It's really nice to see a simulator that removes the home country bias. So many of these types of simulations use American data. But that's pretty extreme cherry-picking: America has had a pretty exceptional run these last 100+ years. Any retirement simulator cannot assume that America's exceptional growth will continue. Maybe it will, but you cannot plan on a maybe.
I didn't want to put in my email address in order to access the detailed calculator... The quick check doesn't have nearly enough information to give anyone an idea of what actually to expect...
huh, yesterday I vibe coded a similar tool. It lets me set my current savings, investment, retirement. Expected yearly savings, expected number of years of work left. After retirement, only withdrawals are allowed (investments, savings still get returns tho)
Codex suggested a bunch of improvements: monte carlo, investment volatility, expense inflation, capital gains tax etc. One thing codex didn't ask about was social security. So that's another factor that could be improved.
I wanted to know 'do I really need to work 30 more years?'
What would be really interesting is discovering an attainable formula where my investments outpace my expenses. Or, what variables let me die with basically $0 in the bank
At the end, I realized I had no idea what the calculator was REALLY doing. So it could be right... it could be really wrong too. Having historical data might help solve those issues
Foresight Planner is not yet available in your region.
We're launching in Canada (excluding Quebec) first. We don't yet support Quebec, because we don't yet offer the product in French. If you'd like us to let you know when we expand, email hi@foresightplanner.com.
Foresight Planner n'est pas encore disponible dans votre région. Nous lançons d'abord au Canada (hors Québec). Pour être informé·e de l'élargissement de notre service, écrivez à hi@foresightplanner.com.
This doesn't know the important part. Will I live to 62 as the earliest of my ancestors died, or 98 as the latest? My family history is about average for lifespan but that is a big difference. If I live to 62 I should retire at 50 - or perhaps I shouldn't have bothered saving at all since the growth isn't there. Of medical advances make me love to 150 I should save until I'm 80 which will be a nice income to really enjoy the rest of my life.
I want more defined benefit accounts, but they are hard to find
For me no, but for a few thousand people it isn't to hard. Which is why I look for defined benefit plans that are not scams, and in frustrated that I can't fibd them
Why not let people try it from abroad? Not in the USA? No luck.
Why does the withdrawal rate need to be a multiple of 0.5%?
It's curious that the highest chance was associated with the highest (100%) stock ratio.
I'm in NZ and it worked. It gave me US figures and numbers though. And I find there are existing FIRE calculators already out there that are tried and true.
You need it to dig deeper. I have a pension which I can get at 65.
I have options to collect social security. What if I draw my 401k first and wait until 72 to start as? Or I can get take as at 62 and the 401k grows more...
Edit point is you need an account to start asking those questions.
It's really nice to see a simulator that removes the home country bias. So many of these types of simulations use American data. But that's pretty extreme cherry-picking: America has had a pretty exceptional run these last 100+ years. Any retirement simulator cannot assume that America's exceptional growth will continue. Maybe it will, but you cannot plan on a maybe.
[dead]
I didn't want to put in my email address in order to access the detailed calculator... The quick check doesn't have nearly enough information to give anyone an idea of what actually to expect...
[dead]
huh, yesterday I vibe coded a similar tool. It lets me set my current savings, investment, retirement. Expected yearly savings, expected number of years of work left. After retirement, only withdrawals are allowed (investments, savings still get returns tho)
Codex suggested a bunch of improvements: monte carlo, investment volatility, expense inflation, capital gains tax etc. One thing codex didn't ask about was social security. So that's another factor that could be improved.
I wanted to know 'do I really need to work 30 more years?'
What would be really interesting is discovering an attainable formula where my investments outpace my expenses. Or, what variables let me die with basically $0 in the bank
At the end, I realized I had no idea what the calculator was REALLY doing. So it could be right... it could be really wrong too. Having historical data might help solve those issues
[dead]
Better be safe I guess:
Foresight Planner is not yet available in your region. We're launching in Canada (excluding Quebec) first. We don't yet support Quebec, because we don't yet offer the product in French. If you'd like us to let you know when we expand, email hi@foresightplanner.com.
Foresight Planner n'est pas encore disponible dans votre région. Nous lançons d'abord au Canada (hors Québec). Pour être informé·e de l'élargissement de notre service, écrivez à hi@foresightplanner.com.
Region: CA-QC
It's Bill 96 and Law 25. No French UI yet, so blocking beats being non compliant. It's near the top of the list.
This doesn't know the important part. Will I live to 62 as the earliest of my ancestors died, or 98 as the latest? My family history is about average for lifespan but that is a big difference. If I live to 62 I should retire at 50 - or perhaps I shouldn't have bothered saving at all since the growth isn't there. Of medical advances make me love to 150 I should save until I'm 80 which will be a nice income to really enjoy the rest of my life.
I want more defined benefit accounts, but they are hard to find
So the thing is that no one knows that part.
For me no, but for a few thousand people it isn't to hard. Which is why I look for defined benefit plans that are not scams, and in frustrated that I can't fibd them
Can't we just get AI to tell us? I'm sure it will confidently give an answer.
[dead]
Why not let people try it from abroad? Not in the USA? No luck. Why does the withdrawal rate need to be a multiple of 0.5%? It's curious that the highest chance was associated with the highest (100%) stock ratio.
I'm in NZ and it worked. It gave me US figures and numbers though. And I find there are existing FIRE calculators already out there that are tried and true.
[flagged]
So its a monte carlo simulation but I can't enter growth rate country time horizons or anything like that?
Brother I have a better claude code vibe app than this in an hour
You need to really talk to a financial planner and learn what the proper inputs are
[dead]
Why do I need to sign into everything these days? The moment I see that I close the site.
You don’t need to for its quick check, which shows the core feature.
You need it to dig deeper. I have a pension which I can get at 65.
I have options to collect social security. What if I draw my 401k first and wait until 72 to start as? Or I can get take as at 62 and the 401k grows more...
Edit point is you need an account to start asking those questions.
[dead]
yeah, this is quite literally the first thing i saw when i opened the page.
[dead]
I got 82.4% regardless of whether I started with a portfolio value of $1M or $3M.
Something is wrong with the calculations/simulations.
If I can't trust the Quick Check, why would I trust anything else on the site?
That's because the withdrawals are 4%. If you have $3M, maybe lower the withdrawals to 1.25%. That would be the same as 4% of $1M.
I don't think that's accurate.
If I withdraw 4% of a $1M portfolio, I only have $960K left to compound.
If I withdraw 4% of a $3M portfolio, I should have $2.88M left to compound.
If the question is "Will your money last?" I would not expect the simulation results to be identical.
Edit: I failed here. Downvotes are right. I simulated it myself and saw the results. Leaving this comment here so others can learn from my mistake.
Same here
[dead]
[flagged]