Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
FIRECalc glitch?
Old 01-27-2017, 11:54 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
mistermike40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 147
FIRECalc glitch?

I ran a "what-if" scenario using 95%... I'm attaching a picture of the results. It should have chose $100,605 (a little greater than 97%) instead of $83,837 (which is called in in the results).

Has anyone seen this before (and know what might cause it)? Other "what-if"s seem to work perfectly.

Thanks in advance!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FCalc error.jpg (140.0 KB, 55 views)
__________________

mistermike40 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 01-27-2017, 12:24 PM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: St. Charles
Posts: 1,399
It looks like you actually searched for 100% success, from the wording above the graph. But I am not sure why it did not say $92,221
__________________

__________________
If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Never slow down, never grow old!
CardsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2017, 12:39 PM   #3
Recycles dryer sheets
mistermike40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 147
Thanks for your reply CardsFan! I did choose 95% though... it states it correctly in the first line under "FIRECalc results".

And you're right... even if I had chose 100% I would think it would indicate $92,221
mistermike40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2017, 12:47 PM   #4
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 217
I wonder which is wrong, the graph or the words!
Spudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2017, 01:00 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
SecondCor521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boise
Posts: 3,559
@OP, the investigate tab does contain the slight disclaimer "(usually within 1%)". It is possible that the goal-seek function, given your particular inputs, can't get within 1% of 95% but can get within 5% of 95% (i.e., 100%). I'm not sure why that would be exactly...my guess is that it is an iterative solver that sometimes can't zoom in quickly enough sometimes, so it gives a result that is "somewhat close" quickly rather than a "really close" result slowly.

Usually when I have done searches of this type it will get within 1%. This is the first time I've seen it not do so. My guess as to why is that you're looking at a relatively high spending rate, and it is possible that the site is tuned towards more median spending levels. As an experiment, you could divide all of your inputs by 2 (divide income by 2, spending by 2, assets by 2, etc.) and see if it does better with the investigate function. (Just don't forget to double the resulting spending level again ;-) )

@mistermike, the result of the investigate window will always show the result ($83,837) in the middle and a few data points above and below. The fact that the next higher data point also hit 100% was probably an artifact of it not hitting very close to 95% in the first place.
__________________
"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say there is much more good in it than bad. All you have to do is look hard enough, and what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may in fact be the first steps of a journey." Violet Baudelaire.
SecondCor521 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2017, 06:12 PM   #6
Recycles dryer sheets
mistermike40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudd View Post
I wonder which is wrong, the graph or the words!
I think the graph is correct. When I do the reverse (input a spending amount instead of a success %), it gives 100% success at 92K and 97.3% at 100k.
mistermike40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2017, 06:16 PM   #7
Recycles dryer sheets
mistermike40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondCor521 View Post
@OP, the investigate tab does contain the slight disclaimer "(usually within 1%)". It is possible that the goal-seek function, given your particular inputs, can't get within 1% of 95% but can get within 5% of 95% (i.e., 100%). I'm not sure why that would be exactly...my guess is that it is an iterative solver that sometimes can't zoom in quickly enough sometimes, so it gives a result that is "somewhat close" quickly rather than a "really close" result slowly.

Usually when I have done searches of this type it will get within 1%. This is the first time I've seen it not do so. My guess as to why is that you're looking at a relatively high spending rate, and it is possible that the site is tuned towards more median spending levels. As an experiment, you could divide all of your inputs by 2 (divide income by 2, spending by 2, assets by 2, etc.) and see if it does better with the investigate function. (Just don't forget to double the resulting spending level again ;-) )

@mistermike, the result of the investigate window will always show the result ($83,837) in the middle and a few data points above and below. The fact that the next higher data point also hit 100% was probably an artifact of it not hitting very close to 95% in the first place.
I'll give that a try but dividing everything by two will keep the same spending rate. I tried the reverse and input the spending amount instead of the success % and it gave me the results on the graph.

I've used FIRECalc often in the past few years and never run across this situation.
__________________

mistermike40 is offline   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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microsoft glitch overpays severance REWahoo Other topics 8 02-23-2009 09:41 PM
A glitch for some retirement plans Khan Life after FIRE 11 04-05-2008 07:55 PM
MS Money glitch? Leonidas FIRE and Money 3 08-25-2007 09:28 AM
Minor IE Glitch TromboneAl Other topics 7 03-07-2007 11:05 AM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:29 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.