Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
(For the standard 30 year period, which obviously is way too short for extreme early retirement.)
They must have added the last two decades of the 21st century.
For a 60 year period, SWR=4% now results in 17.2% failures.
They must have added the last two decades of the 21st century.
For a 60 year period, SWR=4% now results in 17.2% failures.
-
- Posts: 1613
- Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:20 am
- Location: Earth
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
What was the failure rate previously @ 30 years?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
IIRC it was 0%
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
The last two decades of the 21st century? Is that 2080 and 2090? Are small cap stocks still the place to be
I take it your lesson is still: Learn to invest, learn to think for yourself, and be flexible?
I take it your lesson is still: Learn to invest, learn to think for yourself, and be flexible?
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
maybe "latest two decades"
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
@jacob - At first I thought it was the 0.18% expense ratio, but the Wayback Machine confirms that Firecalc has always used the same default assumptions: 750k portfolio, 30k annual spend, 30 years, 75/25 portfolio, 0.18% ER. Reading some PF forums shows that the failure rate has consistently hovered around 5% in recent history:
October 2006: 6 of 106 cycles failed (5.6% failure rate, inferred)
July 2012: 6 of 111 cycles failed (5.4% failure rate)
October 2015: 6 of 115 cycles failed (5.2% failure rate)
June 2018: 6 of 117 cycles failed (5.1% failure rate)
October 2006: 6 of 106 cycles failed (5.6% failure rate, inferred)
July 2012: 6 of 111 cycles failed (5.4% failure rate)
October 2015: 6 of 115 cycles failed (5.2% failure rate)
June 2018: 6 of 117 cycles failed (5.1% failure rate)
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
@Fish - Thanks! Then I recalled incorrectly; probably because I've mostly run it with 3% WR at 60 years.
So a better title would be: Firecalc has shown a ~5% failure rate for the 4% rule since 2006.
So a better title would be: Firecalc has shown a ~5% failure rate for the 4% rule since 2006.
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
It looks like cFireSim is reporting close to the same 5% result too.
As part of my own due diligence I look for an alternate tool in these types of data heavy simulations to see if they produce similar output. In this case the results look substantially the same in both tools.
Other tools that do things like MVO and NPV can produce significantly different outputs when there is only minor changes to inputs and these monte carlo/historical-driven-simulation models are no different. A couple of bad recessions in a row can mean you need to save for a few more years to be safe.
I've always thought 3.5% was closer to the safe mark because that's around where the SWR is , historically, for a cap weighted world portfolio which is what I lean towards.
As part of my own due diligence I look for an alternate tool in these types of data heavy simulations to see if they produce similar output. In this case the results look substantially the same in both tools.
Other tools that do things like MVO and NPV can produce significantly different outputs when there is only minor changes to inputs and these monte carlo/historical-driven-simulation models are no different. A couple of bad recessions in a row can mean you need to save for a few more years to be safe.
I've always thought 3.5% was closer to the safe mark because that's around where the SWR is , historically, for a cap weighted world portfolio which is what I lean towards.
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
It is very interesting that 3% SWR results in 0% failure rate over both 30 and 60 year period (and over longer periods as well, however much less data is available for longer periods). Seems like 3% is the "magic number" - at least empirically speaking, to a degree that one exists.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
One does exist. ~3% has been the real rate of economic return in various civilizations over thousands of years. See e.g. Homer's History of Interest Rates.
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
Yes but it's a good robustness check to see if you can get by without ever having to do a lick of paid work again. Part of ERE is using other types of capital to diversify away from the pure financial approach. The most commonly cited pure financial approach to FIRE is, IMHO, Save 50+% of your earnings until you have 25x your annual expenses saved and invested in a total market stock index fund (maybe throw some bonds in there too, but mostly stock index funds) then 'retire' and withdraw 4% adjusted for inflation each year until death.In an ERE mindset you might develop better skills at living in more affordable places, get better at procuring food and get good at transporting yourself around inexpensively. You do this in a state of contentment because all your goals are linked in a robust web so that they are self reinforcing and your retirement isn't destroyed by some unexpected calamity. Maybe you make some money on the side doing something you would have enjoyed doing anyways, it's probably hard not to given all the free time.
-
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
That's pretty close to what I'm interested in doing, get to the 4% then switch to trying some things that pay much less, but teach me useful skills such as trying to find a carpenter that will take on an apprentice.
This way I could improve a useful skills(carpentry) while at the same time getting paid enough to cover bills and allowing time for my stash to grow closer towards a 3% SWR.
This is just one example of something one could do that could be interesting and useful to learn and getting paid to do it.
This way I could improve a useful skills(carpentry) while at the same time getting paid enough to cover bills and allowing time for my stash to grow closer towards a 3% SWR.
This is just one example of something one could do that could be interesting and useful to learn and getting paid to do it.
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
Augustus, I think you'll find it takes surprisingly little effort and time to go from 4% to 3%. As an example:
-You want $40,000 a year income
-You have $1,000,000 saved up, so you've satisfied your 4%
-You'll need $1,333,333 to reach 3%
If your investments grew by 8%/yr you'd be there within 3.5 years, not including your own contributions which would likely push it to less than three years. You could also quit your regular job at that point and work a job you LOVE which pays the basics while your nest egg builds up. Lots of options, but none of them require significant effort and time.
I'll gladly do a job for 3 years extra if it means I'm EXTRAORDINARILY safe in my withdrawals. But if you hate your job, maybe not. If that's the case, I'd find a job you don't hate - life's too short to do work that sucks!
Re: Firecalc now shows a 5.1% failure rate for the 4% rule
That's been the case for the past 10 or so years - a very long bull market. I promise you if you're taking 4% a year out, especially a decade into a bull market, there will be many years your assets will decrease. Not necessarily spelling doom, but decreases are normally more common than they have been recently.