RIP Change/error

[Moneygrubber]

Anyone use Fidelity's Retirement income planner. I noticed a big change, not sure if its a bug or what. When you include all your retirement assets and run the planner my starting balance for retirement was always listed in the income detail for the first year of starting retirement. So if you allocated 1Mil the first year showed 1Mil. Now the number is about 8 or 9% lower, it was never this way, doesn't seem to matter which confidence level you pick. The retirement quick check shows the actual amount allocated. Also, when I pick the detail at the end showing yearly costs the correct starting balance shows up for a second and then the new lower number appears. Seems very weird...

[braumeister]

I think the difference is because they're using after tax spending.

[bUU]

There is a drop down that switches between today's money and adjusted for inflation. Perhaps the default in that drop down changed.

[Moneygrubber]

Not sure, it drops my balance almost 300k before i even retire.

[foxfirev5]

Yeah, I have no idea what's happening. When I bring up the details of w/d it reverts back to the larger original number. I'll keep digging but initially it looks inconsistant.

[Moneygrubber]

I agree, i think something is messed up with the software, my planner at fidelity says its the monte carlo simulation showing a down market but i dont buy that, i have run the thin a 100 times and never got rsults like that.

[tdv2]

For as long as I have been using the planner, which is about 7 or 8 years, I get about an 11% reduction in the first year portfolio number (My AA 65% stocks, 35% bonds). I always assumed that the Monte Carlo simulation was taking the worst case scenario into consideration. If I look at the detailed cash flow table generated, about the first 6 or 7 years appear to be market down years in the simulation. I actually like to see that happening from a planning standpoint (horrendous sequence of returns scenario). If your portfolio can survive a bad run in the first several years at your desired withdrawal rate, you are planning for the one of the worst things that can happen when you pull the plug. The only thing I worry about is what truly is the worst case? This is one of the many known unknowns.

[H2ODude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdv2 For as long as I have been using the planner, which is about 7 or 8 years, I get about an 11% reduction in the first year portfolio number (My AA 65% stocks, 35% bonds). I always assumed that the Monte Carlo simulation was taking the worst case scenario into consideration. If I look at the detailed cash flow table generated, about the first 6 or 7 years appear to be market down years in the simulation. I actually like to see that happening from a planning standpoint (horrendous sequence of returns scenario). If your portfolio can survive a bad run in the first several years at your desired withdrawal rate, you are planning for the one of the worst things that can happen when you pull the plug. The only thing I worry about is what truly is the worst case? This is one of the many known unknowns.

+1. First time I used it I called and said, "hey, what's up with this?" and IIRC it was just showing that in the worst case scenario (the whole point) you can lose your a__ in the first year. Or two. Or three.

[Moneygrubber]

Got it, maybe i had the wrong button ticked off someplace when i was running it earlier.