📐 The 4% Rule

The 4% Rule in Canada

The foundation of FIRE math — and its limitations, adjustments, and how it applies to Canadians with CPP, OAS, and longer retirement horizons.

Where does the 4% rule come from?

The 4% rule originated from the Trinity Study, published in 1998 by three professors at Trinity University in Texas. They analyzed historical US market returns and found that a portfolio of 50–75% stocks could sustain a 4% annual withdrawal rate (adjusted for inflation) for a 30-year retirement in almost all historical scenarios.

The rule became the cornerstone of FIRE planning because it gives a simple, memorable formula: your FI Number is 25× your annual expenses.

Canadian-specific considerations

The original Trinity Study used US market data. Canadian market returns have historically been somewhat lower due to sector concentration (heavy in financials, energy, and materials). However, modern Canadian investors typically hold globally diversified portfolios — not just TSX stocks — which brings returns closer to the global average.

Key differences for Canadians:
• CPP and OAS provide inflation-indexed income that the 4% rule doesn't account for
• TFSA withdrawals create tax-free income not available in the US
• Canadian inflation has sometimes differed from US inflation
• A globally diversified portfolio reduces home country bias concerns

The net effect: the 4% rule likely understates how sustainable Canadian retirements are, because it ignores CPP and OAS as income offsets that reduce how much the portfolio needs to generate.

Why the 4% rule may be too aggressive for early retirees

The Trinity Study modelled 30-year retirements. If you retire at 40 and live to 90, you have a 50-year retirement horizon — nearly double what the study covered. Longer horizons meaningfully change the math.

Retirement LengthRetire at AgeSafer Withdrawal RateFI Multiplier
30 years654.0%25×
35 years603.7%27×
40 years553.5%28.6×
45 years503.25%30.8×
50 years453.0%33.3×

How government benefits change the math

Here's where Canadian FIRE planning gets interesting. Even if you use a conservative 3% withdrawal rate for a long retirement, CPP and OAS dramatically reduce the portfolio size you actually need.

Example — Retire at 50, live to 95 (45 years):

Conservative withdrawal rate: 3%
Annual expenses: $70,000
Naive FI Number: $70,000 ÷ 0.03 = $2,333,333

With CPP ($12,000) + OAS ($8,732/yr = $727.67/mo × 12, full 40yr residency) starting at 65:
Phase 2 FI Number: $47,200 ÷ 0.03 = $1,573,333

Plus your Phase 1 bridge is only 15 years — not 45 years of full portfolio funding

More robust approaches for long retirements

📊

Monte Carlo simulation

Run thousands of randomized market scenarios to understand your real probability of success — not just historical averages.

🔄

Variable withdrawal rate

Withdraw less in bad years, more in good years. This dramatically improves portfolio survival vs fixed withdrawals.

🏛️

Guardrails strategy

Set upper and lower spending limits. If portfolio falls below a threshold, reduce spending. If it's up substantially, spend more.

🎯

Bucket strategy

Short-term cash, medium-term bonds, long-term growth assets. Reduces sequence risk by not selling equities in down years.

Test the 4% rule on your actual numbers

FireCA runs 1,000+ Monte Carlo simulations on your plan, tests against 8 historical crash sequences, and models CPP/OAS offsets — all built in and free.

Keep learning