In a recent thread a number of us stated the base assumtions we use for inlflation and nominal returns in our deterministic plan.
In the past, Ive played with my plans sensitivity to inflation while holding real returns constant ( at 2.5%). I found that any change from my base assumption of 3% inflation and 5.5% returns hurt my plan.
Lower inflation hit my returns more thatn it improved my future expenses.
More inflation hit my expenses more than it helped my $ returns.
The plan didnt fall off a cliff- but it did take a modest hit.
I thought it was strange that my base assumption happened to hit this "optimal inflation level".
Obviously many details are involved in the puts/takes and every plan could react differently.
Has anyone else looked at this? What have you found?
In the past, Ive played with my plans sensitivity to inflation while holding real returns constant ( at 2.5%). I found that any change from my base assumption of 3% inflation and 5.5% returns hurt my plan.
Lower inflation hit my returns more thatn it improved my future expenses.
More inflation hit my expenses more than it helped my $ returns.
The plan didnt fall off a cliff- but it did take a modest hit.
I thought it was strange that my base assumption happened to hit this "optimal inflation level".
Obviously many details are involved in the puts/takes and every plan could react differently.
Has anyone else looked at this? What have you found?