Starting with the default scenario, I asked to delay retirement until 2024 (10 years from now), test for 40 years, and also requested a spreadsheet using 1970 as the starting year.
Here is the scenario
The spreadsheet confirmed a suspicion - that the inflation-adjusted annual spending ($30K) starts in the first year of the scenario even with delayed retirement. I would have thought in my test the spending would be zero from 1970 through 1979 inclusive, then the $30K spending inflation-adjusted forward by ten years would begin in 1980. The portfolio is getting smaller in those initial ten years when it should still be growing.
I see the same problem with the Bernicke spending model. Spending starts in year zero regardless of retirement delay, so by the time someone retires 10 years later the spending ist much smaller than intended.
Apologies for this example & long-ish explanation if I've completely misunderstood how firecalc is supposed to work. But it seems like a bug to me and it does affect me as I try to work out scenarios where I personally might retire a few years from now.
Here is the scenario
The spreadsheet confirmed a suspicion - that the inflation-adjusted annual spending ($30K) starts in the first year of the scenario even with delayed retirement. I would have thought in my test the spending would be zero from 1970 through 1979 inclusive, then the $30K spending inflation-adjusted forward by ten years would begin in 1980. The portfolio is getting smaller in those initial ten years when it should still be growing.
I see the same problem with the Bernicke spending model. Spending starts in year zero regardless of retirement delay, so by the time someone retires 10 years later the spending ist much smaller than intended.
Apologies for this example & long-ish explanation if I've completely misunderstood how firecalc is supposed to work. But it seems like a bug to me and it does affect me as I try to work out scenarios where I personally might retire a few years from now.