Firecalc accuracy and future.

Interesting discussion.

Still, it won't affect me very much. Except for Wellesley, my only fixed income asset will be SS. I think there are a few others here with a similar FI AA (including the Kaderlis, IIRC).
 
If we look at the methodology of FIRECalc, Raddr, Trinity studies, and suspect most Monte Carlo, prospect for a Y2K retire look really grim. But if you look at what NW and Lsbcal did not nearly so bad.

Perhaps just as importantly if you look at my portfolio, or another 2000 retiree like MichealB (I am guessing about his portfolio) the situation is considerably better.

I sort of hate to see people anxious to retire, hit their number and then convince themselves that 4% isn't safe when it maybe be even more safe than we realize cause the calculators have flaws.

In our case the positive divergence from the Y2K retiree was the result of large allocations to emerging markets and small cap int'l equities, which rose in value while the S&P declined.

This is a useful exercize and I hope we can keep it going. I don't see this as a flaw, more like an incomplete aspect, but still important for those of us using it to model portfolio behaviour.
 
I did very well from 2000 until now, but then I was having part-time income which roughly covered my expenses. I did not keep good records, so there might have been some net savings, but they should be minimal compared to the portfolio and also net worth growth.

All of that was done with no help from bonds, which had exceptional performance. I never had more than 7-8% in bonds, and mainly just traded between cash and stocks. I do have a bit in I-bonds, but these are more like cash or CDs than traditional bonds, of course. I just started to study bonds recently.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what level of support FIRECalc gets. Just a quick browse of this "FIRECalc support" section did not turn up anything recent for me.

Is FIRECalc just on minimal support?

I think this thread should focus on FIRECalc accuracy and future. It would be nice if we could hear from someone responsible for support.
 
Last edited:
To expand on clifp's points-

I always include 1928 (or earlier) as start year in running any Monte Carlo scenario to include Black Swan event (29 Crash). IMHO- All FIRE's should include at least 1 BS in their projections.

When DW & I had extensive FP done by our FA about 18mo ago the advice we took was to scale back our planned 'safe' SWR from traditional 4% to 3-3.5%. FA's logic was/is that although the 4% SWR will usu be OK under most future projections, the statistical chance of failure going forward appears to be increased due to record low bond yields (e.g, <25 10yr Treasuries). That, along with the uncertainty of economic effects of unwinding QE, makes me sleep better at lower SWR. And if I'm wrong, well having too much $$$ to spend later ain't such a bag prob to have ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom