Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-28-2013, 05:28 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bikerdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,901
I think if your planning a 40 or 50 year retirement you can run all the calculators and gather all the data you want but in the end you are still taking a great leap of faith. You better have a plan B & C and maybe D.
__________________

__________________
“I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said” Alan Greenspan
Bikerdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-28-2013, 05:35 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikerdude View Post
I think if your planning a 40 or 50 year retirement you can run all the calculators and gather all the data you want but in the end you are still taking a great leap of faith. You better have a plan B & C and maybe D.
+1
__________________

__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:13 PM   #23
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikerdude View Post
I think if your planning a 40 or 50 year retirement you can run all the calculators and gather all the data you want but in the end you are still taking a great leap of faith. You better have a plan B & C and maybe D.
+2

I'm already into my plan B, for the second time.
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:13 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
I think tools like firecalc and SWR studies are fantastic and have increased our knowledge about what is a reasonable withdrawal strategy tremendously. The major "flaw" I see in firecalc is a tendency for people to focus on a point estimate of success instead of the distribution of outcomes.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:28 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
calmloki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Independence
Posts: 5,459
Yeah, Firecalc hasn't been of much help to me, so it's supposed lack of accuracy is is of less import than it's lack of utility. to me.

little social security, no IRA or tax sheltered stocks or bonds, just a pile of old rentals and some loans here.Don't know why Firecalc can't tell me if I'll run out of money at some point!
__________________
calmloki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:37 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
This I guess that the flaw is pretty big... IOW, the calculation should take into account all possible timeframes between 1 and 50 is you choose 50 years..

IOW, if there is any 40 year period that would fail in a 50 year period, that is a fail... if there is any 10 year period that would fail in a 50 year period, that is a fail....

Once you reach 0, there is no way to make it back....
Not necessarily. If you are missing years beyond 40, it is a fail. But if you are missing the first years, it may succeed. The first 10 (or less) years could've been successful enough to raise the portfolio enough to survive the next 40.
__________________
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 11:12 PM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
This I guess that the flaw is pretty big... IOW, the calculation should take into account all possible timeframes between 1 and 50 is you choose 50 years..

IOW, if there is any 40 year period that would fail in a 50 year period, that is a fail... if there is any 10 year period that would fail in a 50 year period, that is a fail....

Once you reach 0, there is no way to make it back....
I think it depends on where that 40 year period is. That is, imagine that in a 50 year period that if you started with $1 million in year 1 and in year 11 that $1 million would be $2 million and in year 50 that would fall to say $500,000 and this would be a success.

However, if you used a 40 year period then in year 1 (which is the same year as year 11 in a 50 year period) you start with $1 million and by year 40 you have failed.

That would be a failure in a 40 year plan but wouldn't be in a 50 year plan because in the 50 year plan your $1 million first grew for 10 years and so even though you started with $1 million in each plan in the 50 year plan that $1 million had grown in the first 10 years so the plan succeeds.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 11:52 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
I think it depends on where that 40 year period is. That is, imagine that in a 50 year period that if you started with $1 million in year 1 and in year 11 that $1 million would be $2 million and in year 50 that would fall to say $500,000 and this would be a success.

However, if you used a 40 year period then in year 1 (which is the same year as year 11 in a 50 year period) you start with $1 million and by year 40 you have failed.

That would be a failure in a 40 year plan but wouldn't be in a 50 year plan because in the 50 year plan your $1 million first grew for 10 years and so even though you started with $1 million in each plan in the 50 year plan that $1 million had grown in the first 10 years so the plan succeeds.

But using your example.... the failure is the one starting in year 11.... it failed in 40 years.... maybe there is not a full 50 years to check, but it still failed...

With the explanation that was given... it is doing a yearly step... so it is doing the calc right except for the ending 50 years... so if you go back 49 years and that would be a fail... it seems that it is not reported as a fail because you do not have 50 years.... next year it will report as a fail since you now will have the full 50.... but you might have a fail for 49, 48, 47... and that could make a difference...


Now, it should not matter that we are talking about 50.... it still should do the same for 40, 30 etc... it just that these have fewer possibilities that do not have the full amount of years...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 06:25 AM   #29
Full time employment: Posting here.
Jack_Pine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 834
This is why no calculator should ever return 100% confidence level. There is no such thing.
__________________
The Constitution. It's not just a good idea...it's the law.
Jack_Pine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 06:52 AM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Pine View Post
This is why no calculator should ever return 100% confidence level. There is no such thing.
FIRECalc doesn't return a confidence level - it 'predicts' the past, not the future:
Quote:
If you tell FIRECalc how much you have, and how much you'll be taking out each year, FIRECalc will show you how such a combination would have fared for the duration of your retirement, in every year for which we have market data.
The level of confidence an individual derives from seeing a "100% success rate" from FIRECalc is in the mind of the beholder - and how much one believes future economic conditions will be no worse than those included in the data...
Quote:
If the next few decades are even worse for the stock market than the worst that has ever been seen, including the Great Depression, then all bets are off.
__________________

__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.