Setforlife
Registered User
- Messages
- 138
Coming from the engineering background, I don’t believe this is the approach that would be used in this case. We can and do use historical numbers all the time to estimate future requirements, eg 100 year storm wind figures to estimate shearing forces plus a large margin based on other factors. The large margin is where engineering (structural/civil) at least diverges from financial planning, as engineering worries about guarantee and say 99.99% will be ok, which isn’t probably reasonable in most financial plans. There is a long long way from 99% success to 99.99%An engineering friend of mine told me of a principle in engineering "You cannot add a more precise number to a less precise number." and I see accountants and financial planners doing that all the time.
Your earnings over the next 20 years, the rate of return on your investments, your health, are all less precise numbers.
This is the key point. A 59 year old might get some value out of it but a 46 year old will get very little guidance on decisions to make today.
Knowing that means I can consider trip-of-a-lifetime family holidays, private schooling for my kids, etc.
All you could get in broad terms is
1) You have loads of money so don't worry.
2) It will be about ok, so don't go too mad now and if you retire early you might get into real difficulty later.
3) It's going to be very tight to stop going on holidays and make your car last as long as possible.
None. I look at the profile and act according to that (within drawdown limits and my own spending plans)Let's suppose you are 59 and considering retiring. Your returns have been 9%p.a., but you consider the average/median return to be 7%. What action do you take regarding this extra 2%?
In order for an engineer to be told to make something, an accountant and/or an actuary will have been involved in the decision to proceed by using "less precise" numbers.An engineering friend of mine told me of a principle in engineering "You cannot add a more precise number to a less precise number." and I see accountants and financial planners doing that all the time.
It would at least give the numbers you used to get there. It can then further examine those numbers by figuring out what effect some of those actions will have.I really doubt that inputting the figures into Excel will help that much
Doubt if you will, but it is literally helping me right now.It's not an easy choice, but I really doubt that inputting the figures into Excel will help that much.
it is literally helping me right now.
Having my own model on AVCs, expected returns, and drawdown in retirement along with a net pay calculator (which includes my specific circumstances eg pension contributions and VHI) helps me develop and implement a plan to reach my targets.So what decisions have you made as a result that you would not have made had you not access to this software?
I'd suggest that if you're just maxing out your pension without a clear plan of what you want, when you want it, and how you're going to get it then you're basically just throwing your money in a hole
It shows also that the more I contribute the more likely i am to hit my target.
It also shows me that the last 5 years of Maxing AVCs make not much difference- there's not enough time for compounding.
having neither AVCs nor mortgage going out of my wages will allow me to comfortably work only 40 weeks of the year at 55.
Then there's the analyses of my investment options, median returns standard deviations etc which helped me choose my vehicle (decision Zero-Alpha?
Generally it’s the opposite of this, engineers don’t have much use for accountants or actuaries. Or indeed being ‘told to make things’In order for an engineer to be told to make something, an accountant and/or an actuary will have been involved in the decision to proceed by using "less precise" numbers.
not enough time for compounding assumes you were not going to leave a large part of funds in an ARF post retirement? If you are planning that then full tax relieved AVCs enjoying tax free compounding ongoing in your ARF would make quite the difference. Not sure how a model could show otherwise?It also shows me that the last 5 years of Maxing AVCs make not much difference- there's not enough time for compounding. But i can take more unpaid leave, basically enter semi-retirement at 55 rather than continue to pay into my pension fund. Decision 2, planned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?