Regular Assets not calculating correctly
I've entered my regular assets and they are showing up correctly on the "Inputs and Assumptions" page. However, on the net worth and Regular Assets reports (under "Suggestions") they are shown as being 28% lower. This is cascading into the total net worth calculation, resulting in a lower number than actual as well.
Tue, 08/30/2016 - 13:50
The inputs show beginning of year values (around January 1). The reports show end of year values (December 31).
For example, if you started Jan. 1 with $100,000 in regular assets, had a 5% return, had 3% inflation and spent down $20,000 in regular assets for consumption or special expenditures, you would see roughly $82,000 in the reports for year end values (note: real return calculations are slightly different).
Tue, 08/30/2016 - 18:17
Is there a way to step
Is there a way to step through this calculation? I don't see how the above could be anywhere close enough to the error (hundreds of thousands of dollars).
Here are the relevant figures I've been able to find. These are for the current year (2016):
Tue, 08/30/2016 - 15:39
Are you using "Upside Investing" as your planning method? From your comment, it looks like you are.
If so, the results make sense. I rarely use Upside Investing because of this. Try switching to Economics-Based Planning (Planning Method tab) and your results should make much more sense.
What's happening in Upside Investing is that your 35% or regular assets invested in stocks is assumed to go to $0 year 1 (2016). That is almost exactly your "gap" plus or minus normal spending, inflation, retirement contributions, returns, etc. Later in life the program shows your "upside".
You can read more about Upside Investing here: http://esplanner.com/sites/default/files/esp_help.pdf (pages 35-38) or in the "Learn More" videos.
If you really want to use Upside Investing, there are alternatives such as Monte Carlo customization that let you model large drops in assets in given years (e.g. what happens if you lose 50% of assets in 2020 and another 35% in 2028), but this requires some effort to set up. I've written about this approach in a MC post a while back.
You may want to edit out your specific figures if that matters to you.
Tue, 08/30/2016 - 18:47
Ah, ok! That answers it... I
Ah, ok! That answers it... I wasn't aware that it set the stock portion to zero in the first year but it makes perfect sense.
I really like the upside investing but I'll be sure to one of the other methods as well.