What If You Retired in 1930? The 4% Rule, Backtested
A $1,000,000 60/40 portfolio, retiring in 1930 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 | −25% | +10% | −11% | $40,000 | $854,000 |
| 2 | 66 | −44% | −5% | −28% | $40,000 | $583,000 |
| 3 | 67 | −9% | +18% | +2% | $40,000 | $553,000 |
| 4 | 68 | +53% | +2% | +33% | $40,000 | $680,000 |
| 5 | 69 | −3% | +8% | +1% | $40,000 | $649,000 |
| 6 | 70 | +44% | +5% | +28% | $40,000 | $782,000 |
| 7 | 71 | +32% | +6% | +22% | $40,000 | $902,000 |
| 8 | 72 | −35% | +2% | −20% | $40,000 | $688,000 |
| 9 | 73 | +31% | +6% | +21% | $40,000 | $784,000 |
| 10 | 74 | 0% | +6% | +2% | $40,000 | $762,000 |
| 11 | 75 | −10% | +5% | −4% | $40,000 | $693,000 |
| 12 | 76 | −16% | −8% | −13% | $40,000 | $570,000 |
| 13 | 77 | +13% | −6% | +5% | $40,000 | $558,000 |
| 14 | 78 | +25% | 0% | +15% | $40,000 | $596,000 |
| 15 | 79 | +19% | 0% | +11% | $40,000 | $619,000 |
| 16 | 80 | +36% | +3% | +23% | $40,000 | $711,000 |
| 17 | 81 | −16% | −18% | −17% | $40,000 | $559,000 |
| 18 | 82 | −3% | −12% | −7% | $40,000 | $484,000 |
| 19 | 83 | +3% | +2% | +3% | $40,000 | $456,000 |
| 20 | 84 | +19% | +7% | +14% | $40,000 | $475,000 |
| 21 | 85 | +25% | −2% | +14% | $40,000 | $497,000 |
| 22 | 86 | +18% | −6% | +8% | $40,000 | $495,000 |
| 23 | 87 | +17% | +2% | +11% | $40,000 | $505,000 |
| 24 | 88 | −2% | +3% | 0% | $40,000 | $465,000 |
| 25 | 89 | +52% | +7% | +34% | $40,000 | $570,000 |
| 26 | 90 | +30% | −1% | +18% | $40,000 | $623,000 |
| 27 | 91 | +5% | −6% | +1% | $40,000 | $586,000 |
| 28 | 92 | −13% | +5% | −6% | $40,000 | $515,000 |
| 29 | 93 | +43% | −4% | +24% | $40,000 | $590,000 |
| 30 | 94 | +10% | −3% | +5% | $40,000 | $576,000 |
What this sequence teaches
Over the first five years of this retirement (1930–1934), a 60/40 portfolio's cumulative real return was −13%. 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 $456,000 in 1948, before recovering in later years.
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.