# Results tab incorrect or misleading as to portfolio pull down. #66

Open
opened this Issue Sep 23, 2016 · 2 comments

None yet

### 2 participants

 Example test portfolio: \$1,000,000 portfolio. \$50,000 SS income. \$60,000 yearly spend, inflation adjusted. This is the Withdrawal Analysis < 1st 5y : 1-10 : 11-20 : 21-30 Average: \$60,000 \$55,000 \$60,000 \$60,000 Median: \$60,000 \$60,000 \$60,000 \$60,000 St. Dev.: \$0 \$16,583 \$0 \$0 Highest: \$60,000 \$60,000 \$60,000 \$60,000 Lowest: \$60,000 \$0 \$60,000 \$60,000 Failures: 0 0 0 0 These numbers make no sense to me. Perhaps I don't understand what the number represents. Ignoring inflation, I only need to spend \$10,000 from the portfolio to make the \$60,000 target. So, numbers in the \$55,000 to \$60,000 range make no sense if it's total spending amount. I can't imagine I would ever have to drop down below the target \$60,000 spending target given this scenario. If the amount instead refers to how much I would be pulling from the portfolio to reach my spending target, again, numbers in the \$55,000 to \$60,000 range make no sense. I can't figure out any other likely meanings for this number. Is this a defect or am I just clueless? Thanks!
commented Sep 23, 2016
 This is what I see with your inputs: http://imgur.com/a/VpKQ1 - leaving all of the other fields set to the defaults. My interpretation: the way it is being modeled is that your entire \$60k inflation adjusted spending is being drawn off of your portfolio at the beginning of each year, which is why it's in the "Withdrawl Analysis" section. The model is also "refilling" your portfolio with the additional SS income, thus leading to a net of roughly 10k outflow from the portfolio, which is why it's succeeding 100% of the time (\$10k net outflow is 1% of a \$1m portfolio). I'm confused how you got the \$55k number though.