How much to do trust FIREcal?

[wanaberetiree]

I am wondering about how much of trust in FIREcalc people have? In particular the onces who retired early (in 50s for example) and were retired for awhile, 7-15 years.

And also, what other FIRE like calculators do people like/use?

I personally like the one from Fidelity.

Thx

 

[brewer12345]

Its a tool. How much do you trust a hammer?

 

[wanaberetiree]

I trust trust a hammer 100%

 

[MasterBlaster]

Given the limits of the tool...

1) Assumes that past is prologue. YMMV.

2) Uses debate-ably small amounts of highly correlated market samples to make predictions. Note for many of those samples the US went through some tremendous growth periods. You need ask yourself if something like that can occur again ?

Then yes I believe that FIRECALC is a pretty good tool.


Check out the optimal retirement calculator for a tax efficient peak at retirement. Optimal Retirement Calculator and Retirement Decision Support System

Also check out https://basic.esplanner.com/ESPlannerBasic/family-info
for a lifetime consumption smoothing approach to retirement. The family version is free to use.

 

[73ss454]

I trust trust a hammer 100%

I don't know, I've hit a few fingers from time to time, but I guess that would be my fault not the tools.

 

[bbbamI]

I use FireCalc, Fido and ORP. I may have overlooked it, but I don't believe Fido has an area for expense ratio...FireCalc does. As said before, calculators are simply tools. I'm on the conservative/weenie side and withdraw less money than 'they' say I can take.

We're in our mid 50's and both been retired for over a year.

 

[jebmke]

I don't know, I've hit a few fingers from time to time, but I guess that would be my fault not the tools.

Indeed. Never had a hammer not work. Like you, I have had it land on the wrong target. Probable user error.

 

[REWahoo]

Wanaberetiree, trust is a very personal thing. I suggest you do some reading on how FIRECalc works and come to your own conclusion.

 

[LOL!]

Otar's retirement calculator is competitive in this arena:

otar retirement calculator

His book "Unveiling the Retirement Myth" is a must-read.

 

[FIREd]

I trust FIREcalc to tell me whether my plan would have worked in the past. I don't trust FIREcalc to tell me whether my plan will work in the future, though I think it gives me a good reference point.

 

[RonBoyd]

I trust FIREcalc to tell me whether my plan would have worked in the past. I don't trust FIREcalc to tell me whether my plan will work in the future, though I think it gives me a good reference point.

This describes my philosophy, also -- although I may be slightly more unsure about the "reference point."

The end of a recent thread brought me to this conclusion... you should read the whole thread, however, and not take things out of context.

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/variable-swr-50150.html

In any event, there are plenty of "Monte Carlo" calculators out there -- try em all and see which one (or so) "floats your boat."

 

[REWahoo]

In any event, there are plenty of "Monte Carlo" calculators out there -- try em all and see which one (or so) "floats your boat."

Just to be sure we're not confusing wanaberetiree, I think it important we point out FIRECalc isn't a Monte Carlo calculator.

 

[Purron]

Firecalc is just one way of looking at things. There are no sure ways to know what the future will hold. I don't trust anything 100% as far as finances go.

 

[KM]

Not retired yet, so I cant really say, but the one thing I noticed is that if the "output spreadsheets" are actually what is used in the calculations, then it doesnt work for me for two reasons:

1 - it ignores you when you say your pension is not inflation-adjusted. It inflates it anyway (or at least the spreadsheet shows it inflated)
2 - it seems to get confused after 30 years, but again, that may just be the mapping to the spreadsheet output.

I use it, but I also use numerous other tools, including my own spreadsheet. I am usually happy when all the tools say I am on plan.

 

[ERD50]

Not retired yet, so I cant really say, but the one thing I noticed is that if the "output spreadsheets" are actually what is used in the calculations, then it doesnt work for me for two reasons:

1 - it ignores you when you say your pension is not inflation-adjusted. It inflates it anyway (or at least the spreadsheet shows it inflated)
2 - it seems to get confused after 30 years, but again, that may just be the mapping to the spreadsheet output.

I use it, but I also use numerous other tools, including my own spreadsheet. I am usually happy when all the tools say I am on plan.

One of the spread sheet outputs is only good for a 30 year cycle - anything else throws off the formulas. I also have trouble following some of the spread sheet figures, but when I check the basic output against simple numbers (to make errors easier to see), they seem to match my expectations.

I'm not so sure it handles delaying a non-cola pension correctly. I get the feeling that if you say you can start collecting $30,000 in ten years, it is doing some adjustment to bring that $30,000 to an inflation adjusted $30,000, but I'm not sure.

edit/add: Here's the thread we discussed this in, not sure any conclusion was made but some of us suspected that the spreadsheet is *just* an output, it isn't actually used in the calculations, so funny stuff there may not mean anything in terms of the success % results. Or maybe it does. But even that is mostly a guess.

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/showthread.php?t=49054&referrerid=5478



-ERD50

 

[dex]

I trust trust a hammer 100%

The right tool for the job is important.

The 4% rule, and Firecalc are 'rules of thumb'.
You have to individualize you planning for your situation - prepare a budget, spending tracking, cash flow, investing plans and, a couple of years of expense in cash,

 

[KM]

One of the spread sheet outputs is only good for a 30 year cycle - anything else throws off the formulas. I also have trouble following some of the spread sheet figures, but when I check the basic output against simple numbers (to make errors easier to see), they seem to match my expectations.

I'm not so sure it handles delaying a non-cola pension correctly. I get the feeling that if you say you can start collecting $30,000 in ten years, it is doing some adjustment to bring that $30,000 to an inflation adjusted $30,000, but I'm not sure.

-ERD50

Agreed - I tried a simple two simple calcs with $0 savings, a pension amount that matched the spending need. First run had the pension COLA'd and the second did not. The results were different in a way I expected. It just makes me wonder what else isnt working quite how I assume/expect.

That and I plan on living to 100, so I want 45 years of planning.....

 

[KM]

One of the spread sheet outputs is only good for a 30 year cycle - anything else throws off the formulas. I also have trouble following some of the spread sheet figures, but when I check the basic output against simple numbers (to make errors easier to see), they seem to match my expectations.

I'm not so sure it handles delaying a non-cola pension correctly. I get the feeling that if you say you can start collecting $30,000 in ten years, it is doing some adjustment to bring that $30,000 to an inflation adjusted $30,000, but I'm not sure.

edit/add: Here's the thread we discussed this in, not sure any conclusion was made but some of us suspected that the spreadsheet is *just* an output, it isn't actually used in the calculations, so funny stuff there may not mean anything in terms of the success % results. Or maybe it does. But even that is mostly a guess.

I believe I am seeing an issue in how non-COLA'd pensions are handled - Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community



-ERD50

Ahhh......yes. I was in the FIRECALC support thread looking for something a while back and read this. This was actually the thread that sent me back to FIRECALC to look more at my pension stuff. Thank you, I am not sure I would have noticed it otherwise (or the 30 year issue).

I agree, it may just be the spreadsheet output, but it would be really nice if we could get that confirmed from someone.

 

[REWahoo]

I agree, it may just be the spreadsheet output, but it would be really nice if we could get that confirmed from someone.

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that the guy who wrote FIRECalc has retired.

 

[Nords]

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that the guy who wrote FIRECalc has retired.

He's so retired... that he's even retired from E-R.org...

 

[ERD50]

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that the guy who wrote FIRECalc has retired.

Did he ever share his SWR?


-ERD50

 

[REWahoo]

Did he ever share his SWR?

Not that I recall, but you can check out his posts and see what you find: Dory36 posts

 

[easysurfer]

I trust trust a hammer 100%

I trust a hammer, but how about the person striking the hammer?

 

[shotgunner]

I had the wooden handle of a hammer I was using break once.

Although FIRECALC contains a number of periods of strong growth it also contains a number of periods of negative growth including the Great Depression.

I imagine if it were around in the late 1920's and you were retired through the 1930's it would have probably shown many here could survive financially, I rather doubt any of us here would have enjoyed the ride in the 1930's even though they came out the other end "OK".

 

[ERD50]

Not so much a matter of 'trust' I guess, but I have wondered about just what those 105 (or so) data cycles really represent. To make a weather/climate analogy, are we looking at:

A) 105 temperature measurements, taken in one month.

B) 105 temperature measurements, taken in one season.

C) 105 temperature measurements, taken in one year (capturing some of the seasonal variation).

D) 105 temperature measurements, taken over several decades (capturing the seasonal variation, plus some hot/cold years).

There really are only a handful of 'cycles' in the data. Do they really represent typical cycles, are are there cycles of a type we have never seen before?

Of course, as has been said in many threads, we can wait until we have enough money to be certain of just about everything, but that probably means work until the day you die. So I'm still going with the combined output of FIRECALC and other models, with some reserve thrown in ( a reserve that could quickly be wiped out by individual circumstance, unrelated to any economic cycles). It's all a crap shoot of one sort or another, but I plan on enjoying the ride, but applying some reasonable prudence along the way.

-ERD50