|
Firecalc compared with Vanguard Retirement Nest Egg Calculator
12-20-2017, 03:34 PM
|
#1
|
Dryer sheet aficionado
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
|
Firecalc compared with Vanguard Retirement Nest Egg Calculator
I notice that when I plug in my numbers into Firecalc I get much more optimistic results than with the Vanguard calculator. Firecalc gives me a 3.65% SWR and Vanguard just under 3%. This is for 40% equities and a 32 year time frame. 100% success rate.
Has anyone noticed this difference between the two calculators? Try plugging in your numbers and see your results. How do you choose your SWR? What rate would you feel comfortable with if you had my time frame? I am 63 and I am planning to age 95.
https://retirementplans.vanguard.com...estEggCalc.jsf
|
|
|
|
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!
|
12-20-2017, 03:50 PM
|
#2
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,004
|
I believe the Vanguard calculator uses Monte Carlo simulation. FIRECalc looks at actual history, and that could account for the difference.
__________________
Numbers is hard
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 04:04 PM
|
#3
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,078
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchoparque
I notice that when I plug in my numbers into Firecalc I get much more optimistic results than with the Vanguard calculator. Firecalc gives me a 3.65% SWR and Vanguard just under 3%. This is for 40% equities and a 32 year time frame. 100% success rate.
Has anyone noticed this difference between the two calculators? Try plugging in your numbers and see your results. How do you choose your SWR? What rate would you feel comfortable with if you had my time frame? I am 63 and I am planning to age 95.
https://retirementplans.vanguard.com...estEggCalc.jsf
|
I've run most every calculator on the net before retiring. Firecalc, Fidelity RIP, T. Rowe., Vanguard... and they all produce wildly different results.
What's the question?
Seriously they all have different approaches to solve the same problem. Different people tried to solve it with their ideas of the best software and DATA! The answer is different between them(like REWahoo said). They better give different results or they're wrong! Of course that doesn't make any of them right.😂
I took the most conservative(Fidelity RIP for my situation at that time) and asked if that was an OK worst case scenario for planning.
Good luck and best wishes.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 05:16 PM
|
#4
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 275
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchoparque
100% success rate.
|
You get silly answers if you want 100% success rate, for a predetermined spending rate. It's just an abstract calculation.
Instead, you simply have some flexibility for spending level. You can spend more on average if you are flexible.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 05:22 PM
|
#5
|
Dryer sheet aficionado
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRG
I've run most every calculator on the net before retiring. Firecalc, Fidelity RIP, T. Rowe., Vanguard... and they all produce wildly different results.
What's the question?
.
|
I think I am looking at opinions on what would be a conservative safe withdrawal rate for my time frame (and asset allocation). Obviously if I am conservative I would pick the lowest rate.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 05:26 PM
|
#6
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Flyover country
Posts: 25,198
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchoparque
I think I am looking at opinions on what would be a conservative safe withdrawal rate for my time frame (and asset allocation). Obviously if I am conservative I would pick the lowest rate.
|
Every calculator will give you an opinion, but they will never be quite the same and often will be very different. The reason is as MRG stated above.
IOW, there is no certainty -- only opinions and you have to make your own decisions. They do give you a good general idea though.
__________________
I thought growing old would take longer.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 05:28 PM
|
#7
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: St. Charles
Posts: 3,903
|
Trying to get a "realistic" 100% withdrawal rate with a Monte carlo calculator is a fool's errand.
The Vangard simulator runs 100,000 random cases. Some (many?) will not be remotely realistic relative to how the market actually moves. So, to get 100% you need to drop the WR quite a bit.
As 43210 said, you should only use these calculators as an indicator. They are just a calculation based on possibilities.
__________________
If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Never slow down, never grow old!
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 05:38 PM
|
#8
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Syracuse
Posts: 3,501
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43210
You get silly answers if you want 100% success rate, for a predetermined spending rate. It's just an abstract calculation.
Instead, you simply have some flexibility for spending level. You can spend more on average if you are flexible.
|
Yup. It's foolish to think there is a 100% success rate to any of this.
The end of the world won't care what your SWR is.
__________________
“No, not rich. I am a poor man with money, which is not the same thing"
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 05:40 PM
|
#9
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 275
|
OP, consider this. Suppose you get your first job ever, and you decide that you are going to spend exactly $X per year (inflation adjusted) for the rest of your life and you will stick to that spending regardless of what transpires financially.
Do you see how ridiculous that is?
Also if you make that initial once-only choice of $X so that you have 100% chance of never going broke, then you'll have to choose $X very low.
While working, you can adjust spending depending on circumstances, and it's the same with retirement.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 05:46 PM
|
#10
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 10,336
|
Really, retirement calculators are pretty much doomed to be garbage in and gospel out devices.
Question: How do we know that the designers of retirement calculators have a sense of humor? Answer: They use decimal points.
Why garbage? Because no one knows what will happen in the future. The past really does not predict the future to a degree where we can rely on it in any major way.
First and most importantly we do not know when we are going to die.
But if you want to obsess over methodology, take standard deviation for example. The economists have a lot of fun with standard deviation by ignoring the fact that the mathematics only applies to nice, neat, gaussian distributions. We know that stock prices distributions have long tails, are not centered on zero, and are not symmetric. This already blows statistical mathematics and classic Monte Carlo methods out of the water, but the big torpedo is that stock price samples are not independent. If they were, there would be no talk of "momentum," which is a well-observed phenomenon. So really we are left with heuristics, a fancy word for educated guesses, as @MRG points out. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic).
The fact that different calculators deliver different results is really a teaching moment pointing out the uncertainty of the process. IOW, the "S" in SWR is bogus. The good news, though, is that we are not robots who must select a WR and leave it unchanged. We can pick one and change it every few months as the future is revealed to us. If we don't have a lot of money, we can and should pick a conservative one. If we have more money, we can start with a larger WR and, again, adjust as the future is revealed. If we have time and interest we can fiddle with the various calculators along the way, of course, but to believe them is to not understand the problem.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 05:54 PM
|
#11
|
Dryer sheet aficionado
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
|
Thanks for all of the above comments. I realize there is no real answer to this frequently discussed topic. I does help me to see how others approach this issue.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 06:22 PM
|
#12
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 275
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchoparque
Thanks for all of the above comments. I realize there is no real answer to this frequently discussed topic. I does help me to see how others approach this issue.
|
Not so fast. Yes there are various uncertainties. But
understanding plus uncertainty
is massively better than
misunderstanding plus uncertainty.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 06:33 PM
|
#13
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,995
|
I had the same question and I asked my Vanguard rep about this last month. He said the monte carlo simulation includes some runs that are far worse than the worst case historical results used in Firecalc. So essentially they are planning for something even worse than the great depression, or the heavy inflation years that caused the 4% SWR to fail.
|
|
|
12-20-2017, 06:46 PM
|
#14
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 36,264
|
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Vanguard calculator with 40/60 AA, 36 years and 3.6% WR.... three runs...92% in each case.
Firecalc with same crietria....97.3%
Firecalc with Monte Carlo option and 7.8% mean portfolio return... 51.2%. 74.4%, 75.8%, 79.1%, 96.3%, 89.3%.
IMO, 3.6% is sufficiently conservative for a 63 yo. YMMV.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
|
|
|
Firecalc compared with Vanguard Retirement Nest Egg Calculator
12-20-2017, 07:00 PM
|
#15
|
Dryer sheet aficionado
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 48
|
Firecalc compared with Vanguard Retirement Nest Egg Calculator
Quote:
First and most importantly we do not know when we are going to die.
|
Just for fun -- On a stand-alone basis (for retirement planning) it would be convenient if we each knew the date of our death. But can you imagine what the world would look like if everyone had that information? To eliminate the prospect of mortality uncertainty and mortality hazard would vastly increase the risk of moral hazard. Big problem and probably mass, worldwide chaos.
|
|
|
12-21-2017, 12:01 AM
|
#16
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Newcastle, WA
Posts: 208
|
Is a 94.9% probability of success in Firecalc an okay result? I ran it out 30 years, to be conservative; but truly, my health is so bad I'd be stunned if I saw 80 or 85.
__________________
Don't just do something; stand there!
- Jack Bogle
|
|
|
12-21-2017, 04:42 AM
|
#17
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: warren
Posts: 935
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence of Suburbia
Is a 94.9% probability of success in Firecalc an okay result? I ran it out 30 years, to be conservative; but truly, my health is so bad I'd be stunned if I saw 80 or 85.
|
I certainly think so. Firecalc runs, what, 117 cycles? So that means that you would fail in only 7 of the worst scenarios in history. I like those odds.
|
|
|
12-21-2017, 05:29 AM
|
#18
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Flyover country
Posts: 25,198
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
|
Well, that has been calculated for the point of a pin here, so it's safe to assume it would be a much larger number for the head of the same pin.
__________________
I thought growing old would take longer.
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|