Please let me explain. Let’s refer to the example you provided above. For the years 2027-2030, you used both the withdrawal column and the cash flow column. For 2027, the 117,513 is already included in the 176,142. Yes, it is being double counted. So, as I stated in my prior post, we need to reverse that double counting. Click on the “+” above the S at the top of column S, enter 2027 in cells U3 and V3, put a check mark in cell W3, put (117,513) in cell Y3, and this will put the (117,513) in column P (heading called Investment Adjustments) on the row will all of your other 2027 numbers.
I already hear what you are saying, why was it designed that way? Double count the number and then need to adjust out the doubled up amount. Bad design, right? No, it was actually intentional. Intentional? Why?
Let me explain further. Jon designed this to provide maximum flexibility for the users. Let’s say your 2027-2028 negative cash flow numbers are 100,000 less than you show in your example. Also, let’s assume you want to withdraw at least 5% each year (and spend it), even if your cash flow needs are less. You will need to use both the withdrawal and cash flows columns to accomplish this. So, for 2027, the double counted amount is now 76,142 and that needs to be adjusted out. For 2028-2030, adjust out 79,534; 102,003; and 93,970, respectively.
You say the only reason to withdraw is for negative cash flow. That is not correct. RMD’s are one example of withdrawing even if you do not need the funds.
I hope this makes some sense. I reviewed this while it was in production and provided comments and feedback. I told Jon then and I will tell him again now, he was nothing short of a genius for the way he designed this thing. Kudos to Jon.
Cheers,
Blake