56 yr old ER asset allocation question with pension

[respond2u]

I've only tried it on my desktop. Might be safari is the problem? It worked for me with Firefox and Chrome.

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by respond2u I've only tried it on my desktop. Might be safari is the problem? It worked for me with Firefox and Chrome.

Probably, but it is frustrating to enter all the data to have it show no results.

[respond2u]

I agree it's frustrating when stuff like that happens. It shouldn't be so hard for stuff to work across different platforms (other than the manufacturers dont want it easy).

It shows the result in a sort of overlayed screen. I wonder if
- there's a setting blocking that sort of thing on your iPad
- what would happen if you asked for the "desktop site" to force safari to act better
- whether it's worth the effort!

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by respond2u I agree it's frustrating when stuff like that happens. It shouldn't be so hard for stuff to work across different platforms (other than the manufacturers dont want it easy). It shows the result in a sort of overlayed screen. I wonder if - there's a setting blocking that sort of thing on your iPad - what would happen if you asked for the "desktop site" to force safari to act better - whether it's worth the effort!

I tried it again on a desktop and it worked so it has to be Safari, but I don't understand the results. For the same information put into 3 other calculators I use, one being Firecalc, this one returns wildly different results.

[respond2u]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead I tried it again on a desktop and it worked so it has to be Safari, but I don't understand the results. For the same information put into 3 other calculators I use, one being Firecalc, this one returns wildly different results.

******** and firecalc are fairly close when I tweak both so that the inputs matched closer (I used the "display (hide).input data" link in firecalc to see what it was assuming, and then changed things as I could). E.g., ******** only supports s&p500 as a stock allocation, whereas FireCalc defaults to a mix of different caps.

As for the result output, it took me a while to understand FireCalc's .

As near as I can tell, they're graphing the same data, just in a different way.

Both calculate backtests of portfolio balances assuming an historical start date.

******** chart shows you each retirement starting on the historical date, so you'll get a line from 1871 to 1901 (for a 30 year retirement), another for 1872 to 1902, etc.

FireCalc seems to create the same lines, but plots them from year 1 to year 30. You don't see the period for which the portfolio is being backtested.

Firecalc gives some stats in the prose above the chart. ******** gives stats in tables below chart.

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by respond2u ******** and firecalc are fairly close when I tweak both so that the inputs matched closer (I used the "display (hide).input data" link in firecalc to see what it was assuming, and then changed things as I could). E.g., ******** only supports s&p500 as a stock allocation, whereas FireCalc defaults to a mix of different caps. As for the result output, it took me a while to understand FireCalc's . As near as I can tell, they're graphing the same data, just in a different way. Both calculate backtests of portfolio balances assuming an historical start date. ******** chart shows you each retirement starting on the historical date, so you'll get a line from 1871 to 1901 (for a 30 year retirement), another for 1872 to 1902, etc. FireCalc seems to create the same lines, but plots them from year 1 to year 30. You don't see the period for which the portfolio is being backtested. Firecalc gives some stats in the prose above the chart. ******** gives stats in tables below chart.

Maybe I made a mistake, I'll try it again, but it was showing a several million dollar difference from my other 3 models.

[COcheesehead]

Ok, operator error. I got it finally to be inline with the other 3 calculators. The results page isn't as friendly, but it is interesting.

[respond2u]

Glad it worked out!

[Danmar]

I have a high equity allocation (100%) because of a generous pension. If I notionally capitalize my pension my AA would be about 64/36. I am comfortable with this.

Seems to me that ignoring a pension in your AA is not optimal as a pension does 2 things, firstly it reduces the cash required to fund your retirement, but just as important it provides a RISK FREE cash flow source. This risk reduction in cash flow allows for higher risk in cash flow elsewhere. At least that my opinion. Agree that there is considerable opinion going the other way. Probably, in the end, it comes down to your risk tolerance. Those that have a higher to.erance will naturally gravitate to the "take your pension into account" camp while those with a lower tolerance will likely ignore any pension.

[supernova72]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danmar I have a high equity allocation (100%) because of a generous pension. If I notionally capitalize my pension my AA would be about 64/36. I am comfortable with this. Seems to me that ignoring a pension in your AA is not optimal as a pension does 2 things, firstly it reduces the cash required to fund your retirement, but just as important it provides a RISK FREE cash flow source. This risk reduction in cash flow allows for higher risk in cash flow elsewhere. At least that my opinion. Agree that there is considerable opinion going the other way. Probably, in the end, it comes down to your risk tolerance. Those that have a higher to.erance will naturally gravitate to the "take your pension into account" camp while those with a lower tolerance will likely ignore any pension.

Thanks! OP here. One thing I should have mentioned in my post is that I'm not a huge risk taker. Yes I rode out the 2008 downturn and stayed the course but seeing a 30% dip was not a lot of fun. Having 20% in a stable value fund is not super exciting but lets me sleep at night. There is another 12% in bonds (balanced fund actually) so now I'm at 68%/32%.

Pension covers 80% of my expenses so probably not as favorable as you (but I'm grateful to have it).

I'm OK when the market rockets up 1% in one day that I don't benefit from all of that. Kudo's to you for going "all in"!!