The $2 Million Portfolio Plan No Advisor Wants You to See

The tragedy isn't running out of money, it's having it and not using it to create a life worth remembering. As Morgan Hausel says, wealth is invisible until it translates into well-being.

Hello, friends, this is Tyler Gardner welcoming you to another episode of your Money Guide on the Side, where it is my job to simplify what seems complex, add nuance to what seems simple, and learn from and alongside some of the brightest minds in money, finance, and investing.

So let's get started and get you one step closer to where you need to be.

Hey everyone and welcome back this week.

Before we dive in, as always my weekly request, if this show has ever helped you cut through the noise and feel a little more confident about your money, I'd love it if you left a review on Apple or Spotify.

It genuinely helps more than you think. and keeps this free financial literacy experiment alive and growing.

Which is a fancy way of saying, I'm a sensitive soul who genuinely does read all reviews and takes them to heart.

So if you find it useful, I'd love to know, and to the 1200 or so folks who have already left reviews, you are amazing.

Thank you, and I appreciate you, and I'm looking forward to the show's continued growth. A while back, I did a show about how to allocate a $1 million portfolio.

And when I say allocate, I just mean invest across different asset classes or funds, etc.

A lot of people enjoyed that episode, and since then, I've been asked the following question by many in response not only to that show, but to short form video clips on TikTok or Instagram, Facebook, where I do a mock allocation for people with a hypothetical principal starting amount.

Tyler, people ask, how would this change if I had $2 million or $500,000 or a billion dollars? And honestly, the first time someone asked me about the billion dollar scenario, I did chuckle to myself.

Because if you have a billion dollars and you're listening to a free podcast for investment thoughts, we need to have a very different conversation about your life choices and what you should be doing right now with your time.

But hey, if you're also finding some value here, awesome.

And here's what most people miss when thinking through allocation strategies, because bluntly, most of us are never taught about allocation strategies.

It's always and forever forever about the percentages, not the principle.

A good allocation strategy doesn't magically change because you have more zeros in your bank account, whether you're working with $100,000 or $10 million.

The fundamental math of diversification across asset classes, risk tolerance, and expected returns remains stubbornly consistent. It's like baking.

The recipe for chocolate chip cookies doesn't fundamentally change whether you're making one batch or 50. You just scale the ingredients accordingly.

And in no humility whatsoever, that might be one of the better analogies I've offered you.

So remember that one next time you ask someone what to change about the Toll House recipe just because you're making more cookies.

Which, by the way, is also yet one more reason why paying someone a flat percentage of your assets under management is, pardon my French, garbage.

Think about it. If your advisor charges 1% and you have a $2 million portfolio, that's $20,000 a year.
For what? Putting your money in index funds you could have googled yourself?

That's like paying someone $20,000 annually to remind you to brush your teeth.

Sure, they might do it very professionally with quarterly reports and everything, and tell you that they're forecasting headwinds for potential tooth decay down the road.

But you're still capable of opening a tube of toothpaste on your own and brushing with just the right amount of force to be highly effective, yet gentle and kind to your gums.

Apologies, end rant, end digression. So today, we're going to do a textbook asset allocation for a $2 million portfolio.
But this allocation would be equally effective if you had $2

or $2 billion.

And even though it's a highly effective and incredibly simple way to allocate a portfolio, you most likely have not inherited the belief that this allocation will be okay in retirement because you inherited a fear-based belief that assumes when we retire, it's time to fire up the old bond allocation and be satisfied with a 50-50 split that is somehow supposed to fit every investor the same just because they're 65 years old.

Today, we're talking about what happens to a portfolio that's 90% invested in stocks, 10% invested in a short-term money market fund. And yep, that's it.

Simple, boring, and yeah, terrifying if you're used to being told that bonds are your friend in retirement and that you should be hiding gold bars underneath your tempur-pedic adjustable mattress.

But if it's good enough for Buffett's estate plan, and quite literally, this is Buffett's estate plan, it's good enough for me and should be worth your serious consideration.

It's also a perfect way to start thinking about withdrawals and how you actually spend the money you've worked so hard throughout the years to earn.

Because just to repeat what I'll repeat in every episode ever, most of us are actually better than we think at accumulating money.

We're just not quite as good at finding the best and most fulfilling ways to enjoy the money.

So let's start with the why behind this particular allocation as opposed to your vanilla 60-40 or 50-50 split.

This is the part that will probably make a lot of conventional advisors twitch and make many others comment on my social media that it's no wonder I'm a former financial advisor.

But I would start by allocating $1.8 million to VOO or VTI,

which is to say a low-cost S ⁇ P 500 fund or a low-cost total market fund.

The difference between the two is just whether or not you want what are called micro, small, and mid-cap companies, AKA, the ones we might not have heard about yet, but have some potential for higher return over a long enough time horizon.

That would be your total market index, your VTI.

Or you might just want and feel comfortable with the mega heavy hitters that we all know and some of us love to hate.

Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, et cetera, in an S ⁇ P 500 fund that represents all of these large and mega caps. That would be your VOO.

And then I'd put the remaining 10% in a short-term money market fund for liquidity. And for me, sometimes I use either SGOV or Fidelities S-P-A-X-X.

Now, I can already hear the mental alarms going off. Wait, Tyler, aren't you supposed to be increasingly cautious in retirement? Just look at target date funds.

And come on, a million of our nation's 401ks wrapped up neatly in target date 2050s can't be wrong. Bonds, laddered CDs, the whole safe income spiel.

Sure, that's what every spreadsheet in retirement planning textbooks will tell you to do. And I get it.

For decades we've been taught the age-old rule, take 110 minus your age, and that's your stock allocation. So if you're 65, you should be 45% stocks, 55% bonds.

It's neat, it's tidy, and it makes you feel like you're doing something responsible. And even if you've heard a slightly more aggressive formula, like 130 minus your age, guess what?

It still has one fundamental flaw to me. It assumes that every single one of us wants to get more conservative with our investments as we get older.
But here's the thing.

If you're strategic with your withdrawals and your asset allocation, being overbonded can actually shrink your wealth faster than a well-managed stock heavy portfolio.

A landmark 2013 study by Wade Pfau and Michael Kitsies found that for 30-year retirements, portfolios with 60 to 80% stocks had higher success rates than conservative 30 to 40 percent stock allocations.

They found through, you know, crunching the actual numbers themselves that conventional wisdom of get more conservative as you get older was essentially backwards for people with longer time horizons.

And yeah, as I've already noted, there's real-world precedent here from some of our greatest investors. This is the allocation recommendation for Buffett's entire estate.

Now, you might also be thinking, sure, Tyler, but Buffett's estate will have tens of billions. It can afford to take risks that we can't.

And although you're not wrong that with billions of dollars, you can afford to take some risks that maybe you can't with a much smaller principal, you'd be missing the point of textbook asset allocation.

Buffett could recommend recommend literally any allocation in the world. Private equity, hedge funds, venture cap, a diversified portfolio of Berkshire subsidiaries.

You know, all stuff some advisor gets paid handsomely to tell you is necessary when you have millions or billions.

Instead, he chose the simplest, most boring, most cost-effective, most accessible strategy available. That should tell you all you need to know.

And it should reinforce that that stocks are the growth engine of your retirement. They're what allow you to take withdrawals that let you live more than just comfortably without fear of running out.

Let's look at some quick numbers. From 1926 to 2024, the SP 500 has returned approximately 10.3% annually on average.
That's nominal.

So even after accounting for inflation, averaging about 3% over that period, you're looking at real returns around 7%.

Compare that to bonds. Over the same period, long-term government bonds returned about 5.7% nominal, or roughly 2.7% post-inflation in real terms.
Investment-grade corporate bonds, similar story.

You're essentially accepting a 4-plus-percentage-point haircut in returns for the privilege of feeling safe. And yes, bonds aren't always there for the return.
I've talked about this in many episodes.

They're there as a non-correlated asset class to mitigate the downside during rough markets. I get that.
But here's me popping that old metaphorical safety bubble.

Bonds aren't even that safe anymore in a world where interest rates can and do spike and inflation can eat away at fixed returns.

We saw this play out in 2022, and it destroyed a lot of folks' images of just how safe the old 60-40 play really is.

The difference being that when the market bounced back, the people with the 60-40s didn't have enough allocated to stocks to take advantage of said growth.

And that's why we have the 10% money market allocation in the 90-10 play.

It's the parking spot for your short-term needs if there is a blip in the markets when you first retire.

That 10%, which is $200,000 in our $2 million scenario, gives you roughly two years of spending money at $100K annual draw.

That's your buffer, your volatility cushion, your sleep well-at-night night fund.

When the market inevitably drops, and it will, because that's what markets do, you're not forced to sell stocks at a loss. You just dip into your money market fund and wait for the recovery.

But what if the market doesn't recover for a year? Well, guess what, folks? You 60-40 folks out there aren't exactly popping bottles and cruising the main streets in G-Wagons.

A down decade is a down decade, regardless of how conservative your portfolio is.

And some quick irony that I know many of you know at this point, if you're paying another 1% of your assets annually to someone who's telling you to make things more complex as you get more money, just remember our initial point.

Percentages matter, not principle. Whether you have 500K or 20 million, the same simple 90-10 allocation scales perfectly and absurdly easily.

So paying an advisor a percentage of assets makes no sense when they're just clicking the same buttons with bigger numbers. Let me put it another way that might hit even more close to home.

It certainly did for me. If you're paying 1% AUM on $2 million, that's $20,000 a year.
The Vanguard VOO, the SP 500 ETF, expense ratio, aka fee, is 0.03%.

On $2 million, that's $600

per year.

So if you want yet another cash buffer for your 9010 portfolio start with the additional nineteen thousand four hundred dollars you'd get by keeping it simple and investing in two funds otherwise you're paying someone for quarterly statements you could generate yourself and an annual meeting in which they tell you yes you should in fact stay the course

Number two. I know I didn't say number one, but this is a good transition point.
Now that we've established the why behind the allocation, we need to talk about how we're going to spend it.

Aka, my good riddance and goodbye to the 4% rule. Yeah, I'm waving a very enthusiastic goodbye to the 4% rule.

That's right, the rule that says you can safely withdraw 4% of your portfolio each year in retirement. What we're going to do is we're going to lay it down and let it rest.

First, let me acknowledge and be fair, the 4% rule has had a great run.

It originally comes from William Bengen's 1994 study called SafeMax, which analyzed historical returns and determined that a retiree could safely withdraw 4% of their portfolio in the first year, adjust for inflation each subsequent year, and not run out of money over 30 years.

Even through some of the worst market conditions in history, it was revolutionary at the time, and it's helped millions of people retire with confidence. Awesome blossom.

And the work of three professors at Trinity University in Texas confirmed the same via the Trinity study in 1998, saying that, yes, in fact, 4%, you'll be okay.

But here's what most people don't realize. Bangen's research was intentionally as conservative as you could ever get.

He was looking at the worst case scenarios in history, retiring right before the Great Depression, retiring at the peak of the 1960s valuations, right before stagflation of the 70s. The 4% 4%

rule wasn't designed to be optimal or even designed for the average person. It was designed to be bulletproof against the worst historical scenarios in history.

Thus, in the process, it has caused millions of retirees to underspend and live smaller lives than they needed to.

It's caused people like you to retire in fear and die with millions left in unspent potential. Think about it this way.
I won't get in a cycling accident if I don't leave the house and go cycling.

But, you get where I'm going with this? In fact, Bangin himself has said in subsequent interviews that for many retirees, 4% was in fact too conservative.

In a 2006 follow-up study, he suggested that 4.5% or even 5% could be reasonable depending on your asset allocation and flexibility.

But by then, the 4% rule had already cemented itself in the financial planning consciousness like a stubborn coffee stain. And if you look up his most recent work, guess what, folks?

He's changed it to the 5% rule.

Maybe because he's listened to this podcast, or maybe because he just realized that even though the intent of the rule was good, the way that it's played out for many was not optimal when it comes to spending with joy and not hoarding out of fear or basing our decisions on worst case scenarios.

If that were the case, I would never cycle again. But I love cycling and I'm going to do it.

So here's how I'd set up my drawdown schedule: a $2 million portfolio, 90% in VOO or VTI, 10% SPACs money market.

And we go into this knowing that historically the median million dollar portfolio invested 100% in stocks that drew down 4% annually over 30 years ended up with roughly $10 million

in today's dollars. Let me repeat that because it's genuinely absurd to think about.

The hypothetical million dollars invested 100% in stocks becomes $10 million even while living off a relatively conservative draw.

So I know quickly that as long as markets aren't tanking big time in my first year or two years of retirement, I'm going to start at a 6% draw, which is roughly $120,000 per year from our $2 million portfolio.

Now, before your anxiety kicks in, let's walk through the math.

If your 90% stock allocation returns 7% real post-inflation, and your 10% money market returns roughly inflation, Your blended return would be about 6.3% real.

You're drawing 6%.

The portfolio earns 6.3%.

And voila, you're essentially keeping pace with your starting balance in real terms. And that's gold.
Not literally, of course. But here's where it gets interesting.

That 6.3% real return is the average. In many years, especially the good years, and to keep this simple and not fear-based, 75% of the years things are good, not bad, your returns might be 15%,

20%, even 30%.

So even after these 6% withdrawals, projections suggest, on average, you'd still have around 2.6 million in the bank after the first five years, assuming market returns track historical averages.

Think about what that means. You're living comfortably on $120K a year, still invested in the growth engine, and the portfolio is growing alongside your spending.

You're not just surviving retirement, you're actually continuing to build wealth while retired and while spending over six figures.

It's like the financial equivalent of having your cake, eating it, and then discovering cake magically regenerates. Have it, eat it, have it, eat it, repeat.

Once you see those numbers, It's tempting to do what most retirees never do. Actually spend the money you worked so hard to earn.
And that's exactly what we're going to do in this plan.

And after the first five years, assuming your portfolio has grown to the average 2.6 million or more, the draw can now actually increase to 7% a year or about $180,000 annually, all while still projecting to end up with your original $2 million in real terms at the end of a 30-year retirement.

And we'll jump right back into it after a quick thanks to those helping me keep this show free for everyone and helping me keep my thermostat above 58 degrees in Vermont winters.

We're about to see the largest wealth transfer in history, roughly $120 trillion moving from boomers to Gen X and millennials. But here's what nobody's talking about.

Nearly 80% of those inheritors are planning to fire their parents' financial advisors. Now, it's not about rebellion.
That was the piercings and bad tattoos. The real reason?

The old model is broken, as I've noted in countless episodes thus far. First, most traditional advisors don't speak your language.

They're still talking about retirement readiness and diversifying 60% stocks and 40% bonds like it's 1987 while you're trying to figure out equity comp, student loans, and how to actually enjoy your money.

Second, the scope is too narrow. Traditional advisors often stop at investments, ignoring taxes, estate planning, debt, and real financial life.

And finally, and come on, you all knew I was going here, the traditional fee structure is outdated.

When an advisor charges a percentage of your assets, their pay goes up just because the market did, not because they did more for you. And don't even get me started on commissions.

That's why I like what Facet is doing. They've built the future of financial planning, giving you a dedicated team of CFP professionals who help with everything.

financial planning, tax strategy, estate planning, all under one roof, all for one flat membership fee.

So if you're inheriting wealth or just want a team that actually understands your financial life, don't inherit an old problem.

Check out facet.com/slash Tyler to see if Facet membership makes sense for you. Invest $5,000 in your first 90 days and get a $250 bonus in your account.

Plus, if you're a new annual member, get the $250 enrollment fee waived. Offer ends December 31st, 2025, so act now and finish the year one step closer to where you need to be.

Facet is an RIA with the SEC. This is not advice.
All opinions are my own and not a guarantee of a similar outcome. I'm not a member of FACET.

I have an incentive to endorse FACET, as I have an ongoing fee-based contract for cash compensation, as well as a percentage of equity in FACET based on this endorsement. And now, back to the show.

Let me put this in perspective with a real example based on some pretty tough market dips along the way. Let's say you retired in 1994, the year Bangin published his famous study.

You start with 2 million in a 9010 stock money market allocation. You draw 120K in year one, 6%.

By 1999, after one of the greatest bull runs in history, your portfolio would still be worth just over $4 million.

So you increase to $200,000 a year. Then 2000 to 2002 happens, the dot-com crash.
Your portfolio drops over the next three years, back to around $2 million.

But you keep drawing down $200,000, relying on your money market fund during the worst years as a complement.

By 2007, guess what? You're back above $4 million.

Then 2008 hits, and you're down to 2.5 million. But you wait it out, keep drawing conservatively, and by 2013, you're back above $4 million.

By 2024, even after 30 years of these withdrawals, you'd still be projected to have over $3 million in real terms. And yes, I'll pause and say, what if you were to have retired in 2000?

Oh man, this question gets to me so much for two reasons. One, I could extend this fear-based thinking to say, what if I die tomorrow?

Well, you'd be dead, but odds are it won't happen, so we don't live each day as if it's truly our last.

Number two, I'm not sure what metaphorical mic people think they're dropping when they ask this question, as if nobody has thought what happens if we retire in the worst period to retire ever.

Well, let's start with the obvious. No, the six to seven percent plan probably wouldn't be ideal.
So what I'd hope we'd all do is adapt accordingly and say, maybe I'll work for one more year.

Maybe I'll work part-time. Or maybe I'll be okay with the 4% initially and then go to the 6% to 7% a year or two down the road.

But this idea that just because you can cite the worst time to retire in the history of the world in retrospect, you know, that thing that's 2020, means that you should always act in accordance with that possibility, means you're acting based on cherry-picked worst-case data instead of average or above-average data that is far more all-encompassing of real world scenarios.

Pick your microphone back up and respond accordingly.

And the other elephant not in the room when we have this conversation is Social Security, pensions, part-time work, or any other source of income you might have.

My $2 million plan here assumes you have zero other income ever. And if you're anything like most retirees I know who get bored within three days, you'll find a way to hedge even retiring in 2000.

Just maybe don't make your consulting business web-based at that time.

And yet another note, retirees on average spend less each year after retirement.

So even though I'm showing that you can plan to spend $120,000 or more annually for 30 straight years, that's probably somewhat unrealistic anyway.

You're likely to spend more in your early retirement, the go-go years, less in your middle retirement, the slow-go years, and then it becomes unpredictable in late retirement, the no-go years, which is deeply depressing term that I hate, but accurately describes the reality of decreased mobility.

And dying with $5 million in the bank when you could have spent $3 million of it creating memories and experiences? That's not financial success.

That, to me, is an unfulfilled life, and we can do better.

Number three,

adjusting the draws as we go, or how I will personally fund my high-stakes bingo circuit. Alright, now we get to the fun part.

You've been cruising along for five years, drawing down your 6-7% a year, and your portfolio is still comfortably above 2.5 million.

At this point, it's time to think about the next phase, and I call this phase high-stakes bingo, aka the years when you can really lean into spending without guilt.

Let me explain the term high-stakes bingo because it's admittedly ridiculous and also perfectly describes this phase of retirement. You know how regular bingo is kind of boring? Sorry, it is.

You're sitting there daubing your numbers, hoping for a straight line, and the most exciting thing that happens is someone yells bingo and wins five bucks.

High stakes bingo is when you decide the stakes are worth caring about. You're not just playing for grocery money.
You're playing for big experiences that you might not get to have ever again.

This is for the memories, this is for the good stuff.

With projections now showing you'd still have 2 million at the end of your life, even with slightly higher withdrawals, it's reasonable to increase the draw to 200,000 per year for your final eight to 10 years.

And note, when I say final, I know we hate that type of language, but just go look up when you're projected to die on an actuarial guesstimator and plan accordingly.

It's as good a guess as any other you'd ever come up with. So once you find your timeline, yes, I want you to live a little bigger.

Do the trips, the dinners, the theater tickets where you sit fifth row center at Wicked and regret never taking your fifth grade chorus skills to the next level.

Or maybe you even spend a slightly reckless week in Vegas, all well knowing your money isn't disappearing into the ether.

Now, let me be clear, I'm not suggesting you develop a gambling problem or start buying Lamborghinis.

What I am suggesting is that you give yourself permission to spend money on things that matter to you. Things that you never would have spent money on before because you had a longer time horizon.

And here's what so few financial advisors explore with you at this point. The things that matter now are these experiences, not the assets.

You bought the assets earlier in life so you could one day have even more experiences.

That means you're not just surviving, you're thriving, leveraging decades of disciplined investing to fund actual enjoyment. You're booking the first-class ticket instead of economy.

You're staying at the nice hotel instead of the budget chain.

And you're ordering the good wine without checking the price first, knowing that ultimately, based on your expected interest, that wine is in most senses free anyway for the rest of your life.

These aren't extravagances at this point. They're the entire point of financial planning.
This approach also flips the conventional retirement script on its head.

Most people tighten their belts year after year, convinced they'll outlive their assets. There's actually a term for this in behavioral economics, consumption gap anxiety.

It's the persistent fear that you're spending too much, even when the math clearly shows you're not.

This anxiety causes retirees to underconsume, living more frugally than necessary, and often missing out on experiences that would have been easily affordable.

But my high-stakes bingo plan isn't reckless, it's intentional.

It's It's about aligning your withdrawals with the life you actually want to live, the freedom you bought with years of careful saving and investing, and if you're like me, that freedom looks a lot like being able to raise your hand and say yes to experiences and still sleep well at night knowing your portfolio is in a comfortable, growth-focused position.

Here's a quick concrete example. Let's say your grandkid gets married in Scotland.
The old fear-based version of retirement planning says, mmm, that's a little expensive.

Maybe we skip it and send a card. The high-stakes bingo version says, that's a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
We're booking the flights.

We're booking them using a lifetime of points that we haven't tapped into in years because we've enjoyed watching that number grow too.

And then 15 years later, you know, if you're still alive, just being honest, you're still talking about that trip. That's not wasteful spending.
That's optimal life allocation.

Now, you also might be thinking, but Tyler, what if there is a crash crash? And yes, the market does have crash crashes.

Since 1926, the S ⁇ P has experienced a decline of 20% or more, the technical definition of a bear market, about once every three to five years on average. But here's the psychological magic.

If you're prepared with liquidity in your 10% money market allocation and your withdrawal strategy is flexible, those crashes aren't life or death moments. They're blips you can ride out.

And historically, the market has always come back stronger. As always, I'll let you know when it doesn't.
Let's look at some quick real numbers.

During the 08 financial crisis, the S ⁇ P dropped 57% from peak to trough. Terrifying if you were 100% in stocks and forced to sell.

But with our strategy, you'd have $200,000 in cash, which could cover your 120 annual draw for nearly two years without touching your stock portfolio.

By the time you needed to tap your stocks again, the market was already recovering. Or look at COVID crash crash of March 2020.
The market dropped 34% in just 33 days. Again, terrifying headlines.

But if you had your cash buffer, you wouldn't have sold a single share of stock. You'd have waited.
And by August 2020, the market was at new all-time highs. That's the power of quick liquidity.

It gives you the ability to wait out volatility instead of being forced to realize losses. It also matters that the math isn't overly complicated here.
This is what I want people to build, confidence.

We're talking about broad index funds, minimal fees, and simple monitoring.

You don't need to time the market, chase the latest hot asset, or hire a high percentage AUM advisor to tell you they'd be happy to take an additional $19,400 of your money annually to tell you you're okay.

I'll do that right now for free. You're okay.
And now you have an additional $19,400 to make you even more okay.

This type of simplicity reduces stress, keeps costs low, and makes it it actually enjoyable to watch your portfolio grow while spending confidently.

No complex rebalancing formula, no exotic investments, no trying to pick winning stocks.

It's almost boring in its elegance, which is exactly why I like it and why you should consider it for a retirement plan. There's also one final important psychological element here.

Clarity breeds confidence.

When you know your portfolio can handle higher withdrawals, when you've run the numbers numbers and seen that even in bad scenarios, you'll be fine 99 times out of 100, you hopefully stop agonizing over every purchase.

You stop feeling guilty about spending. You stop living like you're one unexpected expense away from poverty, even though you have $2 million in investable assets.

That mental shift from scarcity mindset to abundance mindset is arguably as valuable as the extra returns you get from stocks.

So, with a thoughtful allocation of 90% to stocks, 10% to a money market, and gradually increasing withdrawals, you can live fully and still project a healthy portfolio at the end that might look like early retirement of $120K a year for active travel and experiences, mid-decade, $180K a year as mobility slows, but enjoyment continues.

And I don't know what the heck you're spending that $180K on at this point, but go for it. And your final eight to 10 years, you could spend $200,000 a year for bucket list experiences.

And you know, oh yeah, healthcare probably will take a couple bucks of that. The tragedy isn't running out of money.
It's having it and not using it to create a life worth remembering.

As Morgan Hausel says, wealth is invisible until it translates into well-being. Love that.
Your practical takeaway.

Go chart your 2026 goals, plan intentional withdrawals, and enjoy your money while it works for you, not the other way around.

And if there's one philosophical thing I hope you take away from today, it's this. Retirement doesn't have to be about endless caution or living smaller than you need to.

With a clear plan, a disciplined approach, and yeah, a little courage, you can spend confidently, enjoy your wealth, and still even leave a healthy portfolio behind.

And finally, and probably most responsibly, I know this approach isn't for everyone. So if you're the kind of person who wakes up in a cold sweat every time the market dips 2%,

maybe you need a more conservative allocation. If that's you, here's what we're going to do.
Add a 20% intermediate bond fund and call it a day.

Yet again, that's about a 0.03% annual fee to add a fund like Fidelity's FBND or Vanguard's BND.

Or if you're the type of person who then wants to play with your portfolio because you know it's what you like doing, then make that play component no more than 5% and call it a day.

But for most people with $2 million in investable assets, you can afford to live a lot better than you probably think you can, and a 90-10 split would serve most of us exceptionally well through most market conditions.

In closing, If this episode gave you even one more ounce of confidence to buy that experience this year or make your portfolio that much more simple, consider leaving a review on Apple or Spotify so I know that my endless days of talking into a microphone about withdrawal strategies is somehow helping someone achieve their own version of high-stakes bingo for as long as possible.

I've included some resources in the show notes if you want to dig a little deeper, and I'm wishing you all a fantastic week.

Thanks for tuning in to your money guide on the side. If you enjoyed today's episode, be sure to visit my website at tylergardner.com for even more helpful resources and insights.

And if you are interested in receiving some quick and actionable guidance each week, don't forget to sign up for my weekly newsletter where each Sunday I share three actionable financial ideas to help you take control of your money and investments.

You can find the sign-up link on my website, tylergardner.com, or on any of my socials at SocialCapOfficial.

Until next time, I'm Tyler Gardner, your money guide on the side, and I truly hope this episode got you one step closer to where you need to be.