Scenario Comparison
Retirement withdrawals and return sequences
Reorder the same annual returns and examine withdrawals, balances and depletion.
Set comparison conditions
One return per year, up to 100 years. The 30-year example repeats the five-year path six times; it is not a forecast. Withdrawals are capped at available wealth without borrowing. Each method uses its corresponding amount or percentage field. Inflation, taxes, fees and intrayear changes are excluded.
Read this alongside cumulative withdrawals, depletion and unmet spending; the gap alone is not an investment-performance ranking.
Entered order
- Ending wealth
- 6,883,824.00
- First depletion
- Not depleted within this path
- Unfunded withdrawals
- 0.00
- Cumulative withdrawals
- 3,000,000.00
- Minimum wealth (including start)
- 5,944,800.00
Reverse order
- Ending wealth
- 8,215,776.00
- First depletion
- Not depleted within this path
- Unfunded withdrawals
- 0.00
- Cumulative withdrawals
- 3,000,000.00
- Minimum wealth (including start)
- 8,215,776.00
Wealth paths and annual cash flows
Year-end wealth ( units)
| Year | A % | B % | A withdrawal | B withdrawal | A balance | B balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -20.00 | 20.00 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | 7,400,000.00 | 11,400,000.00 |
| 2 | -10.00 | 15.00 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | 6,060,000.00 | 12,510,000.00 |
| 3 | 8.00 | 8.00 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | 5,944,800.00 | 12,910,800.00 |
| 4 | 15.00 | -10.00 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | 6,236,520.00 | 11,019,720.00 |
| 5 | 20.00 | -20.00 | 600,000.00 | 600,000.00 | 6,883,824.00 | 8,215,776.00 |
Current result interpretation
Current ending wealth, B minus A: 1,331,952.00; cumulative withdrawals, B minus A: 0.00. With fixed amounts, principal left after early withdrawals changes later compounding; the same return set need not produce the same balance.
Selected year 1: A planned withdrawal 600,000.00，shortfall 0.00; B 0.00.
How to read the results
Before comparing terminal wealth, check cumulative withdrawals. Follow where losses coincide with spending, the minimum balance and unmet withdrawals. A no-withdrawal reference has different cash flows and is not a fair strategy ranking. Proportional withdrawals shift risk into variable spending.
Method and assumptions
Depletion is the first zero balance after a return or withdrawal; U remains explicit and no intrayear date is inferred.
Year-end withdrawal: Bₜ = max(0, Bₜ₋₁(1+rₜ) − Wₜ). Percentage withdrawals use post-return wealth. Year-start withdrawals use opening wealth and occur before returns. Actual withdrawals never exceed available wealth.
Scope and model limitations
Depletion is located only by year and operation stage, not an intrayear date. There is no Monte Carlo or failure/success probability; surviving this path does not establish future safety. The minimum includes initial wealth and every post-return/post-withdrawal balance.
Frequently asked questions
Does a zero account balance hide a spending obligation?
No. Actual withdrawals are capped by available wealth; the unfulfilled portion of the chosen withdrawal rule is shown separately. Percentage withdrawals do not specify a minimum living budget.
Does the reverse path predict when a crash will happen?
No. Both paths use the same hypothetical return set in different orders. They explain timing risk, not event timing or a statistical probability.