Poll: Have you ever seen a more worthless online retirement savings calculator?

[SLC Tortfeasor]

This thing is so worthless it's funny. Check it out: http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/saveyoung/index.html

[Nords]

That's so bad it could make someone's "Best Of..." list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLC Tortfeasor This thing is so worthless it's funny.

If someone finds a calculator less useful than this one, please post the link here.

But hey, the journalist made their deadline. And the calculator's data-entry requirements fit neatly with their target reader's attention span...

[justin]

I better get spending. I put in my approximate info - age 25, make $60k/yr, savings of $260,000. My required savings rate is -4.3% and I need to save $-2,580 every year. How many surfboards does that buy, Nords?

Too bad I plan on hanging it up before age 65 like the calc assumes!

[jIMOh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin I better get spending. I put in my approximate info - age 25, make $60k/yr, savings of $260,000. My required savings rate is -4.3% and I need to save $-2,580 every year. How many surfboards does that buy, Nords? Too bad I plan on hanging it up before age 65 like the calc assumes!

What this means is you have enough saved to replace 80% of your income at age 65.

I actually found this to be simple and helpful. Obviously catered to people which need to know what % of there income they need to set aside.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin My required savings rate is -4.3% and I need to save $-2,580 every year. How many surfboards does that buy, Nords?

A half-dozen used boards or one really really nice one!

[unclemick]

I used age 60 and got -45k and -113% or so.

So much for being a cheap(but slap happy) bastard the first 13 years of ER (1993-2006).

I guess maybe Dillard's instead of Salvation Army for my spring/summer wardrobe?

Or even better - Cabellas!

I suspect the rules change once you are in ER - staying healthy long enough to bogey carries more weight.

heh heh 8).

[Meadbh]

It says I should save -$61,080 per year. I think it's suggesting that I retire at a SWR of 3%.

Yup, it's useless!

[2B]

I agree it's worthless but I don't know if it is a reflection of the calculator from the Journal of Financial Planning article that the original article referenced.

[DRiP Guy]

Pretty bad.

[RedHawk]

Quote:

If someone finds a calculator less useful than this one, please post the link here.

I think I might have succeeded, even though I didn't have too look too hard. I only clicked on a link next to the results of the first one.

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/retireyoung/index.html

[SLC Tortfeasor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjpatt I think I might have succeeded, even though I didn't have too look too hard. I only clicked on a link next to the results of the first one. http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/retireyoung/index.html

Ding ding ding!!! Congratulations! This calculator does indeed seem to be even more worthless, in my estimation.

My lord.

[jIMOh]

I actually like both calculators.

The first is a "checkpoint" to save for regular retirement
The second is a checkpoint to see if you have enough saved already.

Keep in mind around 75% of the population will have a normal retirement, and getting checkpoints along the way to reassure a person is doing enough is more important than early retirement.

I meet all checkpoints for regular retirement (age 34, saved 135k thus far), but fall well short of ER on Firecalc.

Add to this firecalc does not provide "check points" for ER... meaning what should I have saved by age 40, if I want to retire at 45? 50? 55? 60? 65? 68? These checkpoints tell me what my allocation needs to be, possibly increase my savings rate and many other retirement decisions are based on these checkpoints.

[W2R]

The results I got from this calculator suggest that at age 65, I could get by with a 20% SWR.

YEAH, RIGHT!!! Try to live to 95 on that!

[LKH]

Sadly, I have seen worse.

Fortunately, there are better ones, like the one at quicken.com.

L

[sgeeeee]

It seemed to work. I put in my age, my nearly-zero income and my current portfolio value and it told me the amount of negative savings I needed to retire -- which is an amount pretty close to the 4% rule.

[livnlow]

I tried both calculators. One told me I needed $90,000.00 more saved than I currently have, and the other told me I needed to reduce my retirement contributions by 67%. I think rjpatts example is worse. It doesn't even take into consideration how much I currently put away.

[bssc]

I found the one funny in that 25 and 30 year olds can only make up to $80K a year but 45 year olds can make up to 120K. Must be some new fairness law.