Hi pinky3

Good info...I agree that what has happened is retiree #1 has increased his risk relative to  the situation where if didn't increase his takeout.  Or let's say he has reduced his risk compared to the previous year., if he stays the course with the original takeout.

But a couple of considerations here.  If retiree #1 was satisfied with risk level one year ago, why wouldn't he be satisfied with returning to the same risk level one year later?. And if the retiree really wanted the extra income, let's say for one startover year, then why not, at same previous starting risk.

And if retiree #1 didn't need the extra income, let's say he saved and invested the additional income.  This could be used to offset running out of money...no?

And if retiree runs into bad market experience, he could always cut back his takeout to the lower, original amount.  This must be adequate, since that is the level at which you are proposing he should always stay.

You lastly stated: "With any luck (sarcasm alert), you will have raised your own risk to a 100% chance of running out of money before death."  If one stops "starting over" at the first down year, his chance of running out of money are the same as anyone retiring that year with same numbers, 5% risk.  It would never get to 100%.  Am I missing something?

Good to review, pinky3.

R48