As I explore features such as Roth Conversions (RCs) and Optimize Withdrawal Priorities, I'd like to compare what I'm doing against a baseline as I work--usually a simpler baseline such as NO RCs, the user-specified withdrawal order, etc. Or a specific implementation of RCs and withdrawals based on an expert/advisor opinion.
Currently, as I interact with the RC and withdrawal features--iterating between them and testing with Monte Carlo analyses--the "baseline" becomes "whatever iteration I tried last" and not a meaningful baseline that I might have set and defined. And because I no longer know what the baseline means, I had submitted an in-app feedback request to create a "clear baseline" button.
When submitting the idea, I had just wanted to compare my complex RC settings to a "no RC" state.
Thinking about this feature more broadly, and with Charlie's input via the in-app feedback tool, I think giving the user the ability to set a baseline and restore the plan to it makes a lot of sense. What do you all think?
For me, an example workflow may be to first create a scenario with low expected RORs. I want to see if Roth Conversions still make sense -- and maybe adjusting the withdrawal priorities could help make this happen. So I'd first create the scenario and indicate I want to "set a baseline." Then I'd iterate between Roth Conversions and Withdrawal Priorities until I achieved something meaningful above that baseline. I may set a NEW baseline when I've achieved something worth iterating upon further. If I frack it up, I revert back. Or I might copy the plan to a new default scenario representing my current strategy. Rinse and repeat.
I realize to some extent this can all be done with multiple scenarios. But it's during the iteration and interaction between RCs and withdrawal priorities that "baseline" isn't as useful as it could be. So it seems like a way to make an existing feature more meaningful. But maybe I'm an outlier!
(From another thread, capital gains exploration would be another area where a user-set baseline could be helpful!)
I use the second scenario for that. You leave 2 as your "real" baseline. There is a Graphical review ("Key Metrics by Scenario") that shows you the total portfolio and expense for scenarios 1 and 2 on the same graph.
I use the second scenario for that. You leave 2 as your "real" baseline. There is a Graphical review ("Key Metrics by Scenario") that shows you the total portfolio and expense for scenarios 1 and 2 on the same graph.
Yeah, this is what I'm currently doing. I suppose I'm just expecting the "baseline" feature to work as it does in project management software and the like -- where it's a static and well-understood benchmark to measure from. I'm just not sure what utility the revolving baselines have in Pralana? Maybe I'm missing something.
@jlee You're raising a good point (at the meta-design level), and I've also struggled with that. It took be me a while to figure out "oh the roth conversion baseline is simply the last monte carlo run". Resetting the baseline every time monte carlo is run has its pluses and minuses. It's almost like we need two types of baselines, which I suppose the scenario functioning is supposed to serve. The problem is they have to design it for different users with different needs. I wonder how Boldin and ProjectionLab (which some think have better design flow but worse functionality) handle the issue of "baseline" comparisons?
I wonder how Boldin and ProjectionLab (which some think have better design flow but worse functionality) handle the issue of "baseline" comparisons?
I left a pro Bolden account for Pralana due primarily to Roth Conversions being a bit of a cluster with too many black boxes to trust and poor QA. That said, they do have very nice UI and data viz. Boldin has 10 scenarios, and you can set one as your default/baseline. Within each, you can see and compare pessimistic, average, and optimistic returns (based on your own assumptions) across many data points. So it's really 10 x 3 scenarios. This makes it super easy to add Roth Conversions and see how they would perform across different ROR.
Too bad I couldn't trust the RC results. I experienced swings of over $100sK in my RC recommendations simply from moving my retirement date by one month, and support didn't/couldn't solve it. It also didn't have anything covering withdrawal order prioritization. They do have live linking to accounts and pro-rated growth by month--so it was a bit more "live" than Pralana. The account linking was flaky and more trouble than it was worth. I do wish Pralana could be updated monthly, though.
I left a pro Bolden account for Pralana due primarily to Roth Conversions being a bit of a cluster with too many black boxes to trust and poor QA. That said, they do have very nice UI and data viz. Boldin has 10 scenarios, and you can set one as your default/baseline. Within each, you can see and compare pessimistic, average, and optimistic returns (based on your own assumptions) across many data points. So it's really 10 x 3 scenarios. This makes it super easy to add Roth Conversions and see how they would perform across different ROR.
Too bad I couldn't trust the RC results. I experienced swings of over $100sK in my RC recommendations simply from moving my retirement date by one month, and support didn't/couldn't solve it. It also didn't have anything covering withdrawal order prioritization. They do have live linking to accounts and pro-rated growth by month--so it was a bit more "live" than Pralana. The account linking was flaky and more trouble than it was worth. I do wish Pralana could be updated monthly, though.
The Boldin scenario tool looks very functional; but if it's not accurate it's not accurate.
The Pralana To-do list includes some ability to adjust mid-year. I too find it unhelpful--especially for this year-s taxes--when I know my accounts have gone up or down but Pralana is doing everything based on the long term averages. Hopefully they'll allow you to enter portfolio at any point and simply prorate the rest of year.
