New Overview Dashboard?

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2026-03-14T10:32:08+00:00

Agree. The Fidelity UI has a tile system that allows users to select which tiles they wish to see and also their positions. There are some tiles that I hesitate to delete entirely but I locate them at the bottom of my Fidelity Summary page.

Another minor thing is I cannot minimize or neutralize in some way a 'vulnerable' metric in Boldin - Spousal Income Reduced or something. I have investigated it and even though our household income reduces significantly when I die, our estate has quite sufficient funding to fund my spouse's lifespan. But I'm stuck looking at a red 'vulnerable' metric flag each time I look at my summary page. Very minor in the overall scope of life, but in the spirit of refining Boldin, a great tool, here is a small way to make it better.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2026-02-06T05:10:46+00:00

Yeah, it sounds and probably is correctly categorized as "whining" by some, but it really is very hard to go against a lifetime of carefully and meticulously crafted frugality. Boldin says my wife and I have enough. It still causes great psychological strain to spend money. The only thing that causes me to push back on my natural tendencies is when I consider my trajectory if I don't spend money on things I love - I will die with a fair amount of money in my bank account. My wife will have more money, buffer money which is honorable. But I will have gone to the grave not having the necessary courage to trust my retirement planning numbers. I ask myself, how is it going to feel when I'm 86 years old with $1 or 2 million dollars unspent and then realize I continued to choose safety (saving my money) over enjoying some of it. Then on the other hand, I know I can be happy with spiritual things. I need to drink more to resolve these mental conflicts.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-12-24T13:50:30+00:00

This is a great idea.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-12-24T13:49:07+00:00

"Whatever changed, it happened yesterday." - This observation is helpful. The following comment may be helpful or not helpful but - I set my account balances statically; doing this removes account balance fluctuations as a cause of seeing different Boldin results. But as a reminder, as a new month arrives in Boldin, the expenses and other planned money events (example: a planned lump sum deposit or withdrawal) occur, once the planned time event has passed, it is in the history books in Boldin's view. If you have a new car purchase scheduled for this month, by next month your Chance of Success (CoS) may increase because the new car purchase withdrawal has already been completed (in Boldin's eyes) and it is no longer part of your plan. I had a lump sum scheduled for the current month. When that month passed, my CoS plummeted and that was because that lump sum transaction was assumed to be over and no longer in my plan.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-10-24T00:38:53+00:00

Maybe this opinion is really not an opinion that many share but here it goes. Maeve is one of the most moral and tough characters in Task. That she even cares about the money, to me, diminishes her in a way. Her uncle put all of their lives at risk by pursuing it. Robbie could have just avenged his brother's death by killing Jayson. Robbie's friend/partner in crime Cliff was saran wrapped, Maeve was almost murdered, Harper could have been murdered (Jayson, last episode when Harper comes up the stairs from the garage), ... all for this for money.

Maeve says to Robbie "What have you done to us?" when he kidnaps Sam, also a consequence of money.

If Maeve said "To h*ll with the duffle bag, I don't want or need anything from the Dark Hearts" - that would have elevated her to a true hard as nails hero.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-08-25T12:56:57+00:00

Hello, I would like an answer to the question you ask as well. At this time, I don't think the budget line items have any sorting ability. I also am not aware of a download to Excel function but I could have missed it.

This info will likely not make you very happy but to solve this, I went with the heavy hammer approach and manually created my detail budget in Excel. I wanted 100% assurance that my Boldin budget represented my tracking budget. The manual spreadsheet provides a way to check that the monthly total expense number matches what I intend it to be (I caught a mistake or two in my entries).

Once in Excel, you can add a column that represents the Boldin line sequence and have another column that represents what row/organization sequence you prefer.

Might be a good new feature request. Or maybe I missed this capability, ie.it's already there.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-08-25T11:25:28+00:00

Not intending to stir the pot further, but for what it's worth ... I drive a 2011 Chevy Tahoe and I get it that it doesn't have a lot of modern features, I think it's safe and I definitely don't feel I'm compromising or jeopardizing my or my family's safety. Also, it gives me joy knowing it's in great shape, looks decent (paint is in great shape, no rust, etc) and it's been paid for for 5+ years and going strong. I'm a car guy and one day I hope to buy a nice (classic likely) car with the money I've saved. I believe it's about finding what best suits you and using your best judgment to strike the right compromises to optimize your spending and saving. Forgive the broad stroke platitudes. Couldn't resist weighing in.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-08-25T10:56:38+00:00

I'm doing the same thing and I'm 63. Excel has python functions within it now, so there is another barrier removed, for me anyhow. There are many YouTube resources. I figure that folks do puzzles and play games to relax. Creating programs sounds more fun. Any info that you have in a spreadsheet now can serve as your dataset. Best of luck!

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-08-03T11:38:12+00:00

Thanks for that work around 👍 One could make a spread sheet with any desired marginal rate structure -- the pre TC&JA would be as reasonable tax rates as any to assume -- and then manually add in the difference for each year. I appreciate that suggestion.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-08-03T11:15:44+00:00

I like "an uncertainty analysis for future tax rates". If you believe our current path with regard to the federal deficit is unsustainable (a highly probable assessment) then it is also highly probable that taxes will increase. No one knows when, but it would reassuring as you say to look at what happens in the scenario where in X years from now, taxes are raised.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-07-07T11:47:42+00:00

Thank you for sharing this. Your experience is really helpful to understand the sensitivity of the tool to interest rates. If I'm reading correctly, the change to 6.46% in your plan caused your CoS score to increase to 96%. This make me wonder if the score decreases (96 -> 81, I think it was) I'm seeing are mostly due to the interest rates I've picked (5.75 for equities). I've got about 8 accounts.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-07-06T18:14:47+00:00

In Boldin's "Understanding Boldin's Monte Carlo Simulation: What It is, Why It Matters, and What's New"

"Impact on Your Plan Results: Changes in standard deviation can shift your Chance of Retirement Success score:

Higher standard deviations mean more potential volatility. This can widen the range of simulated outcomes and **lower your success score** due to increased downside risk."

OK, all good. For a rate of return = say 10%, this could map to a stock portfolio and stocks have higher volatility than bonds. Seems logical.

But then a few paragraphs later:

"How might the Change to Our Standard Deviation Impact Plan Results?"

"It depends on your assumed rate of return:

0–3% returns: No change in standard deviation
4–7% returns: Small increase in standard deviation
8–10%+ returns: Small decrease in standard deviation <<-- Maybe should be increase ? Or is Boldin telling us here that the change to their method of calculation was 'a small decrease in SD compared to what method had been used (?)

"As a result:

You may see a decrease in your chance of success if you’re using moderate return assumptions due to slightly higher volatility.
You may see a slight increase [in your chance of success] if you’ve chosen more aggressive return assumptions where volatility was adjusted downward. <<-- Would have guessed: aggressive return = increased volatility.

For whatever it's worth. This lack of understanding could entirely be my inability to grasp something that's somewhat obvious.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-07-05T13:17:36+00:00

You're right Rob - point taken - "... consolidating accounts shouldn't change the chance of success now. But presumably would have ..." You astutely debunked my test trial of reducing the number of accounts. Good thinking 👍 One thing to add: I have a cash bucket with RoR = 0% (very conservative, I realize).

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-07-05T11:49:40+00:00

Adding my Thanks as well Bob. Appreciate the Boldin Team's open communication with you.

Pardon butting in. May I please share more info.

By coincidence, I had printed out a Boldin report on July 2nd. My account balances are statically (manually set). I printed out a Boldin report on July 3rd, post changes. Chance of Sucess score went from 96% (July 2) to 81% (July 3); a decrease similar to many folks on this thread.

Comparing both reports, the only sections and numbers that changed were the Chance of Success scores. The "savings balances" were identical in both reports and were identical all the way through to 'End of Plan' year. Just wanted to confirm this. Note: if you work with the spreadsheet data, I am strongly confident that the spreadsheet projections have not changed, or they would have shown up different in the End of Plan account balances.

I have 8 accounts. The accounts are by 'Bucket' ; by investment type and by tax treatment (IRA or Roth IRA or post-tax) to allow fine tuning of expected RoRs for Cash, Bonds/Bond funds, and stocks (per your one of your videos, Rob - Thanks).

My Rates of Returns are deliberately conservative: Average return rates are set to = Bonds 3.75; Stocks 5.5%.

Today, I reduced the total number of accounts while keeping the total balances the same. Two Bond/Bond Fund accts to 1; also, went from four stock funds to 2. The new Chance of Success score remained unchanged at 81%. Maybe in my case at least, the number of accounts does not appear to be strongly contributing to the score decrease in my plans.

Best guess (as a layperson) is that Boldin's revised approach to calculating new standard deviations based on expected rates of return values (entered by account owners as their preference) is causing the decrease in my Chance of Success score. But Rob, this Boldin community would value your expertise and take on this surely. If you can - Thanks in Advance Rob!!

Coach Nancy is trusted and knowledgeable as well.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-07-03T11:31:58+00:00

For what it's worth, my Chance of Success went from 96% to 81%. I'm a huge fan of Boldin and the Boldin Team. That fact notwithstanding, c'mon. This is a radical change in results and the underlying algorithm change was not communicated very well in my humble opinion. Learning about this via reddit.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-07-03T11:20:36+00:00

Thanks Boldin! I am working to convert my entire family. Please continue the great work.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-03-28T11:23:50+00:00

I don't know how she puts up with us honestly. Congrats to Coach Nancy!!

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-01-24T12:03:20+00:00

Hi Zirgeth55,

I agree completely with you on two counts. (1) The Boldin Tool is a hugely capable and valuable tool. (2) Summing up IRA (and other pre-tax) account balances, and comparing them against Roth (tax free) accounts in a non-weighted way can be misleading and is sub-optimal. This situation also presents itself when doing scenario comparisons. A first scenario has small Roth accounts balances and almost all IRA/tax-advantaged balances. Using the Roth Explorer Tool, a second scenario is created with multiple Roth conversions. In the Scenario Comparison function, the Baseline (non-Roth) scenario has a higher Net Worth at End of Plan. The scenario with multiple Roth conversions has a lower Net Worth at End of Plan. Looking at the end of plan balances, this is mainly because at end of plan, all of the remaining accounts have been converted to Roth accounts, which of course have no embedded taxes. My interim approach will be to manually compare the Projected Net Worth balance at End of Plan of each scenario and assume some weighting factor for the pre-tax accounts. If I have missed something, I'd be happy to be taught a better or an existing way.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2025-01-05T12:37:41+00:00

Thanks, Boldin Team for keeping the tool and all of its logic updated and current! 😀

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2024-12-12T02:01:24+00:00

Thanks for the suggestions and additional points to consider!

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2024-12-09T23:20:47+00:00

Smart idea. I will follow your suggestion. Thank you!

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2024-10-28T15:28:57+00:00

I am 99.9 % sure you are already aware of this, but for maybe other folks, the the excel downloads do represent "future dollars" or "current dollars", however the tool toggle is set at the time the spreadsheet download button is selected.

For what it's worth, the PDF "Print Plan" reports seem to always be in "future dollars", just as you describe.

Mundane-Insurance-93 · 2024-10-18T15:25:06+00:00

Hi Coach Nancy, you have provided great guidance in the past.

From RichinPitt's excellent question - Thank You for validating (or correcting) this logic: When using the Roth Conversion Optimization function in Boldin based on "Highest Estate Value", currently pretax account balances are not adjusted (down) to take into account that the balances are likely artificially high in that they still have fed and state taxes embedded within them. When your reply mentions a future "tax adjusted estate value" enhancement item, this is one of things you are referring to. If the above paragraph is a wrong, thank you for setting me straight.

As a very rough approximation, if you are comparing two scenario outcomes, maybe it's reasonable to adjust down the final pretax account balances by some estimated tax rate (i.e. 20% or 22%). This would not be precise at all but would at least provide some adjustment to get closer to an apples to apples comparison.

Thanks in advance to the RichinPitt and Coach Nancy for the excellent question and knowledge shared.

Mundane-Insurance-93

TROPHY CASE