I'd think 6% is more reasonable, 7% is very often touted as the long-term inflation adjusted figure for e.g. S&P500 returns but as others have pointed out, ther

I'd think 6% is more reasonable, 7% is very often touted as the long-term inflation adjusted figure for e.g. S&P500 returns but as others have pointed out, there's reasons to believe it won't be quite as sunny down the road. 10% inflation adjusted I'd think is pretty ridiculous, either it's short-term, not inflation adjusted or he's a one in a million financial miracle worker, but you can't not have any of them. Actually the S&P500 return since inception is about 10%, maybe he's referencing it. But the real return of 1950 to 2010 or so has averaged about 7%. And that uses CPI numbers which may underestimate price increases, particularly in some areas. (e.g. you probably want a better ROI than the national average in hotspots like San Fran considering you need to keep up with things like housing price increases if you're investing in stocks and living off of the returns). But even there you need a strong stomach as these are just long-term figures in what in reality is a volatile market. It's pretty trivial to talk about a 'the real returns of 12% in the 1980s offset the 0% real returns of the 1970s' and conclude 'oh the average return ended up pretty good around 6%', but it's another thing to actually live through the 1970s, experience ridiculous inflation and stock returns that can't keep up, and sticking with your 'live off of capital' strategy, when nobody promised the 1980s would be different and you have a kid who's going to college by then, a spouse etc.