The error was mine (typo when modifying the spreadsheet to seek a retirement income of less than 100% of annual spending)
I'm using the Shiller data
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htmWith the correct formula and replacing only 50% of income, the results are similar.
With 50% equities, in no year would the portfolio grow to sufficient size by Age 65. With 75% equities, about 25% of the years do. With 100% equities, 7 out of 10 years do. I'm not sure what percentage of members of the 5% club are willing to put 100% of their retirement fund into equities for 45 years, with 70% confidence level for success, but maybe
In any case, point conceded. I still like my tongue in cheek version of the intro better, but what can you do?
Thanks for the discussion, I learned a bit about SS today
For future reference, the number of median income earners who plan to save only 5% of income, work until full retirement age, live in a state with an income tax, plan to remain there post retirement, and who read my blog is 100% guaranteed to be zero. But if they do I'll do my best to help them become an outlier like us. Brooklynguy summarized it well
The other one that really bugs me is that he says Roth IRAs suck, but he can only reach that conclusion because he completely ignores state taxes.
Yeah, I know that one is your pet peeve (and it got fleshed out in the comments to that post and in the threads discussing it here, and I always try to highlight it whenever that topic comes up). But he'd probably argue that virtually everyone is free to move to an income-tax-free state and otherwise replicate the aspects of his situation that make it unusual, so his extrapolation isn't really a "mistake" but the whole point (though I do agree that there should be better disclosure about the obvious and easily overlookable ones, like ignoring state taxes for purposes of the Roth analysis).
To this I would add FAFSA applications and ACA subsidies