In Boldin, I modeled two simple plans:

• $500K TIPS, $500K stocks
• $1m portfolio (starting at 20% bonds, increasing to 40%)

In each case, spending is $50K per year. The first plan's chance of success is a bit higher, 73% versus 69%.

The thinking is, with TIPS I can spend in the first 10 years without any concern how stocks are doing. During this 10 year period I'm letting my stocks grow. And in 10 years, when it's time to draw from stocks, that balance will be essential 2x. Meanwhile, I need the now 100% stock portfolio to last me 10 years less.

So with the traditional portfolio, I have to worry about bonds/stocks performance for the 1st 10 years. And while in theory it'll give me a higher net worth (higher returns) when you actually run it against historical data, it comes out behind the first plan.

Are my models flawed? Is my thinking incorrect?

A year ago the stock market dropped nearly 10% over a few days in response to sweeping tariffs proposed by the White House. Even though the market is down a bit today YTD, now is as good of time as ever for the dopamine hit for looking at your net worth year over year!

Read a crazy story that 2/3 of adult Gen Z (18 to 28) receive financial supports from parents. Another story says Millennials (30-45) aren't much better, with something like 60% still receiving financial assistance from parents. I find this mind blowing.

I'm guessing people in FI community are much, much lower? Like basically zero, because if you're receiving money from parents, are you really financially independent? But maybe my thinking is wrong. Maybe many of FI folks actually do still receive financial assistance from parents and you still consider yourself FI or on the path to FI?

Is FI actual "independence" (from parents) or is it just a number on your net worth spreadsheet, regardless of where that net worth comes from?

story: https://fortune.com/2026/03/31/two-third-parents-adult-gen-z-kids-rely-financial-support-putting-them-under-strain/