Retiring in 1929: Surviving the Great Depression on the 4% Rule
A $1,000,000 60/40 portfolio, retiring in 1929 and spending $40,000/yr (inflation-adjusted), made it the full 30 years against real market history.
Year by year: the 4% plan
| Year | Age | Stocks | Bonds | 60/40 | Withdrawal | End balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 65 | −12% | +5% | −5% | $40,000 | $910,000 |
| 2 | 66 | −25% | +10% | −11% | $40,000 | $774,000 |
| 3 | 67 | −44% | −5% | −28% | $40,000 | $526,000 |
| 4 | 68 | −9% | +18% | +2% | $40,000 | $495,000 |
| 5 | 69 | +53% | +2% | +33% | $40,000 | $603,000 |
| 6 | 70 | −3% | +8% | +1% | $40,000 | $571,000 |
| 7 | 71 | +44% | +5% | +28% | $40,000 | $681,000 |
| 8 | 72 | +32% | +6% | +22% | $40,000 | $780,000 |
| 9 | 73 | −35% | +2% | −20% | $40,000 | $590,000 |
| 10 | 74 | +31% | +6% | +21% | $40,000 | $666,000 |
| 11 | 75 | 0% | +6% | +2% | $40,000 | $641,000 |
| 12 | 76 | −10% | +5% | −4% | $40,000 | $577,000 |
| 13 | 77 | −16% | −8% | −13% | $40,000 | $468,000 |
| 14 | 78 | +13% | −6% | +5% | $40,000 | $451,000 |
| 15 | 79 | +25% | 0% | +15% | $40,000 | $473,000 |
| 16 | 80 | +19% | 0% | +11% | $40,000 | $482,000 |
| 17 | 81 | +36% | +3% | +23% | $40,000 | $543,000 |
| 18 | 82 | −16% | −18% | −17% | $40,000 | $419,000 |
| 19 | 83 | −3% | −12% | −7% | $40,000 | $354,000 |
| 20 | 84 | +3% | +2% | +3% | $40,000 | $322,000 |
| 21 | 85 | +19% | +7% | +14% | $40,000 | $322,000 |
| 22 | 86 | +25% | −2% | +14% | $40,000 | $322,000 |
| 23 | 87 | +18% | −6% | +8% | $40,000 | $306,000 |
| 24 | 88 | +17% | +2% | +11% | $40,000 | $295,000 |
| 25 | 89 | −2% | +3% | 0% | $40,000 | $255,000 |
| 26 | 90 | +52% | +7% | +34% | $40,000 | $288,000 |
| 27 | 91 | +30% | −1% | +18% | $40,000 | $292,000 |
| 28 | 92 | +5% | −6% | +1% | $40,000 | $253,000 |
| 29 | 93 | −13% | +5% | −6% | $40,000 | $201,000 |
| 30 | 94 | +43% | −4% | +24% | $40,000 | $200,000 |
What this sequence teaches
Over the first five years of this retirement (1929–1933), a 60/40 portfolio's cumulative real return was −18%. The single worst year in the tested window was 1931, when the 60/40 blend returned −28% in real terms.
Under the 4% withdrawal plan, the real portfolio balance bottomed out at $200,000 in 1958, its lowest point of the full run.
Because the first five years were net negative, this retirement faced early sequence-of-returns risk: withdrawals were drawn from a shrinking pool before growth had a chance to rebuild it — the single biggest driver of historical 4%-rule failures.
What RetireOdds actually simulates
The table above is the transparent skeleton: one portfolio, one withdrawal rule, one sequence of real historical returns, before taxes. It's meant to be checkable by hand.
Inside RetireOdds, the same year-by-year loop runs against your plan and adds what a real retirement actually has to deal with: federal and state taxes with account buckets (taxable, tax-deferred, Roth) drawn in order, Social Security claiming and its partial taxability, Required Minimum Distributions, healthcare costs (ACA subsidies before 65, Medicare and IRMAA after), Roth conversions, and one-time life events.
It also runs three engines instead of one: Monte Carlo (1,000 lognormal real-return paths calibrated to this same 1928–2023 dataset), a block bootstrap of this history, and the historical replay shown on this page. A plan fails if any year is unfunded — including the last one.
Read the full method on /methodology, walk through the product in the user guide, or try your own numbers in the free calculator.
Returns are approximate, rounded, planning-grade real (inflation-adjusted) totals for US large-cap stocks and 10-year Treasuries — this is educational modeling, not financial advice.