Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Triple checking the numbers
Old 11-22-2016, 09:45 PM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,036
Triple checking the numbers

I went to FireCalc and input

$100,000 Port

Zero spending

20 years time span

100% stocks

.18 expenses

It says the LOWEST amount I will have at the end of the 20 years is $100,000

My understanding is that $100,000 at the end is not a nominal $100,000 but what $100,000 would have bought at the beginning of that 20 year period.

Is that correct?

Thanks
__________________

razztazz is online now   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 11-22-2016, 10:16 PM   #2
Moderator
samclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 14,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post

It says the LOWEST amount I will have at the end of the 20 years is $100,000
It absolutely does >not< say that. It >might<, though, "say" that, in the limited historical data in its universe, in no 20-year series did a portfolio do worse than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
My understanding is that $100,000 at the end is not a nominal $100,000 but what $100,000 would have bought at the beginning of that 20 year period.

Is that correct?
Yes, correct.
__________________

samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 10:23 PM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,036
Quote:
It absolutely does >not< say that. It >might<, though, "say" that, in the limited historical data in its universe, in no series did a portflio do worse than that.
Obviously. It's not a crystal ball. I can only refer to what Firecalc coughs up

Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 126 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $100,000 to $1,040,141, with an average at the end of $389,606

It said that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
My understanding is that $100,000 at the end is not a nominal $100,000 but what $100,000 would have bought at the beginning of that 20 year period.
Is that correct?
------------------------------------------

Yes, correct.
Thanks. That was the important part
razztazz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 11:33 PM   #4
Moderator
samclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 14,122
But there's something wacky about that to-the-dollar $100K min amount. I don't know how that happened.
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2016, 06:24 AM   #5
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
It says the LOWEST amount I will have at the end of the 20 years is $100,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
But there's something wacky about that to-the-dollar $100K min amount. I don't know how that happened.
Yes, this is a bug when you enter a very low spending amount. See this E-R post. Lowest portfolio balance - 100% success

And this Bogleheads thread. https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=191981
MBSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2016, 02:59 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBSC View Post
Yes, this is a bug when you enter a very low spending amount. See this E-R post. Lowest portfolio balance - 100% success

And this Bogleheads thread. https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=191981
Thank you Previous Two. I thought the exact amount thing was a bit fishy too but I ran the same thing thru the other calculator (*******) and it gave me something like $108,xyz which was close enough to infer some kind of rounding limit within FireCalc
__________________

razztazz 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From totally free checking to totally fleece checking easysurfer FIRE and Money 47 06-30-2012 01:23 AM
Double/triple Coupons: Where do they take them? Orchidflower Other topics 5 07-22-2009 05:43 AM
Technical Analysis - Triple bottom -S&P dex Stock Picking and Market Strategy 36 03-06-2009 01:27 PM
Ahem: Navy 46, Notre Dame 44, triple overtime. Nords Other topics 5 11-04-2007 07:13 PM
Triple Dip tryan FIRE and Money 12 10-10-2005 11:47 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.