@Old_Joe
My thought is to consider DSWR = “Dynamic” Safe Withdrawal Rate”
Simply,
- you set a SWR…say 4%
- you “dynamically” adjust your SWR based on your yearly portfolio performance. So, if you set SWR to 4%, but the market (more importantly… your portfolio) drops 25%…you “dynamically reduce your SWR by 25% thus making your DSWR 3% that year.

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/sp 500 futures
Future + 1.5%
Be careful could be bear trap
No pivot plans but stocks maybe hyperbolic
Maybe leg up before next leg down to 3500s 3400s

https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-hathaway-greg-abel-stock-warren-buffett-51664834938?mod=bol-social-tw
"Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B +2.16% Vice Chairman Greg Abel, the likely successor to CEO Warren Buffett, bought about $68 million of the company’s shares last Thursday in what appears to be his first purchases of Berkshire stock since he assumed the position in 2018.
In several Form 4 filings Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Abel disclosed that he purchased 168 Berkshire Hathaway (ticker: BRK/A, BRK/B) Class A shares through the Gregory Abel Revocable Trust on behalf of his wife, children, and other family members...."
I don't understanding his strategy. If I understand, he first took huge amount of cash ($870 million?) for his stake in BRK subsidiary, paid tax, and bought BRK stock on the open market with small fraction ($68 million?). He could have just exchanged his subsidiary-stake into BRK tax free and then could have gifted BRK stock to any of his family trusts. May be there is more than what is reported. May be he couldn't get partial cash and partial BRK stock.

This fantastic ride for I-Bonds started on Nov 1, 2021. There have been skeptics all along - from "too good to be true", to "this cannot last", to "they may be bad few years from now", to "it is only for $10K/$20K/$25K", etc.
Well, enjoy the ride, and if it ends, sell in a year, or two, or three...with penalty for 3-mo interest (-:)
I got on it as soon as Treasury Direct could confirm my new account (by 12/2021).

$VIX was basically flat on Thursday and Friday. VIX watchers are puzzled that it hasn't reached the high levels of previous market lows. So, some are saying that this isn't the market low yet, but other say it may be different this time, see next.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$VIX&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p55512620048
Why different? In relative terms, bonds are more depressed than stocks. Bond losses are historic, while stock losses are far-far from the worst (but painful, yes). So, bond volatility is very high as seen in bond volatility MOVE. But daily changes are hard to explain. MOVE was very high on Wednesday and Thursday on the UK bond/gilt crisis.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/^MOVE?p=^MOVE&.tsrc=fin-srch
Bounce today is also hard to explain. Things looked quite negative on Friday and over the weekend when the media was going crazy with rumors about the collapse of Swiss CS (as for coincidences, its Chairman is named Lehmann), and possible bond and/or stock crash, but what do we get? A bounce! US stock futures this evening are also up. This may be a dollar-relief bounce. Have the clouds cleared? No.
https://www.cmegroup.com/
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$USD&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p51598651421

In 2022, both stocks and bonds had bear markets simultaneously. This caused heavy losses in allocation/balanced portfolios as well as risk-parity portfolios. Bonds failed to moderate declines due to stocks and, instead, contributed significantly to portfolio losses. Reasons were many - rapid Fed tightening, strong dollar, high inflation, post-pandemic fragile economies, recession fears, Russia-Ukraine war, supply-chain disruptions, chaos in oil/gas markets, etc. Purpose here is to record how bad things were by 2022/Q3.
Allocation/balanced portfolios were the 2nd worst with -21% 2022YTD (the record was -27.3% for full 1931). Other bad (full) years with double-digit % declines were 1930 (-13.3%), 1974 (-14.7%) and 2008 (-13.9%). Table below is from Twitter LINK1
Risk-parity portfolio performance was among the worst in history. These portfolios try to equalize volatilities of stock and bond portions and then use leverage. Twitter LINK2
There is growing appreciation for multi-asset funds that include stocks-bonds-alternatives. Prominent examples of these are FMSDX, VPGDX. These have to be battle-tested in future, but by 2022/Q3, their performance was FMSDX -16.80%, VPGDX -16.12% and that compared well with traditional moderate-allocation index fund VBINX -20.85% (active moderate-allocation funds were around this).
It was bad, but far from the worst year for SP500. Twitter LINK3
Image with 60-40 Table https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeJ8OKuXwAMqguu?format=png&name=small

Just to expand on my post, I need a fixed rate of at least 1.5% so I am not in the hole if inflation goes back to 2% by end of 2023 and stays there for another 20-30 yrs. Otherwise, I will buy in January (already used 2022 limit) knowing I am likely withdrawing the money as soon as I hit the penalty free 5 yr mark or sooner. The penalty is the first three months of interest, which means I am likely giving back the highest interest. These were not a good investment starting in 2003 or so until inflation showed up in 2021. “Do not fight the Fed” means do not go overboard with IBonds.

@bee, TIAA & CREF use 4% AIR (Assumed Interest Rate) to calculate lifetime payouts for VA units. Other insurance co may use 2.5% or 3% AIR. This is not related to SWR (Safe Withdrawal Rate).
AIR becomes the hurdle rate. If the returns exceed AIR, annuitized VA NAV (and payout) goes up; if less, NAV (and payout) is lower.

Interval-funds is newer structure with some elements of CEFs, OEFs, ETFs. There are several dozen such funds now. Barron's has a weekly list of these. They are unlisted (on exchanges), so must be bought through brokerages/advisors; there may be accreditation/eligibility requirements. Limited optional redemptions are offered (typically, up to 5% of AUM quarterly). It may be a good structure for illiquid stuff, but one has to deal with high ERs, access limitations and almost no trading (roach-motel analogy comes to mind).
BTW, TIAA T-REA/QREARX is not an interval-fund. It has Liquidity Guarantee from TIAA, and T-REA pays for that as part of its ER. While there is a once per quarter withdrawal limitation, there is no limitation on the amount withdrawn. In fact, 2 successive withdrawals can be days apart if timed properly at quarter end and start. Also there are limitations on the account size but there are many ways to bypass those (systematic investments, rollovers, using TIAA advisors).
https://www.tiaa.org/public/investment-performance/investment/profile?ticker=41091375

How many of those Vanguard defined contribution accounts are held by people who have only worked for their employer a few years? How many of those participants have other DC accounts at former employers or have additional retirement savings in IRAs?

Vanguard estimates that a typical participant should target a total contribution rate of 12% to 15%, including both employee and employer contributions. Forty-seven percent of participants had total employee and employer contribution rates that met those thresholds or reached the statutory contribution limit.

https://institutional.vanguard.com/content/dam/inst/vanguard-has/insights-pdfs/22_TL_HAS_FullReport_2022.pdf
If one were to include IRA contributions, the percentage of participating employees meeting the recommended thresholds would be higher.
------
Hulbert grossly misread the BC study, or I did. That study contains only a single graph with a 12% figure in it. That is the rate of coverage by both defined contribution and defined benefit plans. The study says that 73% of workers were covered by DC plans alone in 2019.
As far as actually participating (having accounts) in DC plans is concerned, the BLS reports that in private industry (in 2021), 68% of workers had access to retirement plans. 75% of those participated. In other words, a majority of workers in private industry had retirement accounts.
Government workers? Even better. 92% had access to retirement plans, and 89% of those participated. over 4/5 of government workers had retirement accounts.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2021/68-percent-of-private-industry-workers-had-access-to-retirement-plans-in-2021.htm
--------
A statistic from the Vanguard plan that I find informative is that only 2-3% of participating employees with wages under $100K max out (Figure 49). The figure would be even lower if we included the 1/3 of employees who aren't offered a plan, or the 1/4 of those who have that option but don't participate.
For all the consternation about limitations on contribution amounts, it's almost exclusively the higher salaried employees who would benefit from increasing the limit.

Lately, it does seem that God tells people to go out and become billionaires more often during their epiphanies than He tells them to give up all their material wealth and preach the gospel in the streets to the poor. It’s all part of His divine rebranding campaign. Material bread feeds the flock better than the Bread of Life in God 2.0.

God also taketh away. Unfunded tax break for UK’s wealthy hath been stricken down.
NPR

XARKX prospectus filing, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1905088/000110465922091469/tm2215312-7_424b3.htm
Note interval-fund structure with optional quarterly redemption opportunities for 5-25% of shares. Secondary markets are not expected to develop.
Good-faith fair-value daily pricing using Board's judgement and 3rd party services.

"...And that’s assuming you have a $1 million retirement portfolio. According to the most recent analysis by Vanguard, only 15% of retirement accounts at Vanguard are worth even $250,000. And according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, only 12% of workers have any retirement account in the first place..."
frightening.

Normal annual purchase limits (without special tricks) for individuals for #IBonds has varied:
10/2002 Limit raised to $30K
01/2008 Limit reduced to $5K
01/2012 Limit raised to $10K
https://treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/history/histtime/histtime_sb.htm

That's a recitation of book entry limits rather than #IBonds limits. In addition the 2002 statements (Oct 15 and 17) on the TD timeline are muddled and misleading.
---
"Definitive" (paper) series I savings bonds were created in 2008 with a $30,000 limit per individual.
https://treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_comibond.htm
---
In 2002, the "New Treasury Direct" online system was created. And with that came book-entry Series I bonds with a $30K limit separate from the $30K paper bond limit.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/10/17/02-26406/regulations-governing-treasury-securities-new-treasury-direct-system
10/15/2002 is the date the Treasury announced the creation of Series I book-entry savings bonds and the $30K limit. 10/17/2002 is the date its Final Rule became effective.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that creating a new product (book entry savings bonds) with a $30K limit is "raising" the limit to $30K. Besides, the total (paper plus book entry) limit was "raised" to $60K.
---
In 2008, each of those separate limits (paper and book entry) was decreased from $30K to $5K, for a total limit of $10K.
---
In 2012, the limit on book entry bond purchases to $10K. But that was only to maintain (not raise) the combined limit of $10K on I bond purchases, since paper bond purchases (without tricks) were eliminated.

Certainly I would welcome higher limit on I-bond.
Bought some 5-yr TIPS at auction earlier this year, and it is losing a bit as the bond price fell. @Devesh explained the unexpected performance in his September article about TIPS and short term TIPS ETFs. Now I am rethinking how to reposition my cash.

It would be a good idea when higher I-Bond limits are approved by the Congress. It may take a while.
https://twitter.com/YBB_Finance/status/1574870529198137367
Normal annual purchase limits (without special tricks) for individuals for #IBonds has varied:
10/2002 Limit raised to $30K
01/2008 Limit reduced to $5K
01/2012 Limit raised to $10K
It is a good idea to increase limit back to $30K.
https://treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/history/histtime/histtime_sb.htm

As regards I-bonds, the newly introduced bill that Devesh mentions (bold added by me) could be of interest to fans....
"The Savings Security Act would require the Treasury Secretary to raise the annual cap to $30,000 per person when the average six-month annual Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) is above 3.5%."

@Devo has mentioned I-Bonds.
Those who haven't yet used up their personal limit of $10K/yr/person have only this month until 10/31/22 (Monday) to lock in 9.62% for 6 months from the purchase date.
I-Bond rates change on May 1 and November 1, but a quirk is that buyers get the current rate for 6 months from the purchase and then the rate adjusts to the prevailing rate for the next 6 months, and so on.
It is expected that the new variable rate on November 1 will be 6% (projecting from 5 of 6 months of relevant CPI data available) but the fixed/base rate may go up (+0.50%? +1.00%? +1.50%?). 5-yr real rates that were negative in May 2022 are now +1.80%.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Unnp
For those who want to buy 5-yr TIPS to hold to maturity should note that the next auction date is 10/20/22. There are no limits (well, cool $5 million! Edit - seems increased to $10 million!!).

I made a good chunk off of CGMFX during Ken's last banner year. Then he went all in on shorting treasuries, and I got out. I think overall I did okay throughout my holding period (beat S&P500).
Had an unsimilar experience with FAIRX. My round-trip experience with Bruce was less fortunate, and by the time I liquidated, I would have made the same holding a decent bond fund as I did holding FAIRX.
Both experiences did quite a bit to educate me on the risks of one-man-shows. Berkowitz in particular had a number of bizarre staffing / personal / ego issues going on.

The 1.9% safe withdrawal rate (SWR) referenced in the article is much lower than some others suggest.
M* suggested a 3.3% SWR for a 50% stock/50% bond portfolio.
Bill Bengen believes retirees can safely withdraw 4%-plus from their portfolios
unless we get in a severe inflationary environment.
Michael Kitces replicated Bill Bengen's original 1994 study with a broader dataset
and concluded that a 4% - 4.5% SWR was feasible.