Using FireCalc after retirement

[ERD50]

The bolded part is not really right, although it might not matter.

1929 is historically the worst 30-year sequence in the last 100 years. If the OP did a FireCalc run of $1mm starting value and it passed 100%, then we know the 1929 sequence succeeded with a starting value of $1mm. If the OP now wants to test his remaining 29 of retirement after 1 year of retirement, his starting value for FireCalc is whatever his actual assets are at the end of his first year of retirement (let's call that X), so he puts that in to FireCalc and it runs all 29-year sequences with that starting value. But the 30-year sequence stating in 1928 with a starting value of $1mm (the original run) is not equivalent to a 29-year sequence starting in 1929 with a starting value of X, unless the performance for 1928 is exactly equal to the performance of his actual first year of retirement. ... .

Of course, why even consider anything else?

How the heck are we supposed to consider the data reporting of FIRECalc, if we throw in scenarios that don't exist ( a 1928 performance different than what was reported for 1928)? It's a historical look back, nothing else.

It's like saying , 'hey, if 3.3% is 100% historically safe, and I spend 5%, I don't get a result equivalent to taking 3.3%'. That's obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
1929 is historically the worst 30-year sequence in the last 100 years.

No, it's not. 1966 is worse. As are several pre-1920 starting sequences.

Inflation matters.

Yes, 1929 might have been the largest % market drop, but it wasn't the worst 30 years for a retiree. The years following the 1929 crash had deflation, which softened the blow somewhat. 1966 got hit with some stagnation and a long period of high inflation.

-ERD50