market to buy groceries. And, if you’re not using this money to live the life you want to live in retirement, could you maybe invest it a little more aggressively, like you did when you were working and knew you weren’t going to need to take money from the account while you had a steady income coming in?

Here is the same money side by side, drawn down under a rule versus paid out as a monthly paycheck you cannot outlive.

Myths and Truths About the 4% Rule

• Myth: Fees and taxes do not affect the 4% rule much.
  Truth: Advisory fees, fund expense ratios, and taxes on withdrawals can reduce your net return by 1% to 2% or more annually, which directly lowers your sustainable withdrawal rate.
• Myth: A high Monte Carlo success score means your plan is safe.
  Truth: Success scores are probabilities, not promises. They do not protect your essential spending, and they do not show how bad the failure scenarios can get.

Summary

The 4% rule is a useful starting point and it was never a promise. Six different sources published six different safe withdrawal rates inside the same year, running from 2.96% to nearly 6%, and the higher numbers are paid for by handing more of the risk to you.

Whichever number you land on, it asks you for the same thing. Your whole portfolio, committed to the job, left alone to do exactly what the rate says.

There is another way to use the same money. Cover your essentials and the adventures, experiences and memories with loved ones that you refuse to skip using income guaranteed for life, and let the rest stay invested without ever being asked to pay your bills.

See how your withdrawal strategy stacks up and get a personalized retirement income plan.

Return to the Retirement Income Answers Hub

The 4% figure is only part of the story. Here is what a safe withdrawal rate in retirement actually promises.

For a direct comparison of what the same savings pays under the 4% rule versus a guaranteed monthly paycheck, see the numbers side by side here.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much income will $500,000 generate in retirement?

See how $500,000 can translate into steady, spendable income, plus why the old 4% rule can fail and how updated withdrawal strategies can help you spend with confidence.

Is $600,000 enough to retire?

See how $600,000 plays out for three different couples and why the gap, not the balance, is what determines success. Includes how Protected Lifetime Income changes a 5% draw into a 2.2% draw.

What is guaranteed retirement income?

Guaranteed retirement income means steady, predictable paychecks for life, covering your essentials and the experiences you refuse to skip no matter what the market does.

Why can the 4% rule fail today and what should you use instead?

The 4% rule was built for a different economic era. Today’s markets, elevated valuations, and longevity risks mean it can fall short. Dynamic withdrawals and a guaranteed income floor create a more resilient plan.

How do fees and taxes affect my retirement withdrawals?

Investment fees, advisory fees, and taxes on withdrawals can quietly erode your savings and reduce your safe withdrawal rate. RMDs can also push you into higher tax brackets and trigger IRMAA surcharges.

How is Lifestyle-First planning different from the 4% rule?

Unlike the 4% rule, Lifestyle-First planning secures your must-have income first so market downturns never force painful cuts, and your investments can focus on upgrades and legacy.

What is a Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Benefit?

A Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Benefit provides a steady income stream for life no matter how markets perform, helping create income you cannot outlive while keeping your account value and potential death benefit intact.

This is a relaxed, no-pressure conversation to help you clarify your retirement income priorities and next steps.

About Kurt H. Jackson

Experience: Kurt H. Jackson has spent more than 16 years specializing in retirement withdrawal strategies and safe income planning. After watching the dot-com crash of 2000 to 2002 expose the real weaknesses of the save-and-withdraw model, he started reverse-engineering what actually works. He has seen the 4% rule fail real retirees during bad sequence-of-returns years, and has built plans specifically designed so that never has to happen to his clients. Before founding KJ Financial, he spent 20+ years as a Certified Mortgage Planner working with more than 1,000 clients.

Expertise: Kurt is a Retirement Lifestyle Architect and the creator of the Lifestyle-First Retirement Income Planning framework. He is Life and Health Insurance Licensed in MO, NE, KS, IA, and FL. His practice focuses exclusively on insurance-based, tax-optimized retirement income strategies including guaranteed lifetime income, which we call Protected Lifetime Income or PLI, Roth conversion planning, and the Tax Avalanche. He does not manage investments or sell securities.

Authoritativeness: Kurt founded KJ Financial and operates MaxMyRetirementIncome.com as a dedicated educational resource for retirees. His Lifestyle-First framework starts with the retirement the client actually wants, builds a guaranteed income floor to make it certain rather than probable, and manages the remaining assets as true long-term money. The research supporting this approach comes from J.P. Morgan, BlackRock, Morningstar, and peer-reviewed academic work by David Blanchett and Michael Finke. The framework connecting them is his. Every income figure published on this site is based on actual carrier quotes and current research, updated regularly.

Trustworthiness: KJ Financial is a compliance-first firm. All income figures are presented as illustrative and hypothetical. Kurt H. Jackson is not a securities broker, registered investment advisor, or CPA. Guarantees rely on the claims-paying ability of the issuing insurance company.

Contact KJ Financial:
1014 E. 5th St., Maryville, MO 64468
Direct: 816.582.5532
Email: kurt@kjfinancialonline.com
Website: www.MaxMyRetirementIncome.com

Sources

1. William Bengen, original 4% rule research (1994).
2. Cooley, Hubbard and Walz, “Retirement Savings: Choosing a Withdrawal Rate That Is Sustainable,” AAII Journal, February 1998. The Trinity Study itself, three Trinity University finance professors testing withdrawal rates against stock and bond returns from 1926 to 1995. This is the paper that popularized the 4% rule after Bengen.
3. Morningstar, “The State of Retirement Income” (2025).
4. William Bengen, A Richer Retirement: Supercharging the 4% Rule to Spend More and Enjoy More (2025). bengenfs.com
5. Morningstar, “What’s a Safe Retirement Withdrawal Rate for 2026?” (December 3, 2025). morningstar.com
6. J.P. Morgan Asset Management, Guide to Retirement 2026, the Life Expectancy Probabilities page. J.P. Morgan’s own longevity chart for a non-smoker in excellent health who is age 65 today, giving a man a 64% chance of reaching 85, 43% of 90, 21% of 95 and 6% of 100; a woman 73%, 54%, 30% and 11%; at least one member of a couple 90%, 74%, 44% and 16%; and both members of a couple 47%, 23%, 6% and 1%.

Educational only, not tax, legal, or individualized investment advice. Guarantees rely on the issuing insurer’s claims-paying ability. Any figures shown are illustrative and may differ for your situation based on age, health, product features, fees, allocations, and market conditions.

The 4% rule also ignores the tax drag hiding inside a traditional 401(k). Read I Drank the 401(k) Kool-Aid. Here’s What the Math Actually Says.

A guaranteed income floor is one of the most effective alternatives to relying on the 4% rule. See Your Retirement Income Floor.