Fidelity RIP

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtail That is an interesting point that lindakoy raises. It would seem logical that Fidelity would/could apply some percentage of medical expenses from a total lump sum budget, but probably doesn't. Perhaps lindakoy could input all the numbers in one example with the estimated medical vs. another example with no medical and apply the expected medical to another category. The total expenses would be the same, but the retirement number should be different.

Okay, I tried my above scenario and my results went from 107 to 117, which would be in line with Lindakoy's results going from 102 to 93.

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtail That is an interesting point that lindakoy raises. It would seem logical that Fidelity would/could apply some percentage of medical expenses from a total lump sum budget, but probably doesn't. Perhaps lindakoy could input all the numbers in one example with the estimated medical vs. another example with no medical and apply the expected medical to another category. The total expenses would be the same, but the retirement number should be different.

The problem with magic numbers is they're always wrong.

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRG The problem with magic numbers is they're always wrong.

So my genteel question to you, is do you place any value in any retirement calculators?

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtail So my genteel question to you, is do you place any value in any retirement calculators?

Very much so. However magic numbers have no place in any type of calculation. I'm just a facts guy, show me numbers not any imaginary projection. I guess the exception would be any well documented or generally accepted values.

ETA: Part of my career was projecting applications performance on various hardware and databases. Part of my strong views on magic numbers came from those experiences. I recall looking at various algorithms for predicting future results and magic numbers were extremely frustrating and frequently the cause of terrible projections.

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRG Very much so. However magic numbers have no place in any type of calculation. I'm just a facts guy, show me numbers not any imaginary projection. I guess the exception would be any well documented or generally accepted values.

Its a mnemonic for percentage of expenses covered. Nothing magic about it. Just a data driven outcome expressed as number used for comparison.

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead Its a mnemonic for percentage of expenses covered. Nothing magic about it. Just a data driven outcome expressed as number used for comparison.

Think we are having two separate conversations.

My dislike of magic numbers is specific to a calculator assuming any part of my worth is for medical reasons and growing that at a different rate.

If the end used specifically stated a value, great. Use it. If they didn't, don't jack with it. Maybe they know something the code, programmer, doesn't.

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRG Think we are having two separate conversations. My dislike of magic numbers is specific to a calculator assuming any part of my worth is for medical reasons and growing that at a different rate. If the end used specifically stated a value, great. Use it. If they didn't, don't jack with it. Maybe they know something the code, programmer, doesn't.

No comprende

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead No comprende

See post #99.

A modeling application should not be adjusting the user's input. If I didn't break out healthcare cost the application should not either!

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRG See post #99. A modeling application should not be adjusting the user's input. If I didn't break out healthcare cost the application should not either!

Post #99 was a suggestion, not the Fidelity application breaking out anything and I followed up on my own suggestion to prove why lindakoy was effectively getting different results.
If Firecalc which so many on this site value, had a different inflation rate for medical, would it not be a valid calculator?

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRG See post #99. A modeling application should not be adjusting the user's input. If I didn't break out healthcare cost the application should not either!

Nothing in the methodology documentation says it breaks it out. It only applies a different inflation rate to healthcare expenses you specifically list in the detailed budget section. So if you list $2000/month for HC insurance, they will inflate that more than say your $50 a month dues to the Beer of the Month Club.

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead Nothing in the methodology documentation says it breaks it out. It only applies a different inflation rate to healthcare expenses you specifically list in the detailed budget section. So if you list $2000/month for HC insurance, they will inflate that more than say your $50 a month dues to the Beer of the Month Club.

+1
In the end, we are just trying to respond to lindakoy's original post #93.
No special programming insight, just using educated guesses to get to her numbers.

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtail Post #99 was a suggestion, not the Fidelity application breaking out anything and I followed up on my own suggestion to prove why lindakoy was effectively getting different results. If Firecalc which so many on this site value, had a different inflation rate for medical, would it not be a valid calculator?

Yes if firecalc seperated medical and extrapolated it different, great. I understand how RIP works, and it makes sense from a modeling perspective. It provides a default for novice users and uses defined medical costs for those who want to.

The only issue I have is when calculators make up their own input when they don't have to. RIP asked me to break our medical, I didn't, it shouldn't try to assume a breakout. What it needs to do, and does, is use the data input by the end user.

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRG Yes if firecalc seperated medical and extrapolated it different, great. I understand how RIP works, and it makes sense from a modeling perspective. It provides a default for novice users and uses defined medical costs for those who want to. The only issue I have is when calculators make up their own input when they don't have to. RIP asked me to break our medical, I didn't, it shouldn't try to assume a breakout. What it needs to do, and does, is use the data input by the end user.

It doesn't break medical out of lump sum.

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead It doesn't break medical out of lump sum.

Again +1
It clearly does not break out medical from other expenses if one inputs the lump sum. That is why lindakoy is receiving the 2 different numbers in the first place.
Lump sum - higher results - no Fidelity breakout
Detailed Expenses - lower Fidelity number due to the USER not Fidelity breaking out the medical expenses.

[Cessna152]

A picture is worth from 24.9 to 74.1 KB.
For those who are unfamiliar with them, here are some attached sample screen snips of the Fidelity retirement analysis tool. One has the option to enter expenses either in detailed categories or to say the heck with it and dump all (or most) into one "misc." or "custom" field. There are a bunch of fields for entering estimated health expenses, and you'll notice a Fidelity statement that its tool applies a higher inflation rate to those entries. You can also break down any of the expense fields further so they vary in different time spans by clicking on the "Add Details" link next to each expense field. I show an example in the "Custom Expenses" field where I simply aggregated all the discretionary expenses and had them suddenly decrease in 2026.

[COcheesehead]

Fidelity updated the tool and they now allow you to create alternate scenarios from your summary page.

[DEC-1982]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nassa Greetings, I’ve been using this tool for a while now. The Fidelity retirement score and data show that I could take substantially less risk in my portfolio (percent allocated to equities) to meet my spending goals with the well below market/90% confidence estimate. However, I have yet to dial back my exposure to a level close to what it shows I can and have a high likelihood of success. I’m curious, has anyone used the results from this or similar calculators to set their equity allocation as part of their thinking around the need, ability and willingness to take risk? If so, how much weight do you put in the tool’s data when determining your equity allocation?

To your question about using a calculator to decide the equity allocation, the answer is No.

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead Fidelity updated the tool and they now allow you to create alternate scenarios from your summary page.

Just saw it this morning. Have you tried it yet?

Edit - I see that it only has scenario changes for planning stages and retirement ending age. The expenses/asset ratios, etc will be added later. So the juicy stuff is not added yet. lol

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtail Just saw it this morning. Have you tried it yet? Edit - I see that it only has scenario changes for planning stages and retirement ending age. The expenses/asset ratios, etc will be added later. So the juicy stuff is not added yet. lol

Still a nice addition once it’s all there.