Well, but if you know your "anguish threshold" you can specify that the portfolio has to contain xxx dollars at all times. I usually double what I think xxx should be, just on principle.
Good point. And that's another way to make your Firecalc testing more "conservative." Just use the minimum value feature. Bear in mind, however, this method may not completely eliminate "anguish."
Example. You enter a $1,000,000 portfolio and do a FireCalc run which survives at 95%. You then modify this so that anything below $500,000 is a "failure." To continue to have a 95% success rate, you'll now need a much larger beginning portfolio given a constant withdrawal rate ....... let's guess..... say $1,500,000. Now, the same dip that would have brought you to zero in the first run will bring you to the vicinity of $500,000 now. Still about a $1,000,000 loss, although you have the security of still having $500,000 left. But you had to come up with an extra $500,000 up front! Thee's no free lunch, sadly......
Try looking at the FireCalc output graph for a test run with a 100% success rate. Lines moving from left to right near the center of the distribution show relatively stable portfolio performance. Perhaps your portfolio only varies in real value +/- 20% or so over the 30 yrs despite your ongoing withdrawals. That would be nice and is completely possible. Even better, observe that some lines trend up continously. You're spending money yet your portfolio keeps growing. Sweet! But, alas, some lines trend down and lead to low portfolio values midstream and near zero by the end. Those outcomes are all 100% successful, but if that's what I wind up with (and I'm sure off to that kind of start!
) I'll be gritting my teeth the whole time.
Ya just gotta learn to live with it.