In that specific model with those specific assumptions you're absolutely right that there was little difference between the 40/60 static and the 30>70 glide path. For other static AAs the improvement tended to be a bit better. And yes I would also like to see more work done with different models and assumptions.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:28 amIf we agree that the improvement in 30 year SWRs by the rising equity glidepath is, at best, not significant, then let's agree to table that one.YRT70 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:15 amYes you've said that 3 times now And I'll keep saying this: while the differences in Kitces' model were relatively small, ERN's analysis showed more potent benefits for long retirements, which is what the OP is asking about.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:55 am That brings up another point I've made already: I'm not sure that the rising equity glidepath's seeming improvement would have been statistically significant. If it isn't, then the results may be due to random chance.
And I'm not sure if you read what Kitces said in that podcast, but nothing he said there gives me the impression he has changed his mind about it.
But besides all the models, I also like the idea intuitively: taking a little less risk early on when SoRR is highest, at the cost of some upside potential. As Karsten phrased it in the conclusion I quoted above.