Triple checking the numbers

[razztazz]

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

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz 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 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.

[razztazz]

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

[samclem]

But there's something wacky about that to-the-dollar $100K min amount. I don't know how that happened.

[MBSC]

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem 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. http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1751501

And this Bogleheads thread. https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=191981

[razztazz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MBSC Yes, this is a bug when you enter a very low spending amount. See this E-R post. http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1751501 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