FireCalc Dips in Net Worth - Anyone Scared?

[audreyh1]

You are 100% correct - nothing is guaranteed. My viewpoint is, since so little is guaranteed, I want to at least have some assurance that my portfolio won't drop in half. So, if other bad things happen, at least I won't have that worry on top of it.

What seems 'prudent' to some, seems like 'needless worry' to others. As I said before, find your own comfort level, but I will recommend that you run FireCalc and look at those portfolio dips (NOT just the end balance), and decide if that is really something you could be comfortable with.

-ERD50

Well, that is why the fishing guy (what was his handle?) often recommended having 2x your real needs as your retirement fund. Take your absolute bare-bones, no frills, living expenses, and double that to be your "plenty of padding" living expenses. So, I suppose that in this scenario, you could claim that this was a 2% withdrawal rate, but IMO it's more like you live at 4%, and only cut back to bare-bones when the portfolio shrinks appreciably.

I think most of us who have retired, have made sure there is plenty of padding. So perhaps this is more of a language argument than an implementation argument. The main (but crucial) difference being whether one starts out at a super low withdrawal rate, or whether one cuts back drastically only when needed.

I'm sure the fact that I've been retired since 1999, and at present my retirement portfolio is 67% higher than when I started makes me quite a bit more sanguine about the future as I've been able to "get ahead" in the timeline scenario. In other words, my portfolio being cut in half would now mean only down 16.5% from where I started. I also know that I can cut way back if necessary, but I won't do it unless is IS necessary.

Audrey

 

[donheff]

As it is, my actual 95% "success historically proven" budget is 50% above my minimum (but still nice) cost of living. Lots of travel is the only difference. That's easy to cut out if necessary.

Me too. Travel is a huge budget item. We can cut way back if things get bad and we already have invites to SteveR and Goonie's RVs in CFW's campground.

I think you are missing the point. No, I'll re-phrase that - you ARE missing the point. It is not fear of an unknown future, but the reality of a known past.

FireCalc shows that a 4% withdraw rate can leave you with just 27% of your portfolio after just 15 years.

Yeah, yeah, we all know a 4% WR with inflation adjustments could cause that! But it is just a potential run on a graph. No one in their right mind would keep raising the ante in the face of a continuing decline. Lets face it, if past is not prologue, a 2% WR could go bust. Hold off ER until you have a little leeway in spending and then quit worrying.

I don't think the solution to all of this angst has been mentioned yet: annuities!

Annuities get trashed pretty often around here but with all of these 2% worry warts, I don't know why. I am surprised we don't have more people converting half of their portfolio to a Vanguard inflation protected annuity. That half would give you pretty close to the 2% you would pull out of the total portfolio. Then you could safely go 4% on the other half since your basics are covered. You would have a nice standard of living and a g0od likelihood of leaving an estate. There are reasons for the Brits to require people to take annuities with retirement funds.

Wait until the market comes back up and buy one. Then you can quit worrying next time we have a correction.

 

[donheff]

A low cost annunity replacing some percentage of your portfolio will dampen total portfolio value swings at the expense of guaranteeing a lower terminal amount.

True in a good market, but not necessarily in a bad market. I think some of the studies indicate that partial annuitization increases the likelihood of portfolio survival if spending remains equal under both approaches.

 

[2B]

Annuities get trashed pretty often around here but with all of these 2% worry warts, I don't know why. I am surprised we don't have more people converting half of their portfolio to a Vanguard inflation protected annuity. That half would give you pretty close to the 2% you would pull out of the total portfolio. Then you could safely go 4% on the other half since your basics are covered. You would have a nice standard of living and a g0od likelihood of leaving an estate. There are reasons for the Brits to require people to take annuities with retirement funds.

Wait until the market comes back up and buy one. Then you can quit worrying next time we have a correction.

I'm the self-proclaimed anti-annuity troll and even I would buy one if...

• they weren't so stacked in the insurance company's favor meaning you'd have to live at least 10 years past your actuarial mortality to breakeven.
• instead of market risk you are risking the future credit worthiness of which ever company holds your contract. They can and are sold and based on what I've seen in my life insurance it's always to a lower rated company. Also, in the event of a big market crash where do you think the insurance company is planning on getting the money to pay you?
• current interest rates weren't too low. Wait until the Fed has "fought inflation" for a decade or so and the interest rates that annuities are based on will be cyclically higher. Of course, high rates in the annuitization assumption makes a future failure more likely.

I do think inflation protected are the way to go. I've seeing the purchasing power of my pathetically miniscule pension evaporate before I can even get it. Buying a traditional immediate annuity will look pretty lame in 20 years. Of course, I'm sure the insurance company will make sure they are protected against runaway inflation at your expense.

 

[2B]

True in a good market, but not necessarily in a bad market. I think some of the studies indicate that partial annuitization increases the likelihood of portfolio survival if spending remains equal under both approaches.

So will increasing your percentage of fixed income if you can live with the declining purchasing power. The "advantage" of annuities is that they consume your principle up front in exchange for a promised payout for life. The insurance company bets you (in the aggregate) don't outlive your actuarial mortality table age. If you accept depleting principle and are willing to risk that you aren't one of the 5% that makes it 10 years past your expected life span, you'll have a greater amount of retirement spending available.

Annuity salesmen have also shown that buying variable annuities result in a higher spending rate in retirement.

 

[ERD50]

No one in their right mind would keep raising the ante in the face of a continuing decline.

Fine thing to say - but do some runs in FireCalc and report back. I think you will find that cutting spending significantly does not temper the dip all that much. It helps of course, and we all would do it, but it is no silver bullet based on a few quick runs that I did.

Annuities :

Wait until the market comes back up and buy one. Then you can quit worrying next time we have a correction.

Well, I won't say anything until I reference the FAQ: (what!!?? no Annuity FAQ? - OK, use the search function)

Yes, annuities can help address this situation. OF course, as discussed ad nauseam here, there are risks there also (issuer cannot pay). IMO, your idea is a reasonable approach, and to me it makes sense to wait until you are older, fewer years to worry about the issuer. Of course, by then it may be too late.

Where's that 'Easy Button'?

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

Yes, but a little caveat is in order. Tilting the AA too far towards fixed income starts to bring lower lows too - I'd assume due to high inflation periods.

Once you decide on some other factors, you can start running FireCalc with various AA and look for a range of historically optimum ratios. 50/50 looked pretty good for my case, but it was not a huge delta from 75/25.

Don't confuse survivability (go/no-go attribute data) with variation in intermediate or terminal values (variable data). There're interelated as we're using them here, but not the same.

Yes, excessive fixed investments in your AA will result in lower survivability but will generally reduce volatility.

IMO, survivability is more important than intermediate or terminal values as actually running out of money is much, much worse than coming close to running out of money. Our discussion here has really been great as it's serving as a clarification and reminder that even a portfolio destined to survive will likely exhibit significant variability over time. We need to be prepared to mentally cope with that.

That's the point of your original post, right?

 

[donheff]

So will increasing your percentage of fixed income if you can live with the declining purchasing power. The "advantage" of annuities is that they consume your principle up front in exchange for a promised payout for life. The insurance company bets you (in the aggregate) don't outlive your actuarial mortality table age. If you accept depleting principle and are willing to risk that you aren't one of the 5% that makes it 10 years past your expected life span, you'll have a greater amount of retirement spending available.

I am talking about inflation protected annuities - no decline in purchasing power, at least up to the limit of the inflation adjustment. I suspect more of these arrangements will be offered as the boomers start looking for new products. I have a Federal pension so I already have a cushion. But if I was flying completely on my own I would consider partial annuitization (of the VG inflation protected type) rather than limit myself to 2% WR.

I don't want to hijack this thread into an annuity thread -- we have been there before. So lets go back to FireCalc runs. Here is the bat aimed at myself for going this way

 

[Lsbcal]

...If low portfolio values disturb you, use the FireCalc option to call out a minumum portfolio value defining failure. You'll need a larger portfolio to support your desired WR, but you won't have to stomach scary dips below that amount.

I wasn't aware of this option, thanks. For others I guess we are talking about the "investigate" tab and the box for Leave some money in the portfolio for my estate. Setting this to some lower value of the current portfolio will tell you how many times you hit this minimum during the cycles (not just the end values).

 

[haha]

I don't think the solution to all of this angst has been mentioned yet: annuities!

Some people seem to have pension envy. Annuities!

The real reason we're all sticking with stocks and bonds is greed, right? We're basically betting that worst-case won't really happen to us.

Yes. And the strong desire to be sure no one is making money by selling us a product or service, no matter how helpful these might be.

"It's my money, all mine!"

Ha

 

[ERD50]

Don't confuse survivability (go/no-go attribute data) with variation in intermediate or terminal values (variable data). There're interelated as we're using them here, but not the same.

Yes, excessive fixed investments in your AA will result in lower survivability but will generally reduce volatility.

Right - I was looking at lower-lows in the intermediate values - but run them yourself, I was just doing some quick checks and it will vary with pensions, etc. For my situation, the dips got lower as I move more than 50% to fixed - I think inflation and lower average returns just starts eating into the portfolio more than the market eats into equities at that point. For me, 50-50 looked like the 'sweet spot' in terms of reducing the lows of the lows (which is likely different than total volatility).

... a clarification and reminder that even a portfolio destined to survive will likely exhibit significant variability over time. We need to be prepared to mentally cope with that.

That's the point of your original post, right?

Exactly. I had always focused on that end point, not running out. And I was actually pretty unaware of just how extreme the intermediate dips were, and how fast they could come. I know that I am pretty good at separating numbers and emotion, but a 2/3 to 3/4 dip (leaving you with just 1/3 to 1/4 of your portfolio)in 15 years hits me emotionally! No way around it, so I want to have a strategy to cope.

Since I had not been looking at it that way, I figured others were not either. So I thought it worthwhile to start the discussion. As I said in the original post, I think that showing that the portfolio could lose 73% of it's value in just 15 years, is more tangible than '95% success factor'.

At least it was to me, and I'm pretty comfortable with 'confidence factors' and 'a = .95'. I suspect those concepts are a bit more abstract to some others. But again, we are not really dealing with statistics here, we are dealing with historical data, so I trust the runs themselves more than confidence factors, standard deviations and so forth.

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

ERD50:

Thanks for starting this thread. It has been an illuminating discussion.

 

[youbet]

Right - I was looking at lower-lows in the intermediate values - but run them yourself, I was just doing some quick checks and it will vary with pensions, etc. For my situation, the dips got lower as I move more than 50% to fixed - I think inflation and lower average returns just starts eating into the portfolio more than the market eats into equities at that point. For me, 50-50 looked like the 'sweet spot' in terms of reducing the lows of the lows (which is likely different than total volatility).

Yeah...yeah.... I agree. But I was looking at it slightly differently. In my post I said that a highly conservative AA required a larger portfolio to achieve the same survival rate. So, I was increasing portfolio value to accomodate a high percentage of fixed, say 20/80, and maintaining the same survival rate,then looking at those outputs as variable data.

Exactly. I had always focused on that end point, not running out. And I was actually pretty unaware of just how extreme the intermediate dips were, and how fast they could come. I know that I am pretty good at separating numbers and emotion, but a 2/3 to 3/4 dip (leaving you with just 1/3 to 1/4 of your portfolio)in 15 years hits me emotionally! No way around it, so I want to have a strategy to cope.

Aren't you one of the guys who make their own beer? I think you've mentioned that. Isn't that an easy way to cope? And it would keep you involved in your hobby.

Since I had not been looking at it that way, I figured others were not either. So I thought it worthwhile to start the discussion.

It has been worthwhile. I've always looked at FireCalc output as a distribution of outcomes as opposed to a probability of success with success = not running out of money. I've sensed I've been nearly alone in this outlook and am delighted it's being brought up.

But again, we are not really dealing with statistics here, we are dealing with historical data, so I trust the runs themselves more than confidence factors, standard deviations and so forth.

Describing/analyzing historical data is called "descriptive statistics." We are really dealing with statistics here....... You must have meant to say we're not dealing with probablity theory here.

 

[twaddle]

I've always looked at FireCalc output as a distribution of outcomes as opposed to a probability of success with success = not running out of money.

For their next trick, I'm hoping somebody takes a look at the starting conditions for each period and discovers that the distribution of outcomes is dependent on those initial conditions.

Some variables might include dividend yield, interest rate, inflation, and P/E or P/B.....

 

[ERD50]

Yeah...yeah.... I agree. But I was looking at it slightly differently. In my post I said that a highly conservative AA required a larger portfolio to achieve the same survival rate.

OK, but a larger portfolio isn't in the cards for me at this point, since I already retired. Unless you were thinking of making a donation to the ERD50 retirement fund... nah, I didn't think so

Aren't you one of the guys who make their own beer? .... Isn't that an easy way to cope?

I actually made two batches this past week, 10 gallons fermenting away in the basement. Hmmm, so is my beer production inversely correlated to the market? What good are trailing indicators anyway?

It has been worthwhile. I've always looked at FireCalc output as a distribution of outcomes as opposed to a probability of success with success = not running out of money. I've sensed I've been nearly alone in this outlook and am delighted it's being brought up.

Everyone takes a slightly different view of things. For me, I was never satisfied with the 95% rate that so many seem OK with - I figured I should aim for 100% historic success rather than an historic 5% failure. There are plenty of other variables to whack us up side the head, I didn't want this to be one of them. But yes, once I saw 100% success, I didn't think too much about the ending figure - I 'made it', the rest was for my heirs/charities to worry about. So looking at these mid-term levels was an eye-opener for me.

Describing/analyzing historical data is called "descriptive statistics." We are really dealing with statistics here....... You must have meant to say we're not dealing with probablity theory here.

I see your point, but I think it depends. Since I'm ignoring the % success numbers, and just looking at the results and the Minimum value, that would just be basic math, right? If I start analyzing the mean, standard dev, etc - then yes, we would be in the realm of descriptive statistics. Though I guess we have thrown in some of that, too. Maybe just calculation a 'min' is enough to call it statistics - I don't know?

Time for a beer.

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

Maybe just calculation a 'min' is enough to call it statistics - I don't know?

Well, minimum is one half of range, a description of the disbursement of the data.

Time for a beer.

-ERD50

Sorry, I started without you! And yes, with over a foot of snow on the ground, I did grill salmon out on the patio earlier this evening! Sometimes ya just gotta forget about failure rates, investment outcomes and retiring into recessions and have a little fun!

 

[HFWR]

And yes, with over a foot of snow on the ground, I did grill salmon out on the patio earlier this evening! Sometimes ya just gotta forget about failure rates, investment outcomes and retiring into recessions and have a little fun!

GOD BLESS

 

[megacorp-firee]

Great thread. It really made me think (it hurts a bit, after being retired ... )
Random Thoughts as I read through this;
1) Firecalc should be used as one additional indicator (albeit a good one) , not as the gospel. IMO, there is a bit of religious zeal going on re: Firecalc
2) Everyone’s risk tolerance is different. Those on this forum seem to run from 1 to 10 (where 1 is very low and 10 is very high, or vice versa )
3) The risk tolerance level and what level of luxury you want to have in retirement, will determine how much of a multiple of the ‘bare necessities’ you require to comfortably retire and SLEEP AT NIGHT. For example, if you need $1000/month to cover your rent/mortgage, basic food, clothes, transportation, and insurance and taxes,
a) and if you have a very low risk tolerence and you want to travel extensively, say at a rate of $3000/month average (or substitute your favorite brand of luxury), then you may need to have a portfolio that throws off $6000/month for you to sleep at night ($2K buffer). This way if things go south on you, you can throttle back and still do some of the niceties of life AND sleep at night.
b) and if you have an average risk tolerance and the above applies, then you may want to have your portfolio throw off $5000/month ($1K buffer).
c) and if you are in a hurry to retire and are a high risk taker, then you could retire on $4000/mth ($0K buffer). This is what I think many assume is the case (ala this thread). IMO, it is not. This assumes everyone is at the same risk tolerance level (a big ASSUMPTION). Those that are category a or b pad their portfolios and yes (gasp!) delay their retirements (in some eyes)… I don’t look at it as delaying their retirements, it is called planning their retirements correctly and implementing their plans. Hence the difference in opinions and discussions on 2% vs. 4% swr
(or as I like to view it, the ‘Great Taste, … Less Filling’ argument).
These are just an example, your mileage may vary.

Everyone is right, … so take your pick of plan, and back to w*rk, you wage slaves …

 

[W2R]

No doubt that you will be better off in a lower withdrawal rate scenario. Yet one other thing that using 2% versus 4% guarantees is that you will need to continue working long enough to double your starting portfolio amount. Depending on the ratio of current contributions to internal portfolio growth and overall portfolio performance, that could mean 5 - 10 years of additional work. You have to weigh these lost years of your life against the need to feel more secure.

Perhaps in your individual case, that is what it "guarantees". You really can't assume that is true for everyone, or if everyone is running Firecalc to figure out how long they should work. Some are stuck working for other reasons such as waiting for lifetime medical to kick in. Firecalc is a great planning tool, even for those with more than just barely enough $$ to retire upon and lower risk tolerance than yours.

 

[W2R]

1) Firecalc should be used as one additional indicator (albeit a good one) , not as the gospel. IMO, there is a bit of religious zeal going on re: Firecalc

Amen! As a modeler (of something totally different), I think that often too much burden is put on Firecalc for any model to bear.

"All models are wrong; some models are useful" (G.E.P. Box, 1979).

 

[Gumby]

Perhaps in your individual case, that is what it "guarantees". You really can't assume that is true for everyone, or if everyone is running Firecalc to figure out how long they should work. Some are stuck working for other reasons such as waiting for lifetime medical to kick in. Firecalc is a great planning tool, even for those with more than just barely enough $$ to retire upon and lower risk tolerance than yours.

Excellent point. In my case, I am waiting for the young wife to complete sufficient years of service to become pension eligible, not shooting for a particular number. If my calculations are accurate, our withdrawal rate at that point should be only about 2.6%. with a good 40-50% of that number being fluff. I have also set social security to zero and not considered a reverse mortgage or downsizing of our house (which is twice the median value of houses in my town), so I am not advocating living on the edge by any means. The point of my posts has been that we will grow old and die waiting to be 100% secure. At some point, we need to say "I've planned conservatively enough, time to take the plunge. If things happen, I will adapt and survive."

 

[W2R]

Excellent point. In my case, I am waiting for the young wife to complete sufficient years of service to become pension eligible, not shooting for a particular number. If my calculations are accurate, our withdrawal rate at that point should be only about 2.6%. with a good 40-50% of that number being fluff. I have also set social security to zero and not considered a reverse mortgage or downsizing of our house (which is twice the median value of houses in my town), so I am not advocating living on the edge by any means. The point of my posts has been that we will grow old and die waiting to be 100% secure. At some point, we need to say "I've planned conservatively enough, time to take the plunge. If things happen, I will adapt and survive."

Oops! Sorry. I couldn't agree more that eventually one has to decide on a threshold and just pull the trigger. I guess I didn't get the context of your post. I need another cup of coffee this morning.

 

[Meadbh]

Great thread. It really made me think (it hurts a bit, after being retired ... )
Random Thoughts as I read through this;
1) Firecalc should be used as one additional indicator (albeit a good one) , not as the gospel. IMO, there is a bit of religious zeal going on re: Firecalc
2) Everyone’s risk tolerance is different. Those on this forum seem to run from 1 to 10 (where 1 is very low and 10 is very high, or vice versa )
3) The risk tolerance level and what level of luxury you want to have in retirement, will determine how much of a multiple of the ‘bare necessities’ you require to comfortably retire and SLEEP AT NIGHT. For example, if you need $1000/month to cover your rent/mortgage, basic food, clothes, transportation, and insurance and taxes,
a) and if you have a very low risk tolerence and you want to travel extensively, say at a rate of $3000/month average (or substitute your favorite brand of luxury), then you may need to have a portfolio that throws off $6000/month for you to sleep at night ($2K buffer). This way if things go south on you, you can throttle back and still do some of the niceties of life AND sleep at night.
b) and if you have an average risk tolerance and the above applies, then you may want to have your portfolio throw off $5000/month ($1K buffer).
c) and if you are in a hurry to retire and are a high risk taker, then you could retire on $4000/mth ($0K buffer). This is what I think many assume is the case (ala this thread). IMO, it is not. This assumes everyone is at the same risk tolerance level (a big ASSUMPTION). Those that are category a or b pad their portfolios and yes (gasp!) delay their retirements (in some eyes)… I don’t look at it as delaying their retirements, it is called planning their retirements correctly and implementing their plans. Hence the difference in opinions and discussions on 2% vs. 4% swr
(or as I like to view it, the ‘Great Taste, … Less Filling’ argument).
These are just an example, your mileage may vary.

Everyone is right, … so take your pick of plan, and back to w*rk, you wage slaves …

Great post, thank you, and great thread!

 

[Meadbh]

Amen! As a modeler (of something totally different), I think that often too much burden is put on Firecalc for any model to bear.

"All models are wrong; some models are useful" (G.E.P. Box, 1979).

Firecalc is a great deterministic simulator. It allows us to enter a whole cornucopia of inputs that we consider likely and simulates the financial outputs long term performance based on a rich database of historical scenarios. But ultimately it is a discrete event simulator. It can't think of absolutely everything, e.g. getting cold feet in 2011, moving to New Guinea, another Great Depression, or being discovered as a movie star at 70. For that, we would need stochastic models.

In other words, Firecalc is just a tool. YMMV.

 

[Spanky]

The point of my posts has been that we will grow old and die waiting to be 100% secure.

What is 100% secure? There is no absolute security or certainty (except death). One's entire fortune can be wiped out by a single event (e.g., a change in government or nuclear war). In other words, stop anticipating or planning for worst-case scenarios and get a good night sleep.