I'm a year into retirement at 59 years old and stumbled onto the TPAW model. What an amazing tool! Thank you Mr. Mathew. I have two questions for the board. I entered my information, and the output reflects a net present value consisting of 75% income during retirement, and 25% current portfolio balance. I'm trying to understand my "true" asset allocation. Would it be safe to say that if based on my NPV and selected inputs the model asset allocation of say, 55%, would be an actual asset allocation of 55% of 25% or 13.75%? If so, that seems very risk averse. I'm wondering why I wouldn't select a plan that indicates 100% AA if the true AA would be 25%, which is still very conservative?
I created two models with all the same inputs except for changing the risk tolerance and spending tilt to result in similar 5th and 50th percentile spending rate through my lifetime, one with a current recommended AA of 55% and the other recommended AA is 100%. The difference is the 100% AA plan results in a much higher 95th percentile spending rate. So the 100% AA plan provides a chance of either an increasing monthly spending rate and/or the possibility of a much larger stash as time goes on. I am wary of SORR, but based on these two models, it would appear that I'd end up in a similar position either way even if the market does poorly over the next few years. The downside of both plans is the same, but the upside of the 100% plan is significantly better. Something about this just doesn't seem logical or intuitive- am I missing something?
I created two models with all the same inputs except for changing the risk tolerance and spending tilt to result in similar 5th and 50th percentile spending rate through my lifetime, one with a current recommended AA of 55% and the other recommended AA is 100%. The difference is the 100% AA plan results in a much higher 95th percentile spending rate. So the 100% AA plan provides a chance of either an increasing monthly spending rate and/or the possibility of a much larger stash as time goes on. I am wary of SORR, but based on these two models, it would appear that I'd end up in a similar position either way even if the market does poorly over the next few years. The downside of both plans is the same, but the upside of the 100% plan is significantly better. Something about this just doesn't seem logical or intuitive- am I missing something?
Statistics: Posted by ballhawker65 — Mon Nov 10, 2025 10:13 pm — Replies 1803 — Views 604528