My FIRECalc #'s

[garyt]

So I ran my numbers on FIREcalc and this is what they come up with:

Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 115 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $180,142 to $4,712,394, with an average at the end of $1,785,873. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)
For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 30 years. FIRECalc found that 0 cycles failed, for a success rate of 100.0%.

I used 30 years (I'm 59). I didn't enter any future SS income, so I'm thinking I'm looking pretty good?
I haven't retired yet, looking possibly at next year, when I turn 60.
I haven't read that much on FIREcalc, so does it use a certain investment %, ie 60-40 stocks/bonds?

 

[Gone4Good]

I haven't read that much on FIREcalc, so does it use a certain investment %, ie 60-40 stocks/bonds?

If you go to the "Portfolio Tab" there's a place to input your actual asset allocation. Otherwise FIRECalc defaults to a 75%/25% stock / bond mix.

Under the "Other Income" tab you can also include pension and SS income if you wish.

I suspect the consensus opinion from ER.org will be that your plan looks solid based on the information you provided.

You say you haven't read much on FIRECalc. It's probably worthwhile for you to become familiar with how it works. The calculator assumes certain behaviors on the part of the retiree (that you'll rebalance your portfolio annually back to your starting asset allocation, and that your withdrawals will rise annually with inflation but no more and no less). At the very least you'll want to consider whether the behaviors assumed by the model (as well as any other model assumptions) are ones you can live with.

Good luck and happy retirement!

 

[bingybear]

So I ran my numbers on FIREcalc and this is what they come up with:

Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 115 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $180,142 to $4,712,394, with an average at the end of $1,785,873. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)
For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 30 years. FIRECalc found that 0 cycles failed, for a success rate of 100.0%.

I used 30 years (I'm 59). I didn't enter any future SS income, so I'm thinking I'm looking pretty good?
I haven't retired yet, looking possibly at next year, when I turn 60.
I haven't read that much on FIREcalc, so does it use a certain investment %, ie 60-40 stocks/bonds?

looks encouraging. how accurate are your "estimated expenses". With people living longer, I personally started using 94 as a target when I first did estimates over a decade ago (age 44). I have now increased my hypothetical EOL ... using both 105 and 115 just to be silly.

Depending on your health and other factors, you might want to see how the plan works to a bit older age.

 

[garyt]

looks encouraging. how accurate are your "estimated expenses". With people living longer, I personally started using 94 as a target when I first did estimates over a decade ago (age 44). I have now increased my hypothetical EOL ... using both 105 and 115 just to be silly.

Depending on your health and other factors, you might want to see how the plan works to a bit older age.

It's funny, the longer life span I use, the better my numbers get. I guess my spending is less than what it figures I'll make.

 

[DrRoy]

Longer periods are probably better because the history of the stock market is better over longer periods. If your input numbers are good and you have not counted SS in there then you should be good.

 

[jabbahop]

In the portfolio tab, it is also worthwhile to check what your average investment expense ratio is. The default is pretty low @ .18% Unless you are all very low cost index funds. Increasing to .5% or more can make a pretty big difference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rodi]

Longer periods are probably better because the history of the stock market is better over longer periods. If your input numbers are good and you have not counted SS in there then you should be good.

Yes and no. The longer numbers may not include some semi-recent bad years at the beginning of the run. Sequence of returns suggests that a bad market (or inflation) at the beginning of your retirement can have a bigger (negative) impact than at the end of your retirement. If you skip the hyper inflation of the 70's and early 80's (because of a longer run) - then you are missing a historical data point that you should consider.

I'm 54 and I run 30 years, 35 years, and 40 years.

 

[bingybear]

Longer periods are probably better because the history of the stock market is better over longer periods. If your input numbers are good and you have not counted SS in there then you should be good.

sometimes it does... sometimes if it will push you into a failure case.
Firecalc is back testing... it provides a warm fuzzy.. it does not predict the future. But historical results do not guarantee future results.

 

[DrRoy]

I didn't mean to say that longer periods would always be better. If your principle was falling rapidly it would not work. I'm sure there are other failure situations as well. I was just giving an explanation for why it would work in some cases.

 

[Senator]

I didn't mean to say that longer periods would always be better. If your principle was falling rapidly it would not work. I'm sure there are other failure situations as well. I was just giving an explanation for why it would work in some cases.

Another way to pick up extra Firecalc cycles is to put in half as many years for the portfolio to last, and half the value.

 

[Dreaming of Freedom]

Another way to pick up extra Firecalc cycles is to put in half as many years for the portfolio to last, and half the value.

Does that actually work correctly? Would you halve your other inputs too like social security, rental income, and pensions? I don't know if this is correct, but I have been using 48 years for my time variable in FireCalc, and then inputting $200,000 for how much money I want left when I die. That way, if I don't die by the time I am 88, I will still have $200,000, social security, and a tiny pension to live off of. I use 48 years because that is the number of years that seems to give me the highest failure rate and also has the highest starting nest egg to be 100% successful. Does this sound like a good way to deal with Firecalc's longevity limitations?

 

[Options]

I believe people do the most playing with calculators before retirement, which makes sense because most are looking for a degree of confidence regarding the ability to retire. I would caution relying on only one calculator in deciding whether or not to retire. Before retirement, I ran Financial Engines, Firecalc, ********, ESPlanner, and FRIP often, and found them to be conservative in exactly this order. Now retired, I might use ******** and FRIP once a month to look at trends. I posted about FRIP on another thread but found the tone to be condescending and uncivil, so I abandoned it. I will say I am personally comfortable with the results of the above calculators taken in totality.

 

[youbet]

Does that actually work correctly?

No.