Is $4 million enough to retire on?
The short answer
Yes, up to $150,000 a year. Across 69 historical 30-year retirements since 1928, $4 million supported up to $184,000 a year in at least 90% of them. That is $160,000 drawn from the portfolio, a 4.00% rate, plus $24,000 of Social Security.
What history actually did to $4M
Each row replays every 30-year window since 1928 using the real returns and real inflation of those years. Not a simulation, not an average: the Depression, the 1970s and 2008 in the order they happened.
| Spend per year | Draw after SS | Rate | Survived | Success |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $70,000 | $46,000 | 1.15% | 69 of 69 | 100% |
| $90,000 | $66,000 | 1.65% | 69 of 69 | 100% |
| $120,000 | $96,000 | 2.40% | 69 of 69 | 100% |
| $150,000 | $126,000 | 3.15% | 69 of 69 | 100% |
| $200,000 | $176,000 | 4.40% | 60 of 69 | 87.0% |
| $300,000 | $276,000 | 6.90% | 35 of 69 | 50.7% |
70% stocks and 30% bonds, spending raised with inflation each year, $24,000 of Social Security assumed throughout. A period counts as a success if the portfolio still had money at the end of 30 years.
Where the line sits: $150,000 a year survived 100% of history. $200,000 survived 87.0%. That is $50,000 a year of extra spending costing 13.0 points of historical success. The decline is not gentle, and it steepens with every step above it.
What a success rate does not tell you
A 90% success rate sounds reassuring and it is worth reading carefully. It means roughly one historical retirement in ten ran out of money, and the ones that failed were not random. They clustered in the periods that started badly: retire in 1929, 1966 or 1973 and the first decade did damage the next twenty years could not repair.
That is sequence risk, and it is the reason the same average return produces very different outcomes. The order matters more than the average.
The other thing the number hides is that nobody actually behaves the way the backtest assumes. It spends the same real amount every year regardless of what the portfolio has done. Real retirees cut back after a crash, and that flexibility alone lifts most failing scenarios into surviving ones. A budget with room to cut is worth more than a slightly larger portfolio without it.
Common questions
Is $4 million enough to retire on?
It supported up to $184,000 a year across 69 historical 30-year retirements since 1928, counting $24,000 of Social Security. That is $160,000 drawn from the portfolio at 4.00%, plus the benefit. Spend more than that and the failure rate climbs quickly.
How is the success rate calculated?
Every 30-year window since 1928 is replayed with the actual stock returns, bond returns and inflation of those years: 69 separate retirements. A period counts as a success if the portfolio still had money at the end. This is the historical record rather than a simulation, so it includes the Depression, the 1970s and 2008 in the order they actually happened.
Why does the answer depend on Social Security so much?
Because the benefit is a fixed amount, so it covers a large share of a small budget and a small share of a large one. $24,000 a year takes that much off every draw, and on a modest budget that is the difference between a rate history rewards and one it punishes. The table below shows the draw after the benefit, which is what the portfolio actually has to fund.
What would make $4 million go further?
Three things, roughly in order of effect. Spending less, which lowers the rate directly. Flexibility, meaning a budget you can cut for two years after a crash rather than one already stripped to essentials. And delaying Social Security toward 70, which raises the benefit by roughly 8% a year and so lowers the draw permanently.
Related: Backtesting, Safe withdrawal rate, Spending levels, All amounts.