I was at 100% using FIRECALC as well as other calculators. With the current increase to the portfolio is says I could spend more. I won't spend more for now as I see that as a "cushion" if there is a pull back in the market.
FIRE success rate
- Thread starter livingalmostlarge
- Start date
I totally agree with this too. What makes me feel better is not the percentage on the firecalc, but the fact that I could easily cut $40k out of our budget and still be able to travel and lead a decent life. In fact, I would almost look forward to this, spending money gives me less and less pleasure, but at 46 with three young kids I am at peak consumption probably.
Koolau
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I was at 100% when I finally FIREd but that was primarily because I stayed several years beyond my FI date (i still liked what I was doing - until I didn't). Just for fun, I occasionally figure my 30 year FIRE % and find I'm still at 100% almost 13 years later. Of course, 30 years for me puts me at age 100, so it's probably an academic exercise at best. Still, I know a lady soon turning 102 and several others in their late 90s. The men, well, not as many, but still quite a few in the early 90s. YMMV
Major Tom
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Most people seem to wait until their portfolio grows to be big enough to support their desired lifestyle, making allowances for SS, pensions, etc. as well. I approached it from the other end. I really didn't feel working any more. It just didn't seem like an attractive option compared to the majestic glory of doing what I wanted, when I wanted. Therefore, I found a way to limit my expenditure to a level that allowed me to feel comfortable with the long-term sustainability of my finances. Many would look at my modest lifestyle and think of it as some type of self-imposed torture, but it's paradise compared to having to get up 5 days a week and do what somebody else tells me to do for 40 hours a week, or more. Why on earth would anyone take that option? 
The level I chose was a 2.4% WR. It's now at 2%, not counting future SS, which would seem to be very solidly at 100%, unless the proverbial asteroid hits. Which, of course, it could. I mean, you never know. In the words of Cake, from the song "Sheep Go To Heaven",
"As soon as you're born, you start dying,
So you might as well have a good time."
The level I chose was a 2.4% WR. It's now at 2%, not counting future SS, which would seem to be very solidly at 100%, unless the proverbial asteroid hits. Which, of course, it could. I mean, you never know. In the words of Cake, from the song "Sheep Go To Heaven",
"As soon as you're born, you start dying,
So you might as well have a good time."
Last edited:
Ed B
Recycles dryer sheets
This right Here!
I have scrubbed my proposed retirement budget several times looking for things I have missed. I believe I am pretty dialed in now including a hobby, travel (modest) and charity budget, and significant healthcare budget leading up to age 65.. Then I add another $4k to that. I will be set up with emergency funds for new roof/well/major plumbing, etc. but what else? I probably won't know unless and until what else pops up.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2014
- Messages
- 9,206
I guess I'm over 100%. My main retirement tool is the Fidelity retirement planner. In it, it defaults to using a "significantly below average" market as the base assumption. You can change it to "below average" and "average", but I am 100% using the significantly below average assumption. Like others, I was more focused on my expenses and since I padded them, I felt pretty comfortable with the plan. Note, that my comfort level is that I believe I can meet my basic needs - food, housing and healthcare. I've planned for better, but that's all I'm "worried" about. If it gets to where I can't meet my basic needs, we're all going to be in a bit of hurt. Personally, I'm confident we'll do fine.
flintnational
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
If I include pensions and SS (which we are currently not taking) in firecalc, we are at less than a 2% WR. So, something north of 100%, hopefully.
USGrant1962
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
In FIRECalc I went with 100% but made sure to include Social Security (with a haircut) and some spending cuts when Medicare kicks in and when the go-slow and no-go years arrive.
In the Monte Carlo calculators I want to see >90%. They tend to generate a much wider spread of outcomes than history and mathematically their worst cases will reflect down markets lasting for 40 years. If that happens you have more to worry about than your portfolio!
Lawrence of Suburbia
Recycles dryer sheets
FIRECalc gave me 110%
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
Feel that tug on your leg?
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
Think about it...
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
80% and I would sleep very easily. If fate started to pull me down the unfortunate 20%, all I’d have to do is slash discretionary spending and perhaps try to monetize a hobby. Weather the storm for a few years, perhaps even a decade, and then proceed with my prodigal ways.
Golden sunsets
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,524
I would assume that 200% in FIRECALC means that they could double their net living expenses amount and still see 0 cycles of failure. That is a normal way to estimate where you are for all other calculators that I have used. RIP does not give a percentage of success or cycles, just the age at where you would run out of money, for instance. So if you project age 95, and are not negative in net worth, than you are at 100%. Make it 110, and it shows all savings gone. What percent success rate is that?
As mentioned by others, it is really only more useful for those that have to live entirely off of paper investments due to no pension and RE so early that SS is a minor amount in the budget. I would gather from reading this forum that the FIRE posters that pulled the trigger in their 40s and early 50s and no pension HAD to figure based on no SS, at the time because there was none and the amount that would be “guaranteed “ was pretty unknown when figuring 15-20+ years down the road.
In many ways, for many it is totally academic. If I had to, and DW was dead, and all my savings were gone, I could still LIVE easily on just my pension and SS, just not at the level I desired and used for the calculators. But if someone can’t live decently on $86k a year, with reduced taxes and no FICA/MED deductions then the problem is with them. Plenty of people live their whole life, with families, never making that much. So while I could technically say my current success rate is infinite, that is based on lots of black swan scenarios not occuring, none of which are covered by any calculator.
My BIL, a retired LEO at 53, retired 4 years ago, and never did a calculation in his entire life. He just knew/assumed that he could easily live on his pension forever, and when SS kicked in, that was more insurance. He barely scratches his savings, which are super conservatively invested, for a new truck or boat, only beating inflation because of the bull. He wouldn’t know how to invest nor does he care.
As mentioned by others, it is really only more useful for those that have to live entirely off of paper investments due to no pension and RE so early that SS is a minor amount in the budget. I would gather from reading this forum that the FIRE posters that pulled the trigger in their 40s and early 50s and no pension HAD to figure based on no SS, at the time because there was none and the amount that would be “guaranteed “ was pretty unknown when figuring 15-20+ years down the road.
In many ways, for many it is totally academic. If I had to, and DW was dead, and all my savings were gone, I could still LIVE easily on just my pension and SS, just not at the level I desired and used for the calculators. But if someone can’t live decently on $86k a year, with reduced taxes and no FICA/MED deductions then the problem is with them. Plenty of people live their whole life, with families, never making that much. So while I could technically say my current success rate is infinite, that is based on lots of black swan scenarios not occuring, none of which are covered by any calculator.
My BIL, a retired LEO at 53, retired 4 years ago, and never did a calculation in his entire life. He just knew/assumed that he could easily live on his pension forever, and when SS kicked in, that was more insurance. He barely scratches his savings, which are super conservatively invested, for a new truck or boat, only beating inflation because of the bull. He wouldn’t know how to invest nor does he care.
Last edited:
ikubak
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 482
ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Have you ever actually modeled that in FIRECalc?
I have, and I think you'll find it takes really deep cuts for a very long time to make much difference. For a very rough view, consider that if we have a market crash of 50%, cutting spending from 5% to 2% is almost noise in that kind of a drop.
It might be hard to monetize a hobby in the midst of a recession/depression.
None of that means I think you are "wrong" for using an 80% number. Odds are in your favor, so if the 20% scenarios do not come to pass, the more conservative among us will kind of look like suckers. As long as you have a plan and understand the risks, it might be 100% the correct approach for you.
A lot of it boils down to what each of us calls 'discretionary'. I live a comfortable, but IMO, not an extravagant life style. I don't like to think of any of it as 'discretionary' - I don't want to cut anything. But if the stuff hits the fan, I'll find a way to be happy spending far less - the only other choice is to be a grumpy (grumpier?) old man.
-ERD50
Teacher Terry
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 7,084
We didn't use a calculator. We have 2 pensions. We will get tiny SS in the future (WEP). I still work p.t. not because I have too. We have plenty of discretionary expenses we could cut if necessary.
GravitySucks
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Mega Corp announced incentivized RIF.
I found FireCalc and first run through said 83% or so.
RIP said I might run out of money at about 86 years old.
I called my manager and said if he needs to drop someone I would be willing to take the hit.
Turned out I had under estimated SS so FireCalc bumped to 90% success on second iteration. (That was to 84 years old.)
I found FireCalc and first run through said 83% or so.
RIP said I might run out of money at about 86 years old.
I called my manager and said if he needs to drop someone I would be willing to take the hit.
Turned out I had under estimated SS so FireCalc bumped to 90% success on second iteration. (That was to 84 years old.)
foxfirev5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,987
Yep. Once I hit the ER button I moved on to the next adventure. If/when the investment balance drops I'll review and adjust.
FI_RElater
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 413
ditto
now in retirement and at under 2.5% WR ( mostly under 2%) [and not yet pulling SS, so WR might go lower]
in my long planning (started before 2000), I’d looked at possibilities of low returns (sub 2%real) and even (short term) negative returns as part of the plan
like others, assumed very low returns, no COLA’s and still found it worked
the only failure mode was for extended higher (5+%) inflation , which caused problems— but i also didn’t model increased bond returns as a partial offset (which might have made it pass for the whole timeframe examined)
Last edited:
