Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Doesn't make sense, 2nd question
Old 07-17-2013, 05:25 PM   #1
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Spicewood
Posts: 48
Doesn't make sense, 2nd question

If I enter $1 WR, set inflation at 0.0% and then select the variable option for spending, but at 100% and run the analysis, shouldn't the year-by-year spending always be the same $1? Well, it is not, on some cycles it goes up to almost $30. And if there is an explanation, then why does the spending amount always increase year over year on every cycle?
__________________

__________________
larrytbm is offline   Reply With Quote
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!

Old 07-17-2013, 06:02 PM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrytbm View Post
...select the variable option for spending, but at 100%...
If by the above, you meant you selected the spending model of "percentage of remaining portfolio, with cut back limited to 100% of previous year" (which means no cut back allowed at all), then as your portfolio increases with time, your spending will be allowed to grow proportionally, from $1 to $30.

Moreover, in the years when your portfolio drops, the spending is not allowed to decrease. Hence, the way you set it up, the spending can only go up, but not down.

If instead you select "Constant Spending Power", then you will see that the $1 spending will stay constant.
__________________

__________________
NW-Bound is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 07:26 PM   #3
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Spicewood
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
If by the above, you meant you selected the spending model of "percentage of remaining portfolio, with cut back limited to 100% of previous year" (which means no cut back allowed at all), then as your portfolio increases with time, your spending will be allowed to grow proportionally, from $1 to $30.

Moreover, in the years when your portfolio drops, the spending is not allowed to decrease. Hence, the way you set it up, the spending can only go up, but not down.

If instead you select "Constant Spending Power", then you will see that the $1 spending will stay constant.
Thank you, that makes sense. So, even though WR was initially specified as a dollar amount, in this case that amount is converted into a % and I'm forced to "spend" increases rather than reinvest, correct?
__________________
larrytbm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 08:20 PM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrytbm View Post
Thank you, that makes sense. So, even though WR was initially specified as a dollar amount, in this case that amount is converted into a % and I'm forced to "spend" increases rather than reinvest, correct?
I think so. You can run this scenario link-to-firecalc (adjusted to 40,000/1,000,000 = 4% WR).

That is the 95% pf previous year on dips, but as I understand it, on up years you spend the same % as your initial start. Some fun years on that chart!

The graph of spending is interesting, the dips with that rule take a lot of lines to below 1/2 the initial spend. How many can handle that? It would be interesting to see an option for a max spend ratio over the initial. That would re-invest in good years. But the previous failures are probably long down cycles, with little upside?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 08:24 PM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,453
That's correct. You are welcome.

The idea of this spending model is that if one is lucky to see his portfolio grows beyond his expectation, he will allow himself to spend more than initially planned. His spending will grow proportionally with his stash.

At the same time, if his portfolio subsequently shrinks, he may be limited in the ability to cut back due to lifestyle creep. A cut back to 100% of previous year's spending means he is unable to cut back at all.

By the way, remember that FIRECalc computes everything in terms of the dollar at the current time, so after inflation the $30 you see at the end of the run may be a lot higher in nominal amounts.
__________________
NW-Bound is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:04 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.