Target Date Fund Analyzer

No -- it uses a simplified, generic glide path (90% stocks at 40+ years out, declining linearly to 40% stocks at the retirement date) meant to be broadly representative of common target date fund families, not any single fund's actual published schedule. Real funds vary meaningfully in both their starting allocation and how aggressively they shift toward bonds -- some hold more stock even at retirement, and some continue shifting allocation for years after the target date ("through" versus "to" glide paths) -- so check your specific fund's prospectus for its real glide path.

0.04% is a rough stand-in for a low-cost, broad-market index fund's typical expense ratio, used as a baseline for what building the same stock/bond allocation yourself might cost in fund fees. Actual DIY expense ratios vary by which specific funds you'd choose, and a real DIY approach also requires you to do your own periodic rebalancing as the mix drifts -- something the target date fund handles automatically as part of what its expense ratio pays for.

No -- the 4% rule is a widely cited planning heuristic (originating from research on historical U.S. market returns) for a roughly 30-year retirement, not a guarantee. Actual safe withdrawal rates depend on the sequence and level of market returns after you retire, how long your retirement actually lasts, and your portfolio's specific composition at that time; some retirees may be able to withdraw more, and some conditions (poor early returns, a longer-than-planned retirement) could call for withdrawing less.

Current stock allocation is driven purely by how many years remain until your Retirement age, following the modeled glide path -- the expense ratio only affects returns and therefore Projected Balance and Fee Cost vs DIY, not the underlying stock/bond mix. A higher-fee fund and a lower-fee fund following the same glide path would show an identical stock allocation at any given point in time, just different projected account balances.