John Montgomery, founder and CEO of Bridgeway Capital Management, has challenged the longstanding 4% rule for retirement withdrawals by advocating a far more conservative approach: a 2.8% annual spending rate measured from the market’s last major peak, paired with an aggressive 90/10 stock/bond portfolio.
This stance, shared in mid-August 2026, directly rebuts recent guidance from Bill Bengen, the financial planner who originated the 4% rule in 1994. Bengen had recently raised his recommended starting withdrawal rate to at least 4.7% (and suggested higher rates could work under current conditions), while favoring a more balanced allocation such as roughly 65% stocks, 30% bonds, and 5% cash.
Background on the 4% Rule
The 4% rule emerged from Bengen’s historical analysis of U.S. market returns. It suggested that retirees could safely withdraw 4% of their portfolio’s value in the first year of retirement and then adjust that dollar amount upward for inflation each subsequent year, with a high likelihood that the money would last at least 30 years—even through severe downturns such as the Great Depression or 1970s stagflation. The original work often assumed a stock-heavy but not extreme allocation (around 50–75% equities). Over time it became a widely cited rule of thumb, though researchers and advisors have long debated whether it is too conservative or too aggressive depending on expected returns, sequence-of-returns risk, inflation, and individual circumstances.
Bengen’s recent updates reflect more optimistic conditions and a desire to help retirees avoid underspending out of excessive fear of running out of money. He has argued that such fear can dominate retirement thinking and prevent people from enjoying the fruits of decades of saving.
Montgomery’s Alternative Framework
Montgomery recommends withdrawing just 2.8% of portfolio value, calculated from the most recent major market peak rather than the current portfolio value or the starting balance at retirement. He pairs this with a high-equity allocation: 90% stocks and only 10% bonds even during retirement.
He projects that a 90/10 portfolio can deliver about 6.5% inflation-adjusted returns, compared with roughly 4.8% for a traditional 60/40 mix. The higher expected growth comes with greater volatility, which is why the withdrawal rate is set so low. According to Montgomery, the 2.8% rate (anchored at the last peak) is designed so that a retiree can maintain the same dollar spending for five consecutive years without lifestyle cuts, provided stocks do not fall more than 30%—an extreme historical outcome.
Key claimed advantages include:
Spending stability during downturns: Because the rate is measured from a prior peak and kept low, spending power is less likely to force reductions when markets decline (unlike a fixed percentage of a fluctuating current portfolio value).
Frequent “raises”: Stocks reach new highs in roughly seven out of ten years on average, potentially allowing spending increases when markets recover or advance.
Long-term portfolio growth: The combination is intended to leave the portfolio larger than its starting value over a long retirement rather than depleting it.
Buffer against longevity and legacy goals: Montgomery, age 70 at the time of the comments, noted actuarial life expectancy figures while pointing out that his own mother reached 103. He views some residual fear of outliving savings as healthy and values the ability to leave money for family or charitable causes.
Contrasting Philosophies
The two approaches highlight different priorities. Bengen’s updated guidance leans toward maximizing enjoyment of retirement savings and cautions against chronic underspending. Montgomery prioritizes extreme durability, growth potential through high equity exposure, and optionality for longevity or bequests. He explicitly pushes back on “Die With Zero”-style thinking that encourages spending down assets completely.
Critics of very low fixed rates often note that they can lead to unnecessarily frugal lifestyles or large unspent balances. Supporters of flexible or higher rates emphasize that sequence risk, valuations, personal spending flexibility, Social Security timing, and partial annuitization can matter as much as any single percentage. Recent research has also explored alternatives such as combining withdrawals with partial annuities or delayed Social Security claiming for better outcomes under certain assumptions.
Practical Takeaways
Montgomery’s challenge underscores that the “safe” withdrawal rate is not a universal constant. It depends on asset allocation, how withdrawals are calculated (current value vs. peak vs. initial balance), willingness to adjust spending, risk tolerance, health and longevity expectations, and goals around legacy or charity. A 2.8% rate from market peaks with 90% equities is unusually conservative on the spending side and aggressive on the investment side. It may suit investors who prioritize never running out and continuing portfolio growth, while others may prefer higher starting rates with greater flexibility or more balanced portfolios.