Boldin Retirement Calculator
Like any good web-based application, an online retirement calculator should provide an intuitive and consistent user experience. Changes to the user interface should be made infrequently, and then only if absolutely necessary.
These are the hallmarks of a well-designed and managed app. Moreover, they are a sign that equal care was given to the design and implementation of what is under the hood. This is important when the thing under the hood is forecasting your financial future.
Thus describes Boldin’s (formerly NewRetirement) PlannerPlus online retirement calculator. Its easy-to-use, wizard-style user interface hasn’t changed markedly in the five years I’ve used it, making it easy to pick up right where I left off after weeks or months away.
What has changed is the breadth of the feature set, and the depth and quality of those features. This is thanks to Boldin’s commitment to continuous and incremental improvement. PlannerPlus rivals the tools used by Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) professionals, but is accessible to DIY investors at a fraction of the cost.
Related: The First Step to Choosing the Right Retirement Calculator
What’s New?
Last May I reviewed PlannerPlus when it was still branded under the NewRetirement banner. I compared it with Fidelity’s online calculator, and concluded PlannerPlus was superior. This was a revelation considering I’d trusted Fidelity for years to model my retirement burn-down.
Since then, Boldin has added a couple of great new features to PlannerPlus, making the tool even more powerful. Boldin even addressed a nitpick I raised in my first review. Given these (and other) improvements, now is a good time to take a fresh look at PlannerPlus.
Related: PlannerPlus Retirement Calculator Review
Retirement Chance of Success
PlannerPlus greets first-time users with its friendly, wizard-style user interface. It prompts you to supply essential bits of financial information about yourself; account balances and allocations, expenses, expected (or actual) social security benefits and the like.
After just a few minutes of data entry, you’ll be presented with a graphic that summarizes your financial outlook.
The Retirement Chance of Success chart forms the centerpiece of your plan. Based on your inputs, it forecasts your savings balances each year in retirement. It also forecasts your overall chance of success, where success is defined as not outliving your savings.
The light green (top) line in the chart represents your projected savings given average assumptions for portfolio returns, inflation, housing appreciation, and social security cost of living adjustments (more on the definition of average below).
The dark green (bottom) line represents the 90th percentile of outcomes, meaning that 90% of the Monte Carlo trials run by the tool performed better than (i.e., above) this line given average assumptions.
Methodology
To project outcomes in the Retirement Chance of Success chart, PlannerPlus uses a proven statistical technique called Monte Carlo analysis. It runs hundreds of hypothetical trials, randomly varying historical asset returns and inflation, to produce a range of possible outcomes and their probabilities.
Monte Carlo analysis is the gold standard in financial forecasting. Any serious retirement calculator should use it. PlannerPlus is one of them.
Current vs. Future Dollars
Figures in the chart, and throughout the tool, are displayed in today’s dollars. A convenient toggle allows you to switch between current and future dollars. (I prefer the former, because my brain thinks in current dollars.)
This feature wasn’t available in the version of PlannerPlus I reviewed back in May; figures were displayed in future dollars only. I complained about this in the review. Boldin has since updated the tool.
Charting
In addition to Retirement Chance of Success, PlannerPlus features tons of insightful charts. Take the Lifetime Income Projection chart, for example. It updates in real time to reflect any change you make to your plan, no matter how small. Hover over any bar in the chart, and a popup appears revealing the detail behind it.
One of my favorite features is the Plan Updated Popup. It appears any time I change an input or assumption. This gives me instant feedback on the impact of that change to my plan.
Portfolio Return Assumptions
PlannerPlus uses default portfolio return assumptions to generate its forecasts. It assumes portfolio returns will be 2% annually given pessimistic, and 5% annually given optimistic, market conditions. It takes the arithmetic average of the two—3.5%—to produce a third forecast based on what it calls average market conditions.
I think the defaults are too conservative, so I override them with values that are more realistic. To do this, I run a Monte Carlo analysis on each of my accounts based on the historical returns of their current asset allocations. Here is a table that summarizes the results.
For each of my accounts, I select the 10th percentile of outcomes for my pessimistic portfolio return assumptions, and the 50th percentile for my optimistic return assumptions. I plug these values into the tool, thereby overriding the defaults.
For example, in the data entry form for my Roth IRA, I enter 4.87% and 6.71% for pessimistic and optimistic return assumptions, respectively.
Now, in the summary view that contains all my accounts, PlannerPlus displays the rate of return it will use for my Roth IRA, or 5.79%. This number is the average of my estimated pessimistic and optimistic return assumptions, and reflects my current selection in the tool for overall rate assumptions.
Other Rate Assumptions
In addition to portfolio return assumptions, PlannerPlus supplies default rate assumptions for general inflation, medical inflation, social security cost of living adjustments and housing appreciation.
The defaults seem reasonable to me, so I leave them alone. All the same, I find it instructive to tinker with them to understand their impact on my forecasts and/or chance of success.
My return and inflation rates now set, with a single click of the mouse I can switch between optimistic, average, and pessimistic outcomes to see their effect on my financial plan.
Expense Estimates
PlannerPlus features a Detailed Budgeter that allows you to enumerate your expenses in as fine a detail as you wish. True to its overall design philosophy, PlannerPlus gives you an easy way out. For expense estimates, this is the Basic Budgeter. Here you enter a single, monthly number and you’re done. In either case, the tool adjusts expenses for inflation annually based on current rate assumptions.
I prefer the Detailed Budgeter. It lets me separate each expense category into must-spend and like-to-spend components. This gives me fine-grained control over what falls into essential and discretionary buckets.
Just like for optimistic, average and pessimistic rate assumptions, PlannerPlus gives you a one-click toggle between your must-spend and like-to-spend budgets, so you can see at a glance the difference in impact belt-tightening (or loosening) makes to your financial forecast.
Outcomes
Based on my profile, and using average rate assumptions, PlannerPlus gives me a 99% chance of funding my retirement through age 100 (this is depicted in the first Retirement Chance of Success chart displayed above).
If I switch my rate assumptions to pessimistic, however, PlannerPlus gives me just a 60% chance of success.
While a 60% chance of success may seem bleak, it’s important to put this number into context.
For one thing, the chart nevertheless indicates I have a 90% chance of making it to 2061, the year I would turn 95 (God willing!), without running out of money. For another, living to 95 is a pretty conservative assumption if the actuarial oracles are to be believed.
Finally, and most important, this (or any) forecast is a snapshot based on current facts and future assumptions. As time passes, and those future assumptions get replaced by actual facts, the snapshot will change. With each new snapshot comes the opportunity to adjust behavior, the plan or both, if necessary.
New Features
I mentioned in the intro a couple of new features Boldin added to PlannerPlus since my last review. These are too important to gloss over, so I’ll go over them in some detail in the sections that follow.
I already mentioned one improvement; the ability to display figures in current or future dollars (previously, figures were displayed in future dollars only). I singled this out as a drawback in my previous review. Kudos to Boldin for adding this feature.
Custom Withdrawal Order
To determine what it considers to be the most favorable withdrawal order in retirement, PlannerPlus groups your accounts by tax treatment (after-tax, pre-tax and tax-free), prioritizing the groups from least to most tax advantaged. Within each tax group, it further prioritizes your individual accounts by return rate, sorting them from lowest to highest.
PlannerPlus calls this traditional withdrawal order, and uses it by default to forecast your overall chance of success.
But what if you don’t want to follow the conventional advice? Say instead you prefer to draw from your traditional IRA first, in order to mitigate the impact of income taxes on your RMDs later in life. PlannerPlus addresses this by allowing you to model your own, custom withdrawal order.
Here I’ve dragged my Traditional IRA to the top of the list, ahead of my after-tax accounts, to see the effect of my change.
As ever, the Plan Updated popup delivers the news. The good news is that I’ll pay $385k less in taxes over the course of my lifetime. This is what I expect, since I’ll pay tax on smaller RMDs from my then-depleted traditional IRA.
The bad news is that I’ll have $290k less in terminal savings! That’s because the estimated return on my traditional IRA is 6.51%, which is better than the combined returns on my now-deprioritized after-tax accounts. By tapping my traditional IRA first, I am trading those better returns now for lower taxes later.
The upshot is that, all else equal, I’ll be better off in the long run tapping after-tax accounts first. Alternatively, I could allocate my traditional IRA less aggressively, and/or my after-tax accounts more aggressively, to net more in terminal savings using the IRA-first strategy.
Caveats
Of course this is all purely hypothetical. The effect of changing the withdrawal order of my accounts, and/or the asset allocations within them, depends entirely on the return and rate assumptions I’ve supplied to the tool. Actual returns and rates will almost certainly be different.
Playing with withdrawal order is nevertheless a useful exercise, as it could bring to light concerns that might not otherwise occur to you.
Retirement Withdrawals Report
Another great new feature is the Retirement Withdrawals Report. It provides insights into the impact of different spending strategies on your portfolio over time. The Retirement Withdrawals Report is based on inputs and selections you make in three areas:
- Withdrawal strategy (based on spending needs, fixed percentage or maximum spending)
- Budgeter scenario (expense estimates from the Basic or Detailed Budgeter)
- Portfolio withdrawal order (see previous section for elaboration)
Given my inputs and selections in these areas, the report tells me I will spend 3.1% of my portfolio per year, on average, throughout my retirement.
Further, it tells me how much I will need, and from what sources, in each year of retirement. The Retirement Withdrawals Report presents the information in both chart and table form.
The part of the report I find most interesting, however, is its side-by-side comparisons of different withdrawal strategies.
In these charts I see both withdrawal amounts and savings balances, year over year, for each of the three withdrawal strategies: spending needs, fixed percentage and maximum spending.
I have no intention of using a fixed-percentage spending strategy in retirement, much less one based on maximum spending. (I am way too risk-averse to attempt the die-with-zero approach!)
Instead I tailor my withdrawals to my immediate spending needs, and plan to continue to do so. I model this strategy in PlannerPlus by using the Detailed Budgeter (discussed above). With the Retirement Withdrawals Report, I can see the effect of this strategy relative to the others.
The wide gap between need-only and maximum spending in these charts gives me confidence that I am on the right track.
Last Word
The visuals in the Retirement Withdrawals Report are a perfect example of what I love about PlannerPlus. The tool gives me a variety of interesting, unique and complementary ways to scrutinize my financial plan.
Pricing
A PlannerPlus subscription will set you back $120/year, billed annually. That’s just $10/month for access to all the features I presented in this review (and many more I did not). Within minutes, you can put these tools to work to model your financial future.
If you’re reluctant to pay for a subscription, give Boldin’s Basic offering a try. Although not as richly-featured as PlannerPlus, it is absolutely free. You can use it as long as you like with no obligation to upgrade to a paid subscription.
Boldin offers a third option—Boldin Advisors—for $1,650. Boldin Advisors comes with all the features of PlannerPlus, but in addition you get access to online courses and Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) professionals.
Disclosure
Finally, in the interest of full transparency, the PlannerPlus links in this review tell Boldin you heard about them from us. If you purchase a subscription via one of these links, Boldin compensates us with a modest reward. We put any such compensation toward the cost of running this site.
So, if you like the content you get here from Chris, Darrow and/or me, and you decide to purchase a PlannerPlus or Advisors subscription, please consider doing so via this link, or any of the other Boldin links scattered throughout this post.
* * *
Valuable Resources
- The Best Retirement Calculators can help you perform detailed retirement simulations including modeling withdrawal strategies, federal and state income taxes, healthcare expenses, and more. Can I Retire Yet? partners with two of the best.
- Boldin (formerly New Retirement): Web Based High Fidelity Modeling Tool
- Pralana Online (formerly Pralana Gold): Online and/or Microsoft Excel-Based High Fidelity Modeling Tool
- Monitor Your Investment Portfolio
- Sign up for a free Empower account to gain access to track your asset allocation, investment performance, individual account balances, net worth, cash flow, and investment expenses.
- Our Books
- Choose FI: Your Blueprint to Financial Independence
- Can I Retire Yet: How To Make the Biggest Financial Decision of the Rest of Your Life
- Retiring Sooner: How to Accelerate Your Financial Independence
* * *
[I’m David Champion. I retired from a career in software development in March 2019, just shy of my 53rd birthday. To position myself for 40+ years of worry-free retirement, I consumed all manner of early-retirement resources. Notable among these was CanIRetireYet?, whose newsletters I have received in my inbox every Monday morning for the last ten years. CanIRetireYet? is one of exactly two personal finance newsletters I subscribe to. Why? Because of the practical, no-nonsense advice I find here. I attribute my financial success in no small part to what I have learned from Darrow and Chris. In sharing some of my own observations on the early-retirement journey, I aim to maintain the high standard of value readers of CanIRetireYet? have come to expect.]
* * *
Links on this site, like the Amazon, Boldin, Pralana, and Personal Capital links are also affiliate links. As an affiliate we earn from qualifying purchases. If you click on one of these links and buy from the affiliated company, then we receive some compensation. The income helps to keep this blog going. Affiliate links do not increase your cost, and we only use them for products or services that we’re familiar with and that we feel may deliver value to you. By contrast, we have limited control over most of the display ads on this site. Though we do attempt to block objectionable content. Buyer beware.
Well written review, thanks for your time and effort. I do think any review of these calculator programs should include some discussion of the weaknesses of these kinds of programs. I could go into depth about some of the big ones like the silliness of the “chance of success” metrics that all of these calculators provide; the real weaknesses of Monte Carlo analysis particularly when there is no provision for backtesting with actual historical data such as in cFIREsim and Fi Calc; etc etc. But I’ll skip over all that and instead just point out two really crucial problems with these programs:
1. Most importantly, as Darrow Kirkpatrick explains in his book, Can I Retire Yet, these programs are making very precise calculations of very specific user-entered data but those year-over-year calculations are based on wild guesses about returns on investment and inflation and medical costs. Each year’s calculations are done on the results of all previous years’ data and results. These programs do not in any USEFUL WAY take into account sequence of returns risk/sequence of inflation rates risk. No, MC analysis does not really do that, either, except by making even more wild guesses. Small errors in how rates of return and inflation will actually play out will be magnified and telescoped throughout the plan’s subsequent years. Read that part of Darrow’s book. It is really important to understand what he is saying there.
2. These programs do allow some customization of order of withdrawals, but only by putting entire accounts in various orders to be used. But that’s not really what most people do, right? They don’t necessarily deplete all of one account type before moving on to a different type, right? Actual withdrawals each year should more properly be a combination of withdrawals from your various account sources based on what you need for your expenses and what the withdrawals that year will do to amount paid in taxes, (along with some consideration of what the resulting balances will mean for future taxes). Thus one might elect each year to take differing amounts of money from one’s various account types. These programs could incorporate a tool to analyze those options, but they do not, and anyway it is a year by year analysis that one needs to do. I have found that this free tool from Fidelity can be used each year to calculate what taxes would be owed that year based on very specific decisions about withdrawals and income sources: Retirement strategies tax estimator https://myguidance.fidelity.com/ftgw/pna/public/planning/retirement/ris-calculator/welcome You do not need a Fidelity account to use this calculator. I am not an employee or a customer of Fidelity and I do not even have an account with them. This is, however, the very best retirement strategies tax estimator that I have found anywhere.
I was a New Retirement customer for a few months and used the program, now called Boldin, because despite what I had read in Darrow’s book, I really really really wanted these programs to be useful. The more I used the program, the more I realized that they are best for just giving a wide ballpark guess of “yes, you’re probably OK to retire now” vs “don’t even think about — you’re going to be living under a bridge.” I personally find the cFIREsim and Fi Calc programs to be much more useful, albeit with obvious weaknesses of their own, but much less weak than Boldin, et al.
August, as always, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I’ll address each of your points in turn:
I have used FiCalc, and like it. I have not tried cFIREsim. I will check it out.
Thanks again, August.
Best,
Dave
I believe the handling of alternative withdrawal orders is very flawed. By allowing the overall portfolio allocation to differ based on the withdrawal order, the results reflect the higher or lower returns expected based upon the resultant changes in portfolio allocation. As a result the risk of the portfolio will also differ based on the selected withdrawal order. A better and more truthful comparison would keep the portfolio allocation the same regardless of the withdrawal order. Otherwise, you’re largely comparing the results of different portfolio allocations, not the true benefits of changing just the withdrawal order. For me, this flaw renders the analysis misleading at the least.
Joel,
Can you explain what you mean by “allowing the overall portfolio allocation to differ based on withdrawal order?” The overall portfolio allocation does not change as a result of changing withdrawal order. What changes is the rate at which you burn down your portfolio.
Thanks,
Dave
Here’s an example of what I mean. Suppose your IRA is 100% bonds and your taxable account is 100% stocks. These are the only accounts. If your withdrawal order is IRA first, bonds will be sold and the stock allocation will begin to increase. As more withdrawals are taken from the IRA, the stock proportion will continue to grow. As a result, assuming the input returns for stocks are higher than for bonds, the expected return of the portfolio will increase over time. Now consider the opposite withdrawal order, taking from the taxable account first. As withdrawals are taken from the taxable account, the bond portion of the portfolio will increase relative to stocks and the expected portfolio return will decline. If you compare the calculator results for the two withdrawal schemes, the first choice if taking from the IRA first will benefit from an apparent higher overall portfolio return relative to the alternate withdrawal order, all else equal. Of course taxes will differ as well, but the impact of higher portfolio returns may bias the result in favor of taking withdrawals from the IRA first. But there’s no free lunch. The first withdrawal order will have a higher risk than the alternate, and that is not accounted for in the analysis. However, if the calculator had a feature to rebalanced the portfolio to maintain the overall portfolio allocation the same regardless of withdrawal order, you would be able to make an apples to apples comparison of the results. This happens to be one of the features included in Pralana. In my view, any analysis of alternative withdrawal orders or Roth conversions, where certain accounts are hit for withdrawals first, you need to account for the effect on portfolio allocation between stocks and bonds.
Thanks for the clarification, Joel.
Indeed you are correct. That is an excellent point, and one I had not considered. As I mentioned in my response to August’s previous comment, Custom Withdrawal Order is a brand new feature, and therefore not fully mature. I will bring this point—and others made in these comments—to Boldin’s attention.
Best,
Dave
Thanks so much for this review. I subscribed to Boldin’s PlannerPlus a few months ago (when it was still called NewRetirement). While (impatiently) waiting for Boldin to incorporate the feature to address RMDs for pre-2020 Inherited IRAs, I have started to research other Retirement Planners in an effort to instill some sort of confidence that I have chosen the right Planner. On Pralana’s website (pralanaretirementcalculator.com) they provide an explanation of the algorithm used to model growth. Based on in-depth analysis (in coordination with Darrow Kirkpatrick) it appears that they determined that a mid-year growth algorithm is more accurate than a start-of-year or end-of year growth algorithm. Do you have any idea what growth algorithm is used in the Boldin PlannerPlus?
Hi Meg,
As I mentioned, it appears Boldin is poised to release an update that includes treatment of inherited IRAs. From their release notes page, in the In Progress category:
“We are adding an Inherited IRA Feature for Pre and Post SECURE Act Inherited IRAs and diverse beneficiary types. This feature will enable users to easily account for Inherited IRAs including required distributions and any associated income tax liability. The enhancement supports increased ease of use, discovery of opportunities, and more accurate financial planning.”
With regard to the specific implementation of the growth algorithm, I have no idea. But judging from past experience with timely responses to my inquiries, I bet they’ll tell you if you reach out to them (if not, let me know and I will reach out to them).
Best,
Dave
Thorough review! A friend and I have been talking about these. One thing I’m interested in are planners that have packaged up models for ‘extreme situations’, such as substantial inflation, a major recession, and ‘stagflation’. Those are the three scenarios that I’ve been pondering as quite possible in the next 10 years…
Hi David,
PlannerPlus includes a what-if feature that allows you to model specific events with the click of a button, to see immediately their impact on your plan. These “pre-packaged” scenarios are of course limited, because they do all the work of constructing the scenario for you. If this what-if feature doesn’t include the scenario you are interested in modeling, you are free to construct your own. For example, to model extreme inflation, you can set the upper bound to say 10% and change your overall assumptions to “pessimistic.” Then you can print/download multiple reports to reflect your multiple extreme scenarios.
Hope this helps,
Dave
Thanks for the thorough review. I am also considering the new Pralana Gold web interface product. Any chance you’ve done a review of it and possibly comparing it to Boldin’s planner Plus?
Thank you!
Hi Kate,
Chris will publish a review of Pralana Online in the coming weeks. Stay tuned for that!
Best,
Dave
Thx for the detailed description of PlannerPlus. I’m a longtime Fidelity Retirement Calculator user so, I found your comparison useful. I’m intrigued by the PlannerPlus tax analysis (for withdrawal) that you described. But, it sounds like it will only analyze various withdrawal sequences that the user selects versus having something under the hood in PlannerPlus that optimizes withdrawal sources in the tool for minimizing taxes. Please confirm if I understand this correctly. I’ve used “Income Strategy” software in the past, and it provides this tax optimization function.
Mark
Mark,
As you point out, estimating the impact of taxes in retirement, and strategizing appropriately, is a witheringly complex task. Tons of moving parts. Add to that the inevitability of changes to the tax code.
PlannerPlus contains a Taxes insight. It contains several charts that show you things like gross taxable income by source, net taxable income by federal tax bracket and federal tax deductions, year over year in retirement. These charts change based on your current inputs, and the assumptions you have set, in the tool. By tweaking these, you can see in these tax charts their estimated impact on your plan.
As far as I know, PlannerPlus contains no feature to optimize withdrawal sources, with the aim of minimizing taxes, based on your inputs/settings. Rather, it suggests what you might do to minimize taxes, and then displays the results for you after making any such changes.
Hope this helps,
Dave
Bob Berger just did a review of the web-based Pralana, so the Excel version mentioned in the end note is passe.
Thanks for the heads up, Eden! Fixed now.
Thank you for your updated review. I have been a Boldin (NR) user for many years. I visit it monthly (or every other month) to see how my projections and progress are aligning.
Quick question, what tool did you use to calculate the return assumptions on your accounts and then run a MC to get percentiles? I would love to get that granular. Currently my financial advisor uses RightCapital and it has a Morningstar return estimate for each of my accounts. I think these are way too high (some in the double digit returns) so would like something more meaningful.
Hi Doug,
Glad you like NR (actually, Boldin now) as much as I do.
I used a tool called Portfolio Visualizer to run Monte Carlo simulations on my accounts. From the home page at the link, click on Analysis, then Backtest Asset Allocation under the Backtest Portfolio heading. Click Open Analysis and you’ll be off to the races. If you want even more granularity, you can backtest the actual composition of your portfolio using ticker symbols. This, unsurprisingly, is the Backtest Portfolio option.
Best,
Dave
Thank you Dave. I tried that analyzer but my main account has 23 ticker symbols and the trial account only allows for 15. Not gonna pay $360 just to see that. But much appreciated.
Dave, I was premature in my last reply. While I could not do an analysis to the ticker level I did do one at the asset class level. But I do not see where to run the Monte Carlo to get the return percentiles shown in your chart above. Thanks
LOL! I need to not reply so quicky. On the Analysis page I found the Monte Carlo. I wish I could delete my previous replies :-). Thanks for the information.
No worries, Doug! Portfolio Visualizer recently changed their user experience. Way more confusing now, so you can be forgiven for missing that.
Anyway, glad you figured it out.