I wrote the following reply to the guest blog, but I’m not sure it appeared. Would you please host it here, and perhaps respond?

Thanks!
Old Hand

Anyone interested in the actual data and studies underpinning the 4% Withdrawal Rate Rule developed in the nineties in response to Financial Advisors previous claims that 7 to 10% withdrawal rates were “safe”, might want to go to this link for a very thorough explanation, using the actual source materials:

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_Withdrawal_Rates

When the guest blogger claims: “the 4-Percent Rule at some times overstates and at other times understates the amount needed for a safe retirement; at times of high valuations the true safe withdrawal can drop to as low as 2 percent and at times of low valuations it can rise to as high as 9 percent,” it is the belief of most who respond to him over the years he has been claiming this (including myself) that he is either misinterpreting or misstating the studies findings and/or intent. The question the study set out to find was the single rate that would survive all periods for a given interval, and it turns out that was as little as half of what many advisors were suggesting! That was the purpose and the value of the study. Period. It’s results (if not it’s implications) remain completely unchallenged by competent parties as to accuracy, arithmetic, method, and clarity of reporting the findings.

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Withdrawal_Methods

And finally, the forum at the link is dedicated to a philosophy of investing that is the OPPOSITE of what the guest blogger espouses on his own site. Getting a *full* and balanced picture helps everyone!
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/index.php

Good investing, everyone! I would suggest that you read much, consider the source of what you read, and ask lots of questions!

Thanks for the kind words, John.

Rob