What Success % do you use?

[footenote]

If you have used retirement calculators, what success percentage are you comfortable using / targeting?

Do you prefer historical (firecalc, ********) or Monte Carlo?

(Being ridiculously conservative, I always go for 100% success.)

 

[Red Badger]

100%. If we end up leaving more behind, that's okay.

Done both - prefer historical.

 

[NYEXPAT]

I always "fudge" the numbers until I can show a multi-million dollar balance when I die. I then share them with my "young wife" just before bedtime and hope she shows her appreciation!

 

[Carpediem]

Psychologically I am feeling okay with 95+% although I prefer seeing 98+. I know the difference in 95 and 98 is a nit but I still feel more comfortable knowing only 2 cycles failed in Firecalc.

 

[Jerry1]

My main calculator was the Fidelity retirement planner. I used below market averages (basically no income) and 100 percent success. Plus, I overstated my expenses. So overall, more than 100 percent.

 

[HI Bill]

I shoot for 100%, but wonder if the safety provided by achieving this is outweighed by the risk of dying before the money's gone.

Here's the Rich, Dead or Broke calculator, as food for thought.
https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

Is it worth working for 100%, when the probability that you'll end up dead before broke is so much greater?
Does your retirement spending include a safety factor? For example, If you're planning to spend $100K annually, but base expenses are only $50K, you could always cut spending to ensure you don't run out of $. In essence, run the calculator for both spending rates.

 

[DrRoy]

100% makes me feel good. My retirement score at Fido is 150+%.

 

[foxfirev5]

I shoot for 100%, but wonder if the safety provided by achieving this is outweighed by the risk of dying before the money's gone.

Here's the Rich, Dead or Broke calculator, as food for thought.
https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

Is it worth working for 100%, when the probability that you'll end up dead before broke is so much greater?

Bingo!!! If in doubt go over to Bogleheads where I'm sure 200% isn't good enough/

 

[audreyh1]

I use % remaining portfolio which has a 100% success rate by definition as it never runs out of money. So I looked at remaining portfolio statistics and worst case historical drawdown (income drop) to select what I thought was the max withdrawal rate I would be OK with.

 

[aaronc879]

100% but only to age 80, not 95 or 100 like most people here.

 

[Dtail]

Will be going to % remaining of portfolio next year.
Currently, shoot for 100% success using historical and Monte Carlo calculators.
Even though retired, I still run the various calculators monthly (15 min of time).

 

[Sojourner]

100%, but my preferred mode is using FIRECalc to find the spending level at which I'll never (historically) run out of money. When I see that that "safe" number is 1½ - 2X what my annual spending projections are, then I feel pretty confident. So I'd guess that translates roughly into 150 - 200% success?

 

[audreyh1]

The Success % on traditional Firecalc SAFEMAX or SWR models assume an initial % of portfolio at retirement and then annual inflation adjustments thereafter.

I can see why people use it as the starting point for “do I have enough to retire?”.

Few people actually follow that withdrawal method.

 

[GravitySucks]

I got a 80% success in the first iteration and figured that was good enough as travel was my largest estimated expense. 80% was good enough to tell my manager Id be happy to take a package.
I use Fidelitys calculator now and it comes up good at their worst case scenario which I think is 90% of markets.

 

[footenote]

LOL: I adjust spending to the highest amount that still yields 99% success and then grin because current spend is so much lower

 

[MRG]

Depends on what calculator you use and where you are in retirement.

When I was planning we used 100yo and slightly overestimated expenses, slightly underestimated my SS and 95% success in Fidelity's RIP. IMHO probably the most conservative calculator, especially if you detail your expenses.

I used other calcs and firecalc seemed closest to Fidelity. A little better results, and I used it as a valued second opinion. I spent a lot of time in RIP and used it as my base. That was ~6 years ago, before retiring, and I feel okay financially ptoday. I'm thankful I've had the last 5.5 years to experience my life.

I'm sure I saw my Fidelity score this year, Vanguard says I'm ok too. I don't care about those numbers anymore.[emoji111]

 

[cooch96]

80% of a budget that reflects a very comfortable lifestyle. If that percentage starts trending towards 50%; I'll just slash the discretionary part of the budget until I get old or the success rate recovers.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

100%

 

[SecondCor521]

I use FIREcalc with a 40 year planning horizon, historical model, all defaults except for my spending, portfolio value, expense ratio, and AA. I then use the investigate tab to search for 95% success rate and compare that to my actual spending.

Haven't run it in a week or two, though!

 

[Retch The Grate]

I use 100% safe on a retirement that goes till I am 100 years old, with the plan of ratcheting my spending up at the indefinite SWR (3% is what I'm using for planning purposes) whenever my portfolio increases to minimize unspent gains.

 

[MichaelB]

When I first used FIRECalc we were at around 80% success rate (portfolio survival). That seemed adequate at the time - I had already quit working, we were living off the portfolio and I had no desire to go back to work. Last year it hit 100%, and now it's down a bit to around 95% or so, as we've increased our travel spending.

My guess is my longevity calculator will fail long before the portfolio calculator.

 

[OldShooter]

I think retirement calculators are a variation of the old problem: Garbage in, gospel out.

First, they cannot predict the future. The best they can do is to assume the future will be like the past. But what past? Looking back 30 years average inflation is like 2.6%. Look back another ten years, incorporating the late 70s/early 80s excitement and you get a 40 year average of 4.1%. And were the 2000s like the 1980s? And will the dollar still be the world's reserve currency in 20 years?

Second, by delivering multidigit numbers they mislead as to their accuracy. I think 80% is probably the same as 100% and anything in that range could reasonably be reported as "looking good" followed by a page of fine print disclaimers.

Third, by nature they cannot be validated. In the case of FireCalc there would have to be a statistically significant number (1,000?) of forum users dead and reporting their results before you could evaluate the accuracy of its predictions.

So, I think they can be a lot of fun but (with respect to the OP) I don't think the numbers mean all that much beyond very general categories like "probably not," "maybe but dicey," "maybe and optimistic," and "looking good."

Nate Silver, in "the signal and the noise" tells a story about WWII weather forecasters who were asked for a D-Day weather forecast some months ahead of the date. They said they had no idea. Word came back from on high ordering them to produce a forecast because it was needed for planning.

 

[youbet]

My favorite posts involve folks who are wailing and gnashing their teeth over how absolutely miserable they are working at their jobs and how they can't wait for the next few years to pass. Yet, they calculate the savings nut they want to reach with highly conservative numbers such as:

1. exaggerated spend rates
2. long, long life expectancies
3. all possible black swans and catastrophic events occur (some more than once)
4. investment returns and inflation rates worse than any historically
5. etc., etc.

Maybe their working lives aren't as bad as they portray? Or why would they wildly spend their most precious commodity, time, when they can easily afford to FIRE?

 

[footenote]

I do not disagree - file calculators under "the best tool we have."

It may not be great, but it's all I got.

 

[aaronc879]

My favorite posts involve folks who are wailing and gnashing their teeth over how absolutely miserable they are working at their jobs and how they can't wait for the next few years to pass. Yet, they calculate the savings nut they want to reach with highly conservative numbers such as:

1. exaggerated spend rates
2. long, long life expectancies
3. all possible black swans and catastrophic events occur (some more than once)
4. investment returns and inflation rates worse than any historically
5. etc., etc.

Maybe their working lives aren't as bad as they portray? Or why would they wildly spend their most precious commodity, time, when they can easily afford to FIRE?

I have often wondered the same thing. It seems like the majority of people on this forum are very likely to die millionaires. To me that just means they worked several years too long.