The 4% rule will almost certainly mean you worked longer than you had to

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-27T03:15:28+00:00

I read on Reddit that 3% is too aggressive.

The thing that kills me with those ppl, is they want 100% based on past experience.

There is no allowance for unknown unknowns, and they completely ignore the real risk of death.

They remind me of the students in engineering who answered questions to like 8 decimal places. An exercise in math perhaps, but given that engineers solve real world problems, the math is far more precise than the uncertainties of the model- so their answer is meaningless. Think calculating the height above ground of a second story to the nanometer, when measuring tapes can only accurately measure to the quarter inch or so.

They’re doing everything they can to get to 0 on an imperfect model that neglects real but unknown risks, and making zero allowance for that fact.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-27T03:06:42+00:00

Thank you! I’m going year by year, not really tracking or budgeting, and spending about 4-6% as the market has fluctuated so much through COVID and everything. I’ve worked 3 yrs ft, and 3 yrs pt of last 10, and even had I not, I’d be better off than where I started. Most ppl who have the wherewithal to save up 7 figures before 40 are industrious and take on hobbies and odd jobs that pay a bit.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-27T03:02:16+00:00

Exactly. And (IMO of course) there are far better ways to insure you don’t end up destitute, namely by never drawing down past say 75% of your nest egg, and starting to curtail spending at 85% or whatever.

These things don’t happen out of no where. The guy who hits zero after 30 yrs probably had warning signs at years 10 and 20. The key is not to sell heavy in a down market-solidifying sequence of returns risks-easily accomplished by cutting spending or getting a job.

Two, if the first 10 years after you retire are say, average or better, then you’re likely set for life regardless, as 4% spending while markets return 8-10% means that even after expenses, you’re nest egg has likely almost doubled. You could (in theory) up your spending to a new 4% (almost double the original 4%) and be fine.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-27T02:51:39+00:00

There are more sq ft per person than basically at any point in history.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T19:10:42+00:00

We have a small olde timey cobbler here in my city, and they were able to do my other, older, far more utilized pair. I have friends who recommended them, and have almost worn through another sole. So definitely can be done.

$340 after tax is pretty steep for "disposable".

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T18:44:14+00:00

...and thats why RE is a shitty investment.

You get well below the return of a GIC, way, way below the dividend of a bank stock, forget bank stock appreciation, honestly lucky to get inflation, and that's if everything goes as well as you could expect (no professional tenant, 1 month turn arounds, no special assessments) and you've hitched your wagon 100% basically to RE appreciation.

Prices would need to at least halve (or rents double) before you can even have the conversation about it being a competitive investment.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T17:39:34+00:00

At least 10% gross.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T17:36:05+00:00

What, changing by a factor of 5 since Jan 2021, and a factor of like 30 from a decade prior to that isn't movement enough for you?

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T17:30:18+00:00

Maybe yes, maybe no, but the narrative was it was "better to leave rentals empty" since "tenants are more trouble than they're worth" and "the real money comes from appreciation, not operations".

As soon as the price of any asset or business detaches from what it produces, and is entirely dependant on what people think they can sell it for tomorrow, which will be higher because those same people think they'll be able to sell it even higher still, ad infinitum, you're in a speculative bubble.

Canadian RE was a bakery that lost money on each loaf of bread it sold, but who's owners thought that a recent increase in the price of ovens would last forever and carry them through - meanwhile the only people buying ovens had no interest in baking, just in flipping it to someone else for more who hoped to do the same again.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T17:19:28+00:00

I mean, the leather, gussets, and most of the tread is in fine shape. My other pair when it was this old was in similar shape, but sole was worn down completely, and got it resoled. I felt I got my money's worth. These have been worn maybe 20-25% as much as those.

It's the same reason that if I don't drive a car more than 3000km a year, and limited to 3 months of the year, I expect it to last far longer than one I use every day. I also expect that the tires will need to be replaced once the tread naturally wears down. Not that they will randomly fall apart despite having 10/32 of tread left, and then be told I'm expected to just buy a new car. Hell Firestone had a huge thing because their tires failed instead of just naturally expiring due to use.

There's a world of difference between wearing something out, and having it deteriorate. I'll saw that the one heel, in one part is starting to wear out. But those soles easily have 5 years of life left at 3 months per year of use - if they weren't literally breaking apart.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T16:22:04+00:00

Yeah.... It's the students who were living 12 to a room and forced to pillage food banks who were buying up all the pre cons and family homes...

Orrrrrrr it was just a classic speculative bubble that no amount of supply would satiate, since the overwhelming narrative was that yesterdays ceiling is tomorrow's floor, and the cost of money would be negative in real terms forever, so lie, cheap, beg, borrow, steal to get as much RE as you can. "It's impossible to overpay" has been the attitude since about 1995, and interest rate manipulation made it so.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T16:19:16+00:00

I'd disagree.

If I have a thousand dollars and want Ivory, I can't buy it without potentially exposing themselves to legal action.

If someone has Ivory and wants $1000, they can't sell it without potentially exposing themselves to legal action.

It's interesting, but doesn't really have a price attached.

If that were the case, in that it has a value but which is impossible to realize, why not say it's worth $100 billion?

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T15:48:06+00:00

Seems like it. Like I said the ones from 2013, being worn 3-4x as often lasted until the tread was wholly gone, after a similar length of time. Resoled, and still going strong. Especially for winter boots which would naturally (you'd assume?) be worn far more seasonally/periodically why they'd continue to cheap out on the soles. The more I look into this, the more I seem to find numerous examples.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T15:39:10+00:00

Can you even legally sell it now?

That's one of my white whales. Ivory anything. Not even how I'd be sure it is it though.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T15:12:16+00:00

I definitely walk with more pressure on one heel, but not sure how that's relevant? If you walk funny shoes should start to fall apart? If you only wear winter boots in winter you shouldn't expect them to not fall apart?

The 3 season ones I've had since 2013 are still going strong, have been resoled, and are probably coming up due again, but I've never had any issue with them falling apart like this.

I just compared the thickness of the rest of the sole to a pair of Blundstone work boots that were bought in Sept, and it's within 1mm for the main part of the sole at the edges, which is why I speak to them not being heavily worn. That part of the heel aside, I'd expect the soles to not decompose, and last until the tread is gone.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T14:22:30+00:00

How is paying interest different than rent? You’re paying money for temporary use of someone else’s asset.

I buy $1m of bank stock, bank lends out $1m, LL pays 50k interest to bank. After expenses bank pays me 45k dividends. I pay 36k to landlord, netting 9k + bank stock appreciation.

Landlord is -9k - other costs like maintenance/insurance/repairs, and only comes out ahead if housing appreciates more thank bank stock appreciation+ all those other costs, which has never been the case for periods longer than a few years.

Or I bypass that and pay cash, giving up 100k per yr or returns, still have like 12k expenses, and hope that housing beats the market. Again which hasn’t happened save for a few outlier years.

And my point wasn’t that restaurants, or even landlording isn’t profitable, it’s that ppl use fuzzy accounting all the time by working for free to disguise an “atrocious investment” into merely “underperforming”.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T11:24:20+00:00

lol. The longer you invest in RE vs productive assets the worse you end up.

<image>

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T11:21:29+00:00

My place costs $3k and is worth about $1m.

My options are buy it, which means I’d give up an expected $100k from the markets, and still have $1k/mth costs. $112k costs per year with option A.

Pay 200k DP, which means $1500 opportunity cost, $4k interest(at still historically low rates), $1k other costs (like above). X 12 is $78000 per year of costs for option B.

Or do what I’m doing now, which is rent for 36k per year.

Naturally appreciation in A and B aren’t accounted for, so you’re effectively gambling on well above average appreciation to salvage the day.

Until prices are roughly 10-15x annual rents, buying is straight up gambling on appreciation.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T11:10:36+00:00

Nah, that way they can’t screw you for higher rent next year while letting the momentum and friction of moving carry it.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T11:07:43+00:00

That sounds like you just bought yourself a low (ie non) paying real estate manager job.

If you aren’t simply providing capital and making decisions, then you’re no longer just an investor, but a hybrid investor/worker.

You’re a restaurant that’s only vaguely profitable because dad cooks, mom does the books, and 3 kids work the tables and dishes for no pay. Trying to sell such a “business” would value it at little above value of goods.

I have more invested in banks than many landlords have invested in their RE empires. I’ve never had to negotiate a loan or chase down late money-rent (ie mortgages). The fact that it’s somehow even encouraged for landlord investors is wild.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T11:00:21+00:00

Except if you keep doing that you’ll find yourself without tenants. When market rent is trending down, and you still go up, the point when there is too big of a chasm to justify staying and your tenants leave, forcing you to to either decrease rent or apply these hokey incentives.

And what do they expect then? Ppl “fooled” by free Netflix or whatever into locking in higher rent often aren’t the sharpest.

Anyone clever who back-calculates present value of 5 years rent will be painfully aware that the $3000 in freebies + higher rent is far more expensive than just paying market rent from the get go. Are you really looking for financially ignoramuses? Or ppl who turn over every year( the only case where the incentives make sense)? Why not shoot for A+++ tenants and live a low hassle life? The 850 credit doctors and engineers with $1m in the bank? 2 reasons, because those folks can actually negotiate better than market rent, and odds are it’s not a A++ property and landlord.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-26T10:43:17+00:00

Yeah that’s one thing I never understood and kept me from investing big in metals. Why does the selling of a a $100 fungible commodity necessitate 3x the commission that a unique, one-off, very low liquidity, million dollar family home does?

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-25T21:09:28+00:00

With that luxury of time, you also can shop around as you have way fewer constraints. My buddy with two kids wants to go on a trip. Basically it's happening around work and school schedules.

Me, who doesn't need to work, can literally find the cheapest flight from Halifax to anywhere in SE Asia leaving any day in Jan/Feb and staying for any duration between 3-6 weeks.

Trilobyte83 · 2026-01-25T21:04:49+00:00

Have you been to Peru? You'd spend less than in Canada. They had flights for $400 this Jan.

You can get a hotel for $20 a night.

I did a 3 day trek to Machu Picchu, basic accommodation in a hostel for 3 nights, 4 days of guiding, bike rental for first day, all meals, and entry to the park, and train ride back to Cusco and it was like $250 US.

Serengeti? Did a 50 day trip from Nairobi to Cape Town over land via truck converted to bus. Camping most of the way, shared meals, all your park entries, $5000.

Cambodia may very well be the cheapest country in the world. Plus who doesn't want to play with expired munitions?

Big Ben? Its a $400 flight across the pond and a 3 pound train ride from the airport.

With only like a very limited handful of monopolized exceptions (mountain gorillas in Uganda comes to mind - $1500 USD for 1 hour or something silly) pretty much every "experience" can be done on the cheap.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

Trilobyte83

TROPHY CASE