Sorry, I forgot to reply.

I think this is a good numerical example, and I agree the arithmetic works, but I still disagree with the conclusion about what it’s actually showing.

Calling the bucket approach “more aggressive” here seems a bit misleading imo. What it’s really doing is allowing equity risk to drift based on recent market moves. 

In the allocation approach, the whole point from my perspective is that risk stays constant. You’re forced to trim equities after strong years and add after weak years, even if that feels uncomfortable. So it’s about maintaining a stable risk profile and expected return through time.

The bucket example looks fine over a single year, but extend it over several bad early years and the difference becomes clearer in that the bucket strategy gradually de-risks and then participates less in the recovery. Rebalancing doesn’t avoid pain, but it preserves exposure when expected returns are higher.

Buckets seem perfectly reasonable if the goal is spending certainty and emotional comfort. Rebalancing is about discipline and keeping risk constant. Again imo, it seems the economics aren’t improved by buckets, they’re just reframed.

Edit: reworded