I've been using the Constant Spending Power tab for my calculations thinking this would be the Worst Case condition. I later tried the "% of remaining portfolio" tab just for fun. I got a result that was 35K less than from the CSP result. I was a bit surprised thinking I already had the worst Case condition covered. I started looking into it and I kept getting the same results regardless of whether I put in 95% or 35% for my minimum spending conditions. I saw a few threads suggesting certain settings, etc. but nothing seems to make sense.
I was considering the case for a portfolio value of $1 Meg, annual withdrawal of $84K/year for 30 years. I was using 95% for the minimum year-to-year minimum variation.
Does the % remaining portfolio model use all the variables that the CSP model uses or are there limitations between what each model processes.
This seems like such a simple thing to do yet I don't feel confident with the results I'm seeing.
Can anyone else suggest what I may be overlooking? Thanks.
I was considering the case for a portfolio value of $1 Meg, annual withdrawal of $84K/year for 30 years. I was using 95% for the minimum year-to-year minimum variation.
Does the % remaining portfolio model use all the variables that the CSP model uses or are there limitations between what each model processes.
This seems like such a simple thing to do yet I don't feel confident with the results I'm seeing.
Can anyone else suggest what I may be overlooking? Thanks.