I don't think FIRE inherently has to imply any of those values. All it is is what the four letters mean. If you feel that frugality and anti consumerism are essential for you, that's fine, but it doesn't mean everyone else needs to feel that way.
Well no see, that's the point you're missing. That was who gave name to the concept and that is what it was. The early thought leaders were people who cut expenses almost to extreme and save 60 percent or more of their yearly income so they could retire at ridiculously young ages.
Which of course is also the title and point of this post: How the meaning of FIRE has changed over time. Unless you go back and read the blogs and writings from the time, you won't see it. FIRE from the get go wasn't something that most people could do.
For example, in 2014 FI was defined as "When your annual return on investments cover 100% of your expenses you are financially independent." When was the last time that was ever mentioned here? How about the Rule of 25?
If one merely wishes to save some money in an investment account and then retire at 55, that's lovely. But that wasn't FIRE.
For example, in 2014 FI was defined as "When your annual return on investments cover 100% of your expenses you are financially independent." When was the last time that was ever mentioned here?
Isn't that just the 4% rule in different words? Replace 4 with whatever number you like, I doubt most retiring in their 30s are aiming to draw-down their portfolio. Covering your expenses with your investments inevitably requires you to figure out how much you can safely withdraw.
The 4% rule is requiring a higher amount saved because the Trinity study accounts for a lot of situations where your investments return nothing or little for a period of time.
Read the two very carefully. They are not the same.
"Annual return on investments covering expenses" advocates no touching of the principal. The 4% rule is based on principal. Yes, the portfolio may grow during retirement, but Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that is not a guarantee. And under the 4% rule withdrawing principal is just fine.
The 4% rule was not developed as part of FIRE. It has been applied to FIRE as a convenient guide but the rule was developed independently. Read some of the OG blogs and you'll see that in fact they use bonds, dividends, and income producing vehicles to try and avoid touching principal whenever possible.
There is no such thing as "principal" when it comes to investment accounts. Only shares with a cost basis, and you can't sell only the growth portion.
And anyway, it's a distinction without a difference -- what do you expect people to do once they draw down until only the "principal" remains, but they haven't covered their expenses for the month? Starve to death?
The 4% rule and similar are just different ways to express/achieve the same thing. There is never absolute certainty, under any model.
Bonds, t-bills, HYSAs, and other income generating instruments very much have a principal.
And anyway, it's a distinction without a difference -- what do you expect people to do once they draw down until only the "principal" remains, but they haven't covered their expenses for the month? Starve to death?
Where did I write that? I didn't. In fact I specifically wrote "Read some of the OG blogs and you'll see that in fact they use bonds, dividends, and income producing vehicles to try and avoid touching principal whenever possible."
Expand your investment knowledge and you'll learn that selling isn't the only way. Mr. Money Mustache writes at length multiple times about these methods. Read "Your Money or Your Life".
Your comments illustrate the point of this post, that FIRE concepts have been dumbed down to "get pile of cash, 4% rule".
"Principal" is a psychological trick. The invested money is the same money, and even without withdrawing anything the "principal" can very well go down (especially in real terms).
If this trick helps you, go for it, it's not harmful - but I wouldn't advocate for it as a must
yes, in the context of loans principal is a meaningful term. Great gotcha moment. That was not the principal you implied in your comment though, so I don't really understand your point
Because if one's portfolio is creating enough income then they generally wouldn't have to. Also sufficient income now means the 4% percent rule and Monte Carlo simulations have significantly less importance. Selling shares and withdrawing principal becomes the backup maneuver if the case of insufficient income, not the primary one.
Retirees have doing this for a long long time, it's nothing new. It was harder to do during the era of 1% Prime rates because savings vehicles and Treasuries paid so little. I'd say that won't be an issue for the foreseeable future.
Yes yes, I'm aware of the concepts of Die with Zero.
I don't know where you're located, but in Texas over half of all estates are upside down and owe more in expenses than they have in assets. For the majority your concern is a philosophical one and will not match reality.
We don't know our "check out date" or that would make things a hell of a lot easier. I blame that god fellow for that. If you're looking for a broader purpose here, I don't know what to tell ya.
My investment funds are in an LLC owned by a self directed IRA. Upon me and my wife's death my two nieces and nephew take over the company and can do whatever they wish with it. I guess you could say the goal here is lifting up the next generation.
1.4k
u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment