FireCalc Excel Numbers are waaaay off

[bgyt]

When you select the 'spreadsheet' option on FIRECalc the number on the sheet are consistently way off from the graphed values and the values in the narrative discussion paragraph. I searched the threads but found nothing. Surely others are aware of this very obvious problem. Any insight?

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgyt When you select the 'spreadsheet' option on FIRECalc the number on the sheet are consistently way off from the graphed values and the values in the narrative discussion paragraph. I searched the threads but found nothing. Surely others are aware of this very obvious problem. Any insight?

I've used the spreadsheet numbers. They aren't way off. Although sometimes there seems to be a year discrepancy in counting from the start which confuses me, but I get it straight.

One issue may be that the graphs are inflation adjusted whereas a lot of the spreadsheet data is not inflation adjusted and is instead nominal data. But you have all the info there to get to the real numbers.

[bgyt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 I've used the spreadsheet numbers. They aren't way off. Although sometimes there seems to be a year discrepancy in counting from the start which confuses me, but I get it straight. One issue may be that the graphs are inflation adjusted whereas a lot of the spreadsheet data is not inflation adjusted and is instead nominal data. But you have all the info there to get to the real numbers.

The graph is stated to be in start year dollars. The spreadsheet says...

"Open an (unformatted) "multi-year" Excel spreadsheet showing the NON-inflation-adjusted end-of-year portfolio balances for every year in each of the cycles tested by FIRECalc."

My ending portfolio numbers in the spreadsheet are at least twice as much as the graph. This is disconcerting as I'm trying to plan retirement.

[audreyh1]

Well, I wasn't getting those discrepancies. So I don't know what to tell you.

At most I was having issues with being a year off - but you can get that from confusion about end of year numbers versus start of the next year numbers.

I was only working with the data, as my Numbers program couldn't import the formulas. I had to jump through some hoops - renamed the file .htm, opening in Safari, and then copying the data and pasting it in my spreadsheet.

I was mostly working with the spreadsheets generated from a given starting year, not the entire data set. And those matched the graphs displayed for the %remaining portfolio scenarios.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgyt The graph is stated to be in start year dollars. The spreadsheet says... "Open an (unformatted) "multi-year" Excel spreadsheet showing the NON-inflation-adjusted end-of-year portfolio balances for every year in each of the cycles tested by FIRECalc." My ending portfolio numbers in the spreadsheet are at least twice as much as the graph. This is disconcerting as I'm trying to plan retirement.

Maybe the wording is a problem?

Suppose I start with $1 million portfolio in 2018 dollars. By the end of my projection period, my portfolio is $3 million in 2048 dollars. During that 30 year period, the CPI doubled.

The graph will show that I end with $1.5 million in 2018 dollars.
The spreadsheet will show that I end with $3 million of non-inflation-adjusted-dollars.

[bgyt]

I think you are right, this is a wording issue, but aren't 2048 dollars = 2018 dollars inflated by the CPI? If so I don't understand what is meant by:

"NON-inflation-adjusted end-of-year portfolio balances"

If it's not inflated then I don't understand the difference. Note that the FIRECalc author was adamant enough that he CAPITALIZED the term "NON". Maybe he was trying to resolve this very confusion...which isn't working for me.