Firecalc success rate.
- Thread starter PJ03
- Start date
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
PJ03 said:
There is no right or wrong percentage, it's whatever you feel comfortable with. For me, it's the mid-90's or above.
Its interesting how it works, I was able to up the success rate to just above 95% just be reducing the expected yearly income by a little under 20%. Now the only thing that stops me from retiring is fear of the unknown.REWahoo! said:
retire@40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,670
PJ03 said:
You don't run any financial calculator with made up numbers just to get to the desired 95% rate.
You run the calculator with YOUR numbers to get to whatever rate those numbers generate. In your case, it looks like your rate is 71%.
You can look at what AMOUNT you can withdraw to equal a 95% SWR, but in your case that amount will only be enough for semi-retirement now if you can earn enough to cover the difference between that amount and the amount you need.
SteveR
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,811
Where is ***** when you need him?
HFWR
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
There's plenty of flatuance on this board with hosuc... :
The numbers were not "made up" I lowered the amount I would like to take out yearly to an amount that I can live on and still put away a little savings. it equals about 3.45% which I'm told is a very safe bet. My rate is 95.5%retire@40 said:
WHATS WITH THE CAP WORDS. Are you yelling at me ?
Ignore those guys talking about *****, a former poster.
I take it that you had about a 70% historical success rate when you were generous with your expense estimates. You increased the historical success rate to over 95% by reducing expenses to an amount you can live on, plus some padding. Nothing wrong with that.
I take it that you had about a 70% historical success rate when you were generous with your expense estimates. You increased the historical success rate to over 95% by reducing expenses to an amount you can live on, plus some padding. Nothing wrong with that.
SteveR
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,811
Rok said:
Glad you caught the humor in it. I have no use for him and have seen way too many of his long-winded posts to nowhere for me to even want any comments from him. The M* board and several other Retirement boards are still following his FIRCALC "discussions" with great vigor. Remember....it is all about market valuation.
C
Cut-Throat
Guest
retire@40 said:
You can use FireCalc to see what you are able to spend in Retirement (and in essence these are made-up numbers)
I might like to spend $300K per year in retirement, but FireCalc tells me to get 100% surviveability, I may need to pare it down to $75K.
As SWR said in another post. The biggest variable in retirement is Living Expenses. I could cut mine in half quite easily. If my portfolio returns are greater than 2% real over the next 20 years. I could spend more. Remember FireCalc gives you the worst case over the last 100+ years.
Sheryl
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,463
I've run FIRECalc about a hundred different ways. I've looked at every possible variation of how soon we each retire, how long we live, how much SS we will get, when we will sell a house, not to mention the obvious how much we have saved, and how much we want to spend.
They are all "made up" numbers that help to figure out what point we feel comfortable saying, "Go for it!"
They are all "made up" numbers that help to figure out what point we feel comfortable saying, "Go for it!"
He's over at M*'s Vanguard Diehards board and, reading what the other posters are saying to him, he desperately needs your help!SteveR said:
M*'s "Ignore Poster" feature is wonderful...
Martha, the expense estimates stayed about the same, I had plugged in a generous yearly payment that would allow me a nice slush fund which I really did not need. My thinking was to withdraw enough to live in plus be able to save 30% of it for other investments. I would need about five more years of working full time to get to that point.Martha said:Ignore those guys talking about *****, a former poster.
I take it that you had about a 70% historical success rate when you were generous with your expense estimates. You increased the historical success rate to over 95% by reducing expenses to an amount you can live on, plus some padding. Nothing wrong with that.
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
wstu32 said:
TIPS = Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
You can learn more about them here:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sec/seciis.htm
Gearhead Jim
Full time employment: Posting here.
Our own planning is based on a 100% SWR, which will still provide a very nice but not extravagent lifestyle. Since the calculator looks at history instead of the future, even 100% is not totally safe. But using the 100% rate decreases the odds that we will need to cut spending some time in the future.
Like most financial predictions, the only time you know for sure that you were sufficiently careful, is the day you die!
Like most financial predictions, the only time you know for sure that you were sufficiently careful, is the day you die!
