Is the 4% Rule Setting Tech Professionals Up for Retirement Failure?

The traditional 4% withdrawal rule has become gospel in FIRE communities, but it wasn't designed for tech professionals. The Trinity Study analyzed 30-year retirements from 1926-1995, not 50-year tech retirements with concentrated equity positions. Success rates drop from 95% over 30 years to ~70% over 50 years. Tech professionals face amplified sequence of returns risk, concentration risk masquerading as diversification, and psychological challenges of early retirement. The solution: a dynamic withdrawal framework with true diversification, adaptive rates (starting at 3.5%), and optionality preservation.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Here's a question that keeps me up at night. What if the most popular retirement rule in personal finance is actually setting an entire generation of tech professionals up for failure? I'm talking about the 4% rule. You know the one, it's everywhere. Financial influencers preach it, fire bloggers swear by it, Reddit threads dissect it endlessly. The rule says you can safely withdraw 4% of your retirement portfolio in your first year, adjust for inflation each year after that, and your money will last 30 years. Simple, right? But here's the thing, and this might sting a little, that rule was never designed for people like you. Welcome to the Fireweed Capital Podcast, Wealth Planning for Tech Professionals. I'm Dr. Adam Link, and today we're going to tear apart the 4% rule and rebuild something that actually works for your situation. See, the original Trinity study that birthed this rule, it was published in 1998 by three finance professors who analyzed historical portfolio performance from 1926 to 1995. They looked at 30-year retirements starting at age 65. Traditional 60-40 portfolios, people who worked predictable W-2 jobs for four decades, collected pensions, and had Social Security as a backstop. But that's not you, is it? You're sitting on concentrated equity positions that could represent 30, 40%, maybe 50% of your net worth. Your income doesn't follow a smooth, upward trajectory. It swings wildly with RSU vesting schedules, bonus structures, and the occasional acquisition that changes everything overnight. You might want to retire in your 40s or 50s. Hell, maybe you're already financially independent, but still working because the golden handcuffs are just too good to pass up, right? The math changes when your variables change. And for tech professionals, almost every variable is different from what the Trinity study assumed. Here's what really gets me. The 4% rule has a 95% success rate, according to the original research. Sounds great, right? But that 5% failure rate? It's not random. Those failures cluster around specific scenarios, retiring right before major market downturns, having above average inflation early in retirement, starting with portfolio concentrations that don't match the broad market assumptions. And guess what? Tech professionals are disproportionately likely to hit all three of those risk factors. You're more likely to have the financial freedom to retire during market peaks, which is exactly when the 4% rule is most dangerous. You're more likely to have concentrated positions that behave differently than diversified portfolios. And if you're pursuing fire, you're planning for 40 or 50 year retirements, not 30-year ones. The math just doesn't hold. So here's what we're going to cover today. First, we'll walk through exactly why the 4% rule fails for people with your financial profile. The data might surprise you, and it should inform how you think about your own numbers. Second, we'll dig into the three specific risks that tech professionals face that traditional retirees simply don't encounter. Think sequence of returns risk meets concentrated equity meets longer time horizons. And finally, we'll build a dynamic withdrawal framework that actually matches your reality. I'm not here to sell you a complex strategy that requires a PhD in financial engineering, but I am here to make sure you don't rely on a rule that could leave you eating ramen in your 70s because you trusted math that was never meant for your situation. Look, I get it. The 4% rule is seductive because it's simple. One number, easy to plan around. Plug it into a spreadsheet and boom, you know your fire number. But simplicity without accuracy is just, well, it's just expensive simplicity. The stakes are too high to get this wrong. We're talking about decades of your life, whether you can afford to take that sabbatical, support aging parents, or leave something meaningful to the next generation. Before we dive in, if you're finding value in this podcast, hit subscribe and visit fireweedcapital.com for the show notes and full transcript. We put all the data and links there so you don't have to frantically take notes while you're walking the dog, or commuting to that job you might not need much longer. Alright, let's start with the uncomfortable truth about why the 4% rule was never built for you. So let's start with the obvious question. Why doesn't the 4% rule work protect professionals? The answer comes down to three fundamental assumptions that the Trinity study made. Assumptions that simply don't match your reality. First assumption, 30 year retirement periods. The original study looked at rolling 30 year periods from 1926 to 1995. That makes sense if you retire at 65 and live to ninety five. But if you're pursuing fire and retiring at forty five, you need your money to last 50 years, not thirty. And here's the kicker. The success rate of the four percent rule drops dramatically as the time horizon extends. A portfolio following the four percent rule has roughly a ninety five percent success rate over thirty years. Extend that to forty years? The success rate drops to around eighty five percent. Push it to fifty years, which is what you need if you retire in your forties, and you're looking at success rates in the seventies. Would you board an airplane with a seventy percent safety record? I wouldn't. But it gets worse when you dig into the failure modes. Those thirty percent of failures in fifty year scenarios aren't evenly distributed. They cluster around specific historical periods, retiring right before the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, or the dot-com bubble. And here's what should terrify tech professionals. Many of you are accumulating wealth right now during one of the longest bull markets in history. The temptation to retire at market peaks is real, and market peaks are exactly when the 4% rule is most likely to fail. Second assumption, traditional asset allocation. The Trinity study assumed a simple mix of stocks and bonds, typically 50-50 or 75-25s allocations across broad market indices. But you don't have a broad market portfolio, do you? You've got concentrated positions in your company stock. Maybe some crypto. Probably overweighted in growth stocks and tech generally because, well, that's the world you live in and invest in. Here's what the research shows about concentrated portfolios. They have higher volatility than diversified portfolios. Higher volatility means bigger swings, especially early in retirement. And early swings matter more than late ones because of something called sequence of returns risk. If your portfolio drops 30% in year one of retirement and you're still withdrawing your 4%, you're digging a hole that's really hard to climb out of. Let me give you a concrete example. Consider someone who retires with a$2 million portfolio that's 40% concentrated in their former employer's stock. That stock represents$800,000 of their wealth. If that company hits a rough patch, regulatory issues, competitive pressures, management changes, a key founder departure, that concentrated position could drop 50% while the broader market stays flat or even rises. Suddenly, they're not withdrawing$80,000 from a$2 million portfolio, they're withdrawing$80,000 from what's now a$1.6 million portfolio. Same dollar amount, but now it represents 5% instead of 4%. And if the market has a bad year on top of that company specific decline, they might be withdrawing 6 or 7% of their remaining portfolio value just to maintain their lifestyle. The math spirals quickly. In year two, they need$82,400 to adjust for inflation, but they're withdrawing it from an even smaller base. By year five, they might be withdrawing 8 or 9% annually just to keep up with their original spending plan. At that rate, portfolio depletion becomes almost inevitable. Third assumption, retirement at traditional ages with traditional income patterns. The Trinity study assumed people worked steady careers, accumulated wealth gradually over 30 to 40 years, and retired around 65 with Social Security and maybe a pension as additional income sources. But your wealth accumulation looks nothing like that. You might have made$80,000 as a junior engineer, then jumped to$250,000 when you joined a startup that got acquired by Meta or Google. Your RSUs vest in chunks, maybe$200,000 this year and$50,000 next year, depending on when you joined and how the ving schedule works. Your bonus might be 20% of your total comp one year and 60% the next, depending on company performance and your level. This lumpy wealth accumulation creates unique planning challenges. Traditional retirement planning assumes smooth, predictable income growth. You contribute steadily to your 401, maybe max it out in your peak earning years, and accumulate wealth in a relatively linear fashion. But tech wealth often comes in steps and jumps. Let me paint you a realistic picture. Imagine you're 42 and just went through a liquidity event. Maybe your company IPO'd or got acquired, or you finally sold those pre-IPO shares you've been sitting on for five years. Your net worth jumps from 800K to$2.5 million overnight. You could theoretically retire using the 4% rule. 100K per year should cover your expenses, right? But here's what the 4% rule doesn't account for. You're young, so you need that money to last potentially 60 years. You don't have Social Security kicking in for another 25 years, and even then it'll only replace a fraction of your current income since the benefit calculation caps out. You might want to support kids through college in 10 to 15 years. Your healthcare costs are entirely on you. No employer plan, no Medicare for decades. And psychologically, you're used to a high savings rate. If you were making 300K and living on 150K, you were banking half your income. Living on 100K from a$2.5 million portfolio, just 4%, might feel restrictive after years of aggressive wealth accumulation. The mental shift from earning and saving to spending down assets is harder than most people expect. The 4% rule also assumes you'll stick to it religiously. Withdraw exactly 4% in year one, adjust for inflation each year, never deviate. But real life doesn't work that way, especially over 50-year time frames. Markets crash and you want to withdraw less to preserve capital. Markets boom and you want to travel more, help family, or pursue passion projects. Your spending needs change dramatically as you age, high in your active retirement years, lower in your 70s, potentially much higher in your 80s if health issues arise. And here's something most people don't realize. The 4% rule is based on historical data that includes some pretty specific economic conditions. It includes the post-World War II economic boom, the productivity gains of the Industrial Revolution, and interest rate environments that we may not see again in our lifetimes. It assumes U.S. market dominance continues indefinitely and that future returns will roughly match historical averages. Those aren't crazy assumptions, but they're still assumptions. What if the next 50 years look more like Japan's experience since 1990 than America's experience from 1950 to 2000? What if technology continues to drive deflationary pressures that keep interest rates lower for longer? What if climate change or geopolitical shifts alter the fundamental drivers of economic growth? Look, I'm not trying to scare you away from early retirement or financial independence, but I am trying to make sure you're using math that actually fits your situation. The 4% rule is a starting point, not a destination. For tech professionals, it's more like a rough estimate that needs serious customization based on your specific circumstances, time horizon, and risk tolerance. So what does this mean practically? If you're planning for early retirement, you probably need a lower withdrawal rate, maybe 3% or 3.5%, to account for longer time horizons and portfolio concentration. You need multiple scenarios, not one number. You need flexibility built into your plan from day one. The good news? You have advantages that traditional retirees don't. Higher human capital, you can always go back to work if needed, and your skills command premium wages. More time to let compounding work in your favor, potentially lower expenses in early retirement if you're not supporting kids or dealing with major health issues yet. But advantages only help if you plan for them. And that starts with throwing out rules that weren't designed for your reality. Now that we've established why the traditional 4% rule doesn't fit your situation, let's dig into the three specific risks that can derail retirement plans for tech professionals. These aren't theoretical risks, they're systematic vulnerabilities that stem directly from how tech wealth is created and accumulated. Risk number one, sequence of returns risk on steroids. Every retiree faces sequence of returns risk, the danger that poor market performance early in retirement can permanently damage your portfolio's ability to sustain withdrawals. But for tech professionals, this risk is amplified by concentration and timing. Here's why it's worse for you. Most tech professionals accumulate wealth quickly during bull markets. Makes sense, right? Tech valuations soar, RSUs multiply in value, options become profitable, liquidity events happen when markets are hot. But this creates a dangerous pattern. You're most likely to achieve financial independence when markets are near peaks. And retiring at market peaks is exactly when sequence of returns risk bites hardest. If you retire with a$3 million portfolio just before a major correction and markets drop 40% in year one while you're withdrawing$120K for expenses, you're suddenly withdrawing$120K from$1.68 million. That's over 7%, unsustainable long term. But here's what makes it even worse for tech professionals. Your concentrated positions amplify the damage. If 30% of your portfolio is in your former employer's stock, and that stock drops 60% during a tech sell-off while the broader market drops 30%, your overall portfolio decline is much steeper than market averages. Let me walk you through a realistic scenario. Imagine someone who worked at a high-growth SaaS company from 2020 to 2024. Their RSUs and options multiplied in value as the company's stock went from$50 to$300. They accumulated$4 million in wealth and decided to retire in early 2024, right as tech valuations peaked. Then reality hit. Their company's stock dropped from$300 to$120 by the end of 2024, a 60% decline. The broader tech sector fell 40%. Even diversified parts of their portfolio dropped 25%. Their$4 million became$2.4 million in 12 months. Meanwhile, they withdrew$160K for living expenses. They started year two with roughly$2.25 million, needing to withdraw$165K to adjust for inflation. That's over 7% of their remaining portfolio. Even if markets recover, they've dug a hole that's almost impossible to escape. They'll likely need to return to work or drastically reduce their lifestyle. This isn't hypothetical doom mongering. We've seen this exact pattern play out multiple times. Risk number two. Concentration risk masquerading as diversification. This one's subtle but deadly. Many tech professionals think they're diversified because they hold index funds alongside their company stock. But concentration risk isn't just about individual stocks, it's about correlated bets. If you work at a tech company, own significant company stock, invest in QQQ or other tech heavy funds, maybe own some crypto, and live in a tech hub where your real estate values are tied to the local tech economy, you're not diversified. You're making the same bet in multiple ways. Consider someone who works at Amazon in Seattle. They've got 500K in Amazon stock, another$1.5 million in index funds that are 30% tech weighted, they own an 800K condo in Bellevue, and they've got 200K in various crypto investments. On paper, they look diversified across asset classes. But what happens if there's a prolonged tech recession? Amazon stock falls 50%. Their index funds drop 35% because of tech exposure. Their condo loses 20% of its value as tech workers leave Seattle or get laid off. Crypto, which often trades with tech stocks during risk-off periods, falls 60%. Their supposed diversification provides little protection because all their bets are correlated. They're essentially leveraged to one sector, the same sector that employs them and determines their human capital value. This correlation risk extends beyond just tech exposure. Many tech professionals are overweight growth stocks generally, underweight value stocks, international stocks, commodities, real estate investment trusts, and other asset classes that might zig when tech zags. The solution isn't to avoid tech entirely, that would be equally unbalanced, but it is to recognize that true diversification for tech professionals requires intentionally building positions that benefit from different economic conditions and market cycles. Risk number three, lifestyle inflation meets identity crisis. This might be the most dangerous risk because it's psychological rather than mathematical, and psychological risks are harder to model or plan around. Here's what happens. You've been earning 300k, 400k, maybe more. You've been living well, but saving aggressively. You reach your fire number and retire. Initially, living on your withdrawal rate feels fine. You've got time to optimize expenses, cook at home, travel during off-peak times. But then reality sets in. You're not earning anymore. Your identity was tied to your career, your growth, your impact. You're watching former colleagues get promoted, start companies, have liquidity events. Your net worth isn't growing like it used to, it might even be declining if markets are rough. The psychological pressure to return to work isn't just about money. It's about relevance, purpose, intellectual stimulation, social connection. And if you do return to work, you've now established a pattern. Retirement is temporary. Withdrawals are just a bridge until you earn again. This creates dangerous planning assumptions. You might retire with a 4% withdrawal rate thinking, I can always go back to work if needed. But that optionality changes how you spend and invest. You might take more risk because you have that backstop. You might withdraw more liberally because earning power feels infinite. But what if you can't go back? What if the industry changes, ageism kicks in, or health issues arise? What if your skills become obsolete or you simply lose the drive to work at the intensity that tech careers demand? I've seen this pattern repeatedly. Tech professionals who retire in their forties or fifties spend a few years traveling or pursuing hobbies, then return to work partly for financial reasons, but mostly for psychological ones. That's fine if it's planned, but dangerous if it becomes necessary rather than optional. The identity component is real and underestimated. If you've defined yourself through career achievement and intellectual challenges, retirement can feel like a loss of purpose. This often leads to lifestyle creep as people try to fill time and meaning through consumption rather than production. So what's the common thread in all three risks? They're all magnified by the specific circumstances of tech wealth accumulation concentrated positions, correlated bets, rapid wealth creation during bull markets, and careers that provide both financial and psychological rewards. Traditional retirement planning doesn't account for these amplified risks. The 4% rule assumes your biggest challenge is market volatility and inflation. But for tech professionals, the biggest challenges are concentration, correlation, and psychology. The good news is that recognizing these risks is the first step to managing them. You can build plans that account for sequence risk, true diversification, and the psychological components of retirement. But it requires throwing out the standard playbook and building something custom for your situation. And that's exactly what we're going to do in our next segment. Alright, so we've established that the 4% rule doesn't work for tech professionals, and we've identified the specific risks you face. Now let's build something better, a dynamic withdrawal framework that actually matches your reality. The key word here is dynamic. Static rules like withdraw 4% every year don't work when you're dealing with volatile portfolios, long time horizons, and changing life circumstances. Instead, you need a framework that adjusts based on market conditions, portfolio performance, and your personal situation. Let me introduce you to what I call the Tech Professionals Retirement Framework. It's built around three core principles, portfolio resilience, adaptive withdrawal rates, and optionality preservation. First principle, portfolio resilience through true diversification. This isn't just about owning different stocks, it's about owning assets that perform well in different economic environments. For tech professionals, this means intentionally building positions that counteract your natural tech concentration. Start with your asset allocation. If 30 to 40% of your net worth is tied up in tech, through company stock, tech heavy index funds, and real estate in tech hubs, then the remaining 60 to 70% needs to be actively diversified away from tech correlations. Here's a framework that works. Divide your portfolio into three buckets growth bucket, defensive bucket, and diversifier bucket. Your growth bucket can include your tech positions, growth stocks, even some crypto if that's your thing. This bucket might represent 40 to 50% of your portfolio early in retirement when you can afford more risk. Your defensive bucket focuses on capital preservation and income generation. Think value stocks, dividend-focused funds, high quality bonds, maybe some REITs in non-tech markets. This bucket becomes more important as you age and your ability to recover from losses decreases. Your diversifier bucket is the secret weapon. This includes international developed markets, emerging markets, commodities, inflation protected bonds, maybe some alternative investments. These assets might underperform during tech bull runs, but they provide crucial protection when tech hits rough patches. The allocation between buckets changes over time. In your 40s and 50s, you might run 50, 30, 20, growth, defensive, diversifier. By your 60s, maybe it's 35, 45, 20. By your 70s, potentially 25, 55, 20. The exact percentages matter less than the principle. You're actively managing correlation risk throughout retirement. Second principle, adaptive withdrawal rates based on market conditions and portfolio performance. Instead of withdrawing a fixed 4% every year, your withdrawal rate should flex based on how your portfolio is performing and what market conditions look like. Here's how it works. In strong market years, when your portfolio grows significantly, you can afford to withdraw more. In weak years, you withdraw less to preserve capital. This approach dramatically improves long-term portfolio survival rates because it prevents the sequence of returns problem from compounding. Let me give you a concrete framework. Start with a base withdrawal rate of 3.5%, more conservative than the traditional 4% to account for longer time horizons and concentration risk. But then apply adjustment factors based on portfolio performance. If your portfolio is up more than 10% in a given year after accounting for your withdrawal, increase your withdrawal rate to 4% the following year. If it's up more than 20%, you might go to 4.5%. This lets you benefit from strong markets without permanently committing to higher spending. Conversely, if your portfolio drops more than 10% in a year, reduce your withdrawal rate to 3% the following year. If it drops more than 20%, maybe go to 2.5%. Yes, this means reducing your spending during tough times, but it also means your portfolio survives to compound when conditions improve. The beauty of this system is that it's self-correcting. High withdrawals happen when you can afford them. Low withdrawals happen when they're necessary for long-term sustainability. Over time, your average withdrawal rate might still approximate 4%, but the year-to-year flexibility prevents the death spiral that kills static withdrawal strategies. You can also build in personal adjustment factors, major expenses coming up, kids' college, home purchase, healthcare issues might require reducing withdrawal rates in advance. Unexpected windfalls, inheritance, consulting income, asset sales might allow temporary increases.

SPEAKER_00 27:37

Third principle, optionality preservation through multiple income sources and flexibility. This is where tech professionals have a huge advantage over traditional retirees, but only if you plan for it correctly. Your human capital is your secret weapon. Unlike someone who retires from a factory job, you can realistically return to high paying work if needed. But this optionality only helps if you maintain it actively. Keep your skills current, follow industry trends, maintain professional networks. Maybe do some consulting or advising to stay connected. This doesn't mean you can't truly retire. It means you're preserving the option to earn again if circumstances change. But here's the key. Don't rely on this optionality. Plan as if you can't return to work, but preserve the ability to do so. This means your base plan should be sustainable without earned income, but you have a backup plan that includes earning potential. Build multiple income streams beyond just portfolio withdrawals. Maybe that's rental property income, consulting revenue, royalties from side projects, or business ownership. Diversified income sources reduce your dependence on any single source, including your portfolio. Consider a phased retirement approach rather than a binary work retire decision. Maybe you retire from full-time W 2 employment, but continue earning through lower stress consulting, part-time roles, or passion projects. This smooths the income transition and keeps your skills sharp. Now let's put this all together with a realistic example. Imagine you're 45 with a$3 million portfolio that's currently 35% company stock, 45% broad market index funds, and 20% bonds. You want to retire and spend about$120,000 annually. Step one, diversify that portfolio. Reduce company stock to 15% over two to three years to manage tax implications. Split the remaining 85% into your three buckets, maybe 45% growth, 30% defensive, 25% diversifiers. This gives you true diversification across economic cycles. Step two: Start with a 3.5% base withdrawal rate,$105,000 from your$3 million portfolio. But build in the flexibility to adjust this based on performance. In great years, you might withdraw$135,000. In tough years, maybe$90,000. Plan your lifestyle to handle this range. Step three, maintain optionality. Keep consulting relationships warm. Stay current with industry developments. Maybe take on a board position or advisory role that provides some income and keeps you connected professionally. Step four, monitor and adjust regularly. Review your portfolio performance, withdrawal rates, and life circumstances annually. Make changes as needed rather than sticking to a plan that's no longer working. This framework isn't as simple as withdraw 4% every year, but it's far more likely to succeed over the long time horizons that tech professionals need to plan for. It acknowledges the realities of concentrated wealth, volatile markets, and changing life circumstances. The goal isn't to optimize for the best case scenario, it's to build a robust plan that survives a wide range of scenarios. Because in retirement planning, survival matters more than optimization. And that flexibility, that ability to adapt and respond to changing conditions, that's exactly the kind of systematic thinking that made you successful in tech in the first place. You're just applying it to a different domain.

SPEAKER_01 32:09

So let's wrap this up with the three key takeaways that should fundamentally change how you think about retirement planning as a tech professional. First takeaway the 4% rule isn't wrong, it's just incomplete for your situation. It was designed for 30-year retirements with traditional portfolios and traditional career paths. But you're potentially planning for 50-year retirements with concentrated portfolios and lumpy wealth accumulation. The math changes when the variables change. Don't throw the 4% rule away entirely. Use it as a starting point, but adjust it downward for longer time horizons, concentration risk, and the unique challenges of early retirement. Think 3% to 3.5% as your baseline with flexibility to adjust based on market conditions and life circumstances. Second takeaway, your biggest retirement risks aren't the ones traditional planning focuses on. Yes, inflation and market volatility matter, but sequence of returns risk amplified by concentration, correlation risk masquerading as diversification, and the psychological challenges of early retirement, these are the risks that can derail tech professional retirement plans. Plan specifically for these risks. Build true diversification that accounts for your tech concentration. Use dynamic withdrawal strategies that adjust to market conditions. And honestly assess whether early retirement aligns with your psychological needs for challenge, growth, and purpose. Third takeaway: your advantages are real, but only if you plan for them. You have higher human capital than traditional retirees. You can realistically return to high-paying work if needed. You have more time for compounding to work in your favor. But these advantages only help if you actively preserve and plan around them. Don't rely on your ability to return to work. Plan as if you can't. But do maintain that optionality through skill development, network maintenance, and staying connected to your industry. The goal is to never need your backup plan, but to always have one. Now, what should you actually do with this information? Three concrete next steps. Step one, audit your current portfolio for correlation risk. Add up all your tech exposure, company stock, tech heavy index funds, options, real estate in tech hubs, crypto if it correlates with tech. If it's more than 40 to 50% of your net worth, you've got concentration risk that needs addressing. Step two, model different withdrawal scenarios. Don't just calculate what 4% would give you. Model 3%, 3.5%, 4%, and 4.5% scenarios. Look at what lifestyle each supports. Understand the trade-offs between withdrawal rates and portfolio longevity. Build flexibility into your planning from day one. Step 3. Stress test your assumptions. What if markets drop 40% in year one of your retirement? What if your company's stock becomes worthless? What if you need to support aging parents or deal with major health issues? Planning for the best case is easy. Planning for sustainability across multiple scenarios is hard but necessary. Look, I know this is more complex than the simple appeal of the 4% rule, but complexity isn't the enemy. Oversimplification is. You've built a career solving complex problems with systematic approaches. Retirement planning for tech professionals is just another complex problem that needs a systematic solution. The stakes are too high to rely on rules that weren't designed for your situation. We're talking about decades of your life, your ability to support family, pursue meaningful work, and leave a legacy. Getting this right is worth the extra complexity. If you found this episode helpful, here's what I'd love you to do. Share it with a colleague who's thinking about early retirement or struggling with concentrated equity positions. These conversations matter, and they're often missing from mainstream financial advice. For more resources on retirement planning for tech professionals, visit fireweedcapital.com. We've got detailed show notes with all the studies and data I referenced today, plus additional resources for modeling different retirement scenarios. And if you're at a point where you'd like to explore whether fireweed capital might be the right fit for your specific situation, you can schedule a conversation at fireweedcapital.com/slash meet. We work with tech professionals who have the kinds of complex financial situations we've been discussing today. Before we wrap up, I need to share the standard disclaimer. The information in this podcast is for educational purposes only and does not constitute personalized financial advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. All investing involves risk, including possible loss of principle. Please consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions. The retirement planning landscape is changing, especially for tech professionals. The old rules don't always apply. But the principles of systematic thinking, risk management, and long term planning are more important than ever. Until next time, keep building wealth on your terms. Join us next time on the Fireweed Capital Podcast.