Revisiting Firecalc?

[pb4uski]

You need to login in order to see the Investigate tab. ...

I'm not sure about that. While I am a supporter I wasn't logged in... said "Login/What's this?" rather than "Update email/password/Logout"... and I could still see and use it.

 

[braumeister]

Still not making sense. Firefox 106.0.5 (64 bit) logged in or not, no Investigate Tab. Chrome, not logged in, has the investigate tab.

I just checked with that version of Firefox and the Investigate tab is there.

 

[COcheesehead]

You need to login in order to see the Investigate tab. Creating a login (IIRC) requires a small donation.

No, it’s there without a donation.

 

[bada bing]

This thread prompted me to revisit firecalc. I'm retired now 2 years and I don't think I've looked since pulling the plug. 2 years in, it's a "good news and bad news" situation for me. I'm still 100% at $100K/yr, but my 95% success spend declined from $131K/yr to $116K/yr. And of course $100K today has diminished in buying power more than I would have guessed. It has been a poor market environment this year to be a recent retiree.

Not concerning me much though. So far, I've overestimated my "happy" retirement spending needs. And like everyone else here, I left out some assets from the calculation.

I'll probably revisit firecalc again in a couple years, especially if there's a thread here reminding me.

 

[mrfeh]

Let's start off by saying that, like the 4% "rule", most of us here use FireCalc as a guide more than a firm set of 'down to the dollar' results.

So, back 17 years ago when I first RE'd, I stumbled upon FireCalc, ran my portfolio balance with an age 95 end point. I've tried, succeeded and often failed to stay close to the guidelines, some years better than others.

I've often played with FC along the way more of a distraction than trying to update my results.

Now, at age 70 my portfolio is double what it was and I'm 17 years closer to my age 95 end point than I was back then.

Is there any value in re-evaluating FC's results with new inputs? Do the original results still hold?

At this point, I know it really doesn't matter but more interested from an academic standpoint.

You may want to look at this:

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Variable_percentage_withdrawal

Given you are 17 years into your plan, I would be very comfortable with increasing my withdrawal rate.

 

[camfused]

Yes, but the issue is that the portfolio has doubled and the timeline in which to spend it has shrunk.

Obviously, one uses one's current portfolio value and current number of years "remaining" to get a valid run. Like I said, you could run it when you have 30 years to go, or just 5, and it is still useful historical info, since it does not matter (to the tool) how you got where you are today...just where you are going from here.

 

[ERD50]

I was looking to play around with the investigate option yesterday. I can't find it anymore. Is it still an option?

Try clearing the cache in your browser for that URL. I've seen some weird behavior with corrupt/old cache.

Very occasionally, I've had the Investigate tab just not respond, like everything was super slow. Cleared up at some point.

-ERD50

 

[Rustic23]

I rerun FC, but change the number of years to cover. I now run it on a larger amount for a shorter time.

 

[Sunset]

....

Now, at age 70 my portfolio is double what it was and I'm 17 years closer to my age 95 end point than I was back then.

Is there any value in re-evaluating FC's results with new inputs? Do the original results still hold?

....

I think it's valid to rerun it, as you could be retiring today.

However, I would set my goal to be 100% success, then consider increasing spending based on what it says.

 

[bltkmt]

I rerun FC, but change the number of years to cover. I now run it on a larger amount for a shorter time.

What age do you use for the end date?

 

[camfused]

^^^ I always use 100, in case I screw up and actually live that long

 

[Dtail]

What age do you use for the end date?

I use 95 and do adjust down the remaining years by one each year.

 

[Midpack]

Keep in mind that 95% success in Firecalc is based on the 4% WR guidance.
This 4% guidance failure has not been tested severely since one who retired in 1966, so all good for now.

Not exactly. FIRECALC uses residuals from actual 30 year periods (or whatever the user chooses), and is updated every year with new data, so the 95% SWR can change slowly. Even today, it works out to 95.1% and a 4.04% WR.

 

[Rianne]

Will FIREcalc update using the 2022 market including the interest rates and inflation?

 

[braumeister]

FIRECalc is normally updated every Spring, when the prior year's numbers are available.

 

[Dtail]

Not exactly. FIRECALC uses residuals from actual 30 year periods (or whatever the user chooses), and is updated every year with new data, so the 95% SWR can change slowly. Even today, it works out to 95.1% and a 4.04% WR.

You missed my point, which was generic. I know how Firecalc works.
Are you sure it isn't 4.05% now and not 4.04%?

 

[braumeister]

I use 95 and do adjust down the remaining years by one each year.

Statistics say that the longer you live, the longer you're likely to live.

Until, of course, you stop.

 

[camfused]

Statistics say that the longer you live, the longer you're likely to live.



Until, of course, you stop.

52.8% of statistics are made up [emoji12]

 

[Gumby]

^^^ I always use 100, in case I screw up and actually live that long

I actually plan for 104, which is when I expect to be shot by a jealous 26 year old husband when he finds his young wife in my bed.

 

[oldtimer]

52.8% of statistics are made up [emoji12]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

 

[Dtail]

Statistics say that the longer you live, the longer you're likely to live.

Until, of course, you stop.

Yes that actually is true. If I reach 90, perhaps I will adjust upwards.

 

[TheWizard]

Everyone wants to retire wealthy! Does anyone else have this opportunity or is it still to come?

We all have this opportunity.
Those of us who planned ahead from start of employment in their 20s are often in excellent financial shape when it comes to retirement, early or otherwise...

 

[razztazz]

^^^ I always use 100, in case I screw up and actually live that long

There is nothing but wisdom behind this. I've done some work on re-adjusting my expectations since the heart attack. Then I remembered my mother had a very serious HA and triple bypass at 70. She also had several other serious medical conditions like diabetes since I was in high school. She died a few years ago at 88. Maybe I'm not the short timer it might appear ...?

I have jury duty in December and my concern is the never-popular COVID. I have strenuously avoided being in closed rooms with lots of people since the heart attack but (unless they simply don't call my number) I can't get out of this one. So, if you don't hear from me after about Christmas, have a nice 2023.