I understand why you might think that, but I beg to disagree, at least somewhat. This approach isn't designed to minimize what's left when you die. It's designed to let you live the best retirement possible while reducing as much as possible the risk that you'll run out of money. The median result isn't even close to zero. However, I do agree that this approach, on average, leaves less behind than the 4% rule. Having said that, there are very many cases where the 4% approach leaves nothing (because it runs out even before you die), whereas the guardrails approach will leave far more.