I want to say a better option than trying 60 year scenarios is to run 10 years with additional failure considerations. The 60 years just starts hurting your sample size instead of giving you better information. Less years with a minimum balance is going to give you much better "chance of success" information.
A lot of you seem to be looking for a worse case. You already know the worse case.
The stock market crashes the year after you quit your job.
The entire industry you worked in also become obsolete.
There is just no pleasing worse case.
If you want some good pessimistic numbers run with
- 10 year windows 2015-2025
- Stash size = ?
- Spending plan = % of Portfolio (no floor, no ceiling)
- "Criteria for marking a cycle as "failed" Yearly Withdrawal falls below $". set to whatever your minimum yearly spending is.
That will give you a much better idea of what retired forever looks like than the 60 year windows. And some much lower success rates too.
Success being based on "not hitting account = zero" is really more of an optimistic view, in which case you should be perfectly happy just using 5 or 6%.
Some will be perfectly happy being optimistic with $600k and 5%.
Others will be sad being pessimistic with $1.2M and 2.5%.