|
Are these firecalc results right?
06-13-2018, 08:26 PM
|
#1
|
Confused about dryer sheets
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Harveys Lake
Posts: 4
|
Are these firecalc results right?
Hi everyone ... new to the forum ... have run a series of firecalc scenarios and cannot believe some of the numbers I'm getting .. .either i'm doing something wrong or the calculator is off ... if someone could comment/help, i'd very much appreciate ... here goes
Current info ... age 51
current IRA portfolio 1,675,000
current spend 150,000 (highly exaggerated / includes hcare)
Panel 2 (Other Inc Spending) - 12000/yr SSec starting in 2029
- 5400/yr Pension starting in 2032
Panel 3 (Not Retired?) - Retiring in 2026
- not adding anything to portfolio
Panel 4 (Spending Models) - Inflation assumption - CPI
- Constant spending power
Panel 5 (Your portfolio) - Mixed portfolio - 30% LCap Value 70% SCap Value
Panel 6 (Portfolio changes) - none
Panel 7 (Investigate) - using 1970 as the starting retirement year
My results
Because you indicated a future retirement date (2026), the withdrawals won't start until that year. The tested period is 8 years of preretirement plus 32 years of retirement, or 40 years.
FIRECalc looked at the 39 possible 40 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $1,675,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter.
Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 39 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-35,452,228 to $262,525,534, with an average at the end of $85,044,449. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)
For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 40 years. FIRECalc found that 2 cycles failed, for a success rate of 94.9%.
How can this possible be right ... any feedback would be great ... putting a lot of faith in these numbers
|
|
|
|
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!
|
06-13-2018, 09:53 PM
|
#2
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 359
|
Why are you using 1970 as the starting retirement year?
__________________
It's a terrible thing, I think, in life to wait until you're ready. I have this feeling now that actually no one is ever ready to do anything. There is almost no such thing as ready. There is only now. And you may as well do it now. Generally speaking, now is as good a time as any. - Hugh Laurie
|
|
|
06-13-2018, 09:55 PM
|
#3
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,022
|
I did a quick run of your numbers and got something significantly different:
Quote:
FIRECalc Results
Your spending in every year after the first year will be adjusted for inflation, so the spending power is preserved.
Because you indicated a future retirement date (2026), the withdrawals won't start until that year. The tested period is 8 years of preretirement plus 32 years of retirement, or 40 years.
FIRECalc looked at the 107 possible 40 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $1,675,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter.
Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 107 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-7,573,349 to $19,503,572, with an average at the end of $1,248,792. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)
For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 40 years. FIRECalc found that 53 cycles failed, for a success rate of 50.5%.
|
Not sure where the discrepancy is but I think my numbers look far more realistic than what you came up with.
__________________
Numbers is hard
|
|
|
06-13-2018, 10:18 PM
|
#4
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: DC area
Posts: 2,496
|
I ran JD1967's numbers and got exactly the same results. REWahoo, you left the Your Portfolio selection on the default Total Market 75% - that generates exactly your numbers. So the problem appears to be in the U.S. Small Value data. While factor studies have shown historical outperformance for small cap value, AFAIK it is only a couple of percent annually. Seems unlikely to generate a plus-14X, minus-5X variance, even after 40 years.
I gave up using the "mixed portfolio" a long time ago because it has inadequate categories (especially lack of foreign stocks). It looks like there is also some weird data in there.
__________________
FI and Semi-ER March 24, 2017
Consulting to stay engaged
"All models are wrong, some are useful." - George Box
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem: neat, plausible, and wrong. - H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
06-13-2018, 11:18 PM
|
#5
|
Confused about dryer sheets
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Harveys Lake
Posts: 4
|
No particular reason ... it autofilled 1960 I thought using 1970 would make it more accurate ... not sure if that is a good decision
|
|
|
06-13-2018, 11:20 PM
|
#6
|
Confused about dryer sheets
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Harveys Lake
Posts: 4
|
Thank you USGrant and Wahoo ...
What info do you suggest I use for the portfolio panel ... the 70/30 split I entered actually matches my ira
|
|
|
06-14-2018, 04:07 AM
|
#7
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,022
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by USGrant1962
REWahoo, you left the Your Portfolio selection on the default Total Market 75% - that generates exactly your numbers.
|
I blame it on CWS - not the College World Series, Calculating While Sleepy.
__________________
Numbers is hard
|
|
|
06-14-2018, 08:16 AM
|
#8
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: DC area
Posts: 2,496
|
So I looked in Rick Ferri's "All About Asset Allocation" and he has an "efficient frontier" graph showing total stock market versus small cap value. It shows annualized returns from 1975 to 2009 as:
Total Stock ~12% with ~17% standard deviation
SC value: ~18% with ~25% standard deviation
He actually suggests that around 30% SC value could boost returns by 2% with little increase in standard deviation (risk).
So maybe the SC value data in FIRECalc is fine, it is just wilder than I thought. But of course this is historical, and since Fama and French pointed it out this factor is now relatively well known and may be priced in.
The other reason that I now avoid the "mixed portfolio" is that the data only goes back a limited time for many of the categories. From the examples above, it is only going back about 79 years. While that covers the Great Inflation it does not cover the Great Depression.
JD1967, you currently have a very high risk portfolio (with risk defined as variance or standard deviation). Your portfolio could easily be cut in half in the next bear market.
Your FIRECalc results are probably accurate with the data they have used, but again this SC value factor may or may not work going forward.
My suggestion - play around with the Total market portfolio, and the Investigate tab on FIRECalc. For example if you "Investigate changing my allocation" it will default to total stock market (FIRECalc cannot use mixed portfolio for that) and show that you are in the 70% success range with little/no bonds.
Also you might want to pick up "All About Asset Allocation" to get a good overview of risk versus reward in a portfolio.
__________________
FI and Semi-ER March 24, 2017
Consulting to stay engaged
"All models are wrong, some are useful." - George Box
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem: neat, plausible, and wrong. - H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
06-14-2018, 08:51 AM
|
#9
|
Confused about dryer sheets
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Harveys Lake
Posts: 4
|
Thank you USGrant v much
|
|
|
06-14-2018, 10:24 AM
|
#10
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Western NC
Posts: 4,633
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by USGrant1962
So I looked in Rick Ferri's "All About Asset Allocation" and he has an "efficient frontier" graph showing total stock market versus small cap value. It shows annualized returns from 1975 to 2009 as:
Total Stock ~12% with ~17% standard deviation
SC value: ~18% with ~25% standard deviation
He actually suggests that around 30% SC value could boost returns by 2% with little increase in standard deviation (risk).
|
Over on the Bogleheads forums the "small cap" premium is much debated.
After a couple of years reading various opinions & analyses presented there, I have come to agree with others over there who feel there is no longer a risk-free premium to small cap (growth or value)
I.e., any "extra" return is now coming from the extra risk inherent with small cap.
|
|
|
06-17-2018, 12:59 PM
|
#11
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,659
|
Even assuming a prudent 20% haircut to current Social Security estimates by 2029, and your taking it at 62, $12K a year seems low.
You probably should get an estimate from SSA.
|
|
|
06-17-2018, 06:03 PM
|
#12
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,684
|
When posting a firecalc scenario, it is much more accurate to right click on "Link To This Set of Data" on the results page, then click on "Copy Link Address", then paste the link address into your post.
This relieves people from having to reenter your data and possibly get it wrong.
It also shows precisely what you entered.
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|