Andre1969
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Wonder what would have happened if someone retired in 1965 with a WR of 3%, or 2%. Over the long haul, a small change in WR can make a big difference.
I tried putting $1M into FireCalc with a 50 year time span and a 3% WR, and come up with a 100% success rate. The end values ranged from $811,332 to $21,041,527, with an average at the end of $6,285,846. Going back 50 years would be 1965, so I'd presume that the 1965 scenario would be one of the cycles in the calculation.
Here's an interesting calculation to try, though: try the above numbers, but for only a 15 year span. At a 3% WR, the end values ranged from $398,915 to $4,110,839, with an average at the end of $1,696,146. I'd be interested to see how that $398,915 scenario plays out, long term. Once you're down to $399K, pulling out another $30K is 7.5% of what's left, so that would seem a bit scary.
However, when we try it at a 4% WR for 15 years, the ending values are $273,507 to $3,761,393, with an average at the end of $1,440,834. So that shows what a difference 3%, versus 4%, can make, even in just 15 years. And, to be down to $273K, I'd be really leery about keeping up a $40K/yr (plus inflation) withdrawal rate. That would be almost 15%!
At a 2% WR, the ending values are $519,644 to $4,460,284, with an average at the end of $1,951,457. Even if you take nothing out at all and let it sit and grow (0% WR, the ending values are $761,103 to $5,313,475, with an average at the end of $2,462,080. So, it looks like one of those scenarios could be destined to be a loser, eventually, regardless of how little you withdraw. Incidentally, at 0%, it looks like about 6-7 scenarios do end up below the $1,062,695 line (close enough to $1M for government work).
So, there's a few potential losers in there, no matter how careful you try to be. But, 6-7 out of 130 that FireCalc tested is only about 5%.
Is there any way in FireCalc, I wonder, to pick a specific year? For instance, I'd be curious to see how my planned retirement, taking SS etc into account, would stack up using 1965 retirement data.