I was very interested in the recent article by Scott Francis (Pity the poor millionaire retiree) which suggested that one needed a retirement fund of $1.6 million to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. If I read that article correctly, the purpose of having that level of retirement funding was to enable an income generation of $72,000 per year based on an average 4.5% return on the investment. However does that hypothesis assume that there would never be any allowance for a draw-down on the capital sum invested? If I intended to live forever, I might like to never ever have to draw down on my retirement capital. However I don't think that situation will be the case and I will one day shuffle off my mortal coil when the Good Lord decides that my time is up. I have already given my children their "inheritance" by way of a good education and a financial kick-start when they commenced their working careers. Hence apart perhaps from the stress of watching my retirement capital dwindle, it would not really matter if I had to gradually draw down on my retirement capital so long as there were sufficient bucks in the kitty to pay my funeral expenses when I finally carked it! So in essence, am I correct in my presumption that Scott Francis's analysis assumes that there would never be any draw down on the target $1.6 million retirement capital? I would just like to clarify that point for my own peace of mind. Many thanks for your advice.