When it comes to retirement, longstanding rules of thumb can feel reassuring. Unfortunately, finance expert Suze Orman has issued a stark warning about one of those rules. Orman has urged people to stop relying on the 4% rule, stating “I would not be using the 4% figure on any level.”
What is the 4% rule, why does Orman want you to abandon it, and should you listen? Here’s what retirees need to know.
What is the 4% rule?
The 4% rule is designed to help people choose a safe withdrawal rate from retirement accounts. According to the rule, you withdraw 4% of your retirement balance in your first year of retirement, then adjust that dollar amount each year for inflation. The goal: make your money last at least 30 years. A $1 million nest egg would yield $40,000 in year one.
Financial advisor William Bengen developed the rule in 1994 to simplify withdrawal planning. The formula offered a memorable shortcut for a complicated question: how much can you spend without running out?
What’s Orman’s problem with the 4% rule?
Orman argues that the 4% rule can push you to withdraw money you don’t actually need, leaving your accounts depleted when future needs arise. “Maybe you were taking out 4% and 4% even though you didn’t need it,” she said. Years later, you may face expensive long-term care costs but lack the funds because you followed a rigid formula instead of your actual spending needs.
“The more you can not take out of a retirement account, the better off you are,” Orman explained.
The 2026 Retirement Reality Check
Market conditions have shifted dramatically since Bengen’s original research. The 10-year Treasury yield hovered around 4.5% in mid-2026, offering retirees better fixed-income opportunities than the near-zero rates of the early 2020s. At the same time, inflation jumped to 3.8% in April 2026, driven by energy price shocks and geopolitical tensions, reminding retirees that purchasing power erosion remains a live threat.
Bengen himself updated his framework. In his August 2025 book “A Richer Retirement,” he raised his historical worst-case safe maximum withdrawal rate to 4.7%, based on portfolios that include small-cap, mid-cap, and international stocks alongside traditional large-cap equities and bonds. Meanwhile, Morningstar’s forward-looking research, published in December 2025, pegged the 2026 safe starting withdrawal rate at 3.9% for a balanced portfolio targeting 90% success over 30 years.
The gap between these figures underscores the core problem with the classic 4% rule: it treats a fluid economic reality as a static calculation.
Orman’s Playbook: The 3-to-5-Year Cash Wall
Orman recommends a defense strategy that goes beyond choosing a withdrawal percentage. She advocates maintaining three to five years of living expenses in liquid, high-yield savings or short-term instruments. This cash reserve acts as a buffer during market downturns, allowing you to avoid selling stocks when prices are depressed.
By drawing from cash during corrections, you sidestep sequence-of-returns risk (the danger that poor market performance early in retirement permanently damages your portfolio). The cash wall lets your equity holdings recover without forced liquidations.
Dynamic Spending: Smart Alternatives to a Rigid Rule
Rather than locking into a fixed annual percentage, modern wealth management increasingly favors flexible frameworks:
The Guardrails Strategy: Start with a higher initial withdrawal rate (often above 5%) but establish absolute spending ceilings and floors. If your portfolio drops below a predetermined threshold, you contractually agree to cut spending by 5% to 10%. This approach allows more income in good years while protecting against depletion in bad ones.
The Social Security Bridge: Use a larger share of retirement savings in your early retirement years, delaying Social Security until age 70. Every year you delay past full retirement age (67 for those born in 1960 or later) increases your benefit by 8% annually. By maximizing your guaranteed, inflation-adjusted Social Security baseline, you reduce long-term dependence on portfolio withdrawals.
Is Orman right?
Orman is correct that blindly following the 4% rule makes little sense, especially if your actual spending needs are lower. Withdrawing more than necessary simply because a guideline says so wastes an opportunity to preserve capital for genuine future needs.
Beyond Orman’s concerns, the 4% rule faces other challenges. Lengthening life expectancies and more conservative forward-looking return assumptions have led experts to recommend limiting initial withdrawals to around 3.9%, not 4%. Adopting a more conservative baseline reduces the risk of outliving your savings, a consequence too severe to ignore.
The reality is that your ideal withdrawal rate depends on multiple factors: portfolio size, risk tolerance, life expectancy, and whether you face Required Minimum Distributions (which mandate withdrawals from tax-advantaged accounts starting at age 73). A one-size-fits-all rule can’t account for these specifics. You might withdraw too much and deplete your accounts prematurely, or withdraw too little and sacrifice quality of life unnecessarily.
Working with a financial advisor to tailor a withdrawal strategy to your circumstances is a smarter approach than relying on a decades-old rule of thumb. Orman’s advice to ditch the 4% rule and instead craft a personalized plan based on your financial situation, risk tolerance, and goals makes sense for most retirees. Please note that the strategies discussed here represent analytical commentary and opinion; individual retirement planning should be conducted with a qualified professional to ensure alignment with your specific financial parameters.
Editor’s note: This article was updated in June 2026 to include Morningstar’s December 2025 safe withdrawal rate guidance (3.9% for 2026 retirees), details on William Bengen’s August 2025 book revising his safe maximum to 4.7%, current 10-year Treasury yield data (~4.5%), April 2026 inflation figures (3.8%), clarification of Orman’s three-to-five-year cash reserve strategy, and expanded discussion of dynamic spending frameworks including guardrails and Social Security bridge methods.
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks