Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
This is again the classic example of a 65 yo retiree with a $1MM portfolio (and no other income sources) planning to follow the 4% SWR methodology.
When I run FIRECALC and get a 94.6% probability of success, that sounds really good - and it is [There's no such thing as 100% probability of success WRT retirement plans to begin with, just statistics]. And I look at the lines on the chart and see that most of them never drop below zero, that looks really good. But for me at least, taking that worst case that does not fail (95% success threshold) and looking at the actual withdrawals year by year is easier for me to relate to - the last column. Presumably none of us would blindly continue with the 4% SWR methodology over the course of this real scenario (I know I couldn't), but it's interesting to me that had you done so, you never would have run short of funds until the well into the last year (of course you'd have to die on schedule)!
And it's interesting to think about where on would lose his/her nerve, undoubtedly it would vary considerably.
Not making a point or looking for a debate. I do this for my own curiousity, assuming others may enjoy the mental exercise...numbers is hard.
When I run FIRECALC and get a 94.6% probability of success, that sounds really good - and it is [There's no such thing as 100% probability of success WRT retirement plans to begin with, just statistics]. And I look at the lines on the chart and see that most of them never drop below zero, that looks really good. But for me at least, taking that worst case that does not fail (95% success threshold) and looking at the actual withdrawals year by year is easier for me to relate to - the last column. Presumably none of us would blindly continue with the 4% SWR methodology over the course of this real scenario (I know I couldn't), but it's interesting to me that had you done so, you never would have run short of funds until the well into the last year (of course you'd have to die on schedule)!
And it's interesting to think about where on would lose his/her nerve, undoubtedly it would vary considerably.
Not making a point or looking for a debate. I do this for my own curiousity, assuming others may enjoy the mental exercise...numbers is hard.
Age | Portfolio $ Worst Non-Failure (1906) | Annual Income (w 3% Inflation) | SWR Worst Non-Failure (1906) |
65 | $1,000,000 | $40,000 | 4.0% |
66 | $966,598 | $41,200 | 4.3% |
67 | $765,346 | $42,436 | 5.5% |
68 | $938,009 | $43,709 | 4.7% |
69 | $1,002,902 | $45,020 | 4.5% |
70 | $940,813 | $46,371 | 4.9% |
71 | $928,227 | $47,762 | 5.1% |
72 | $936,350 | $49,195 | 5.3% |
73 | $865,240 | $50,671 | 5.9% |
74 | $794,262 | $52,191 | 6.6% |
75 | $921,087 | $53,757 | 5.8% |
76 | $920,366 | $55,369 | 6.0% |
77 | $742,218 | $57,030 | 7.7% |
78 | $761,788 | $58,741 | 7.7% |
79 | $775,932 | $60,504 | 7.8% |
80 | $624,182 | $62,319 | 10.0% |
81 | $590,219 | $64,188 | 10.9% |
82 | $623,613 | $66,114 | 10.6% |
83 | $566,990 | $68,097 | 12.0% |
84 | $583,230 | $70,140 | 12.0% |
85 | $595,216 | $72,244 | 12.1% |
86 | $557,547 | $74,412 | 13.3% |
87 | $607,283 | $76,644 | 12.6% |
88 | $712,250 | $78,943 | 11.1% |
89 | $592,492 | $81,312 | 13.7% |
90 | $435,821 | $83,751 | 19.2% |
91 | $254,883 | $86,264 | 33.8% |
92 | $188,114 | $88,852 | 47.2% |
93 | $178,973 | $91,517 | 51.1% |
94 | $108,585 | $94,263 | 86.8% |
95 | $60,993 | $97,090 | 159.2% |
Last edited: