QuantCalcResearch

QuantCalc Research

Reproducible retirement studies built on the same engines that power our calculators. Every study documents its assumptions, uses a seeded Monte Carlo or tax engine, and publishes its full results as open data under an open-data license (CC0 or CC BY 4.0, noted on each study).

Studies

If the 2033 reduction happens, the optimal Social Security claiming age moves earlier or stays unchanged — never later — in the base case across 18 profiles.

When to claim Social Security if the 2033 reduction happens: 62 vs 67 vs 70

Under the 2026 Trustees projection (78% of scheduled benefits payable from 2033), the lifetime-value-maximizing claiming age falls from 70 to 68 in the base case across 18 profiles, and the classic 62-vs-70 break-even stretches from age 80 to 82. Includes an after-tax and tax-torpedo view.

A 22% Social Security cut drops a balanced retiree’s 30-year success rate from 80.0% to 64.7%.

What a 22% Social Security cut does to retirement success: a 10,000-path Monte Carlo study

When half of income comes from Social Security, a 2033 reduction is a 15.3-point fall in success rate for a 60/40 retiree — offset by roughly $122,768 more saved. Modeled across three allocations and three reliance levels, per the 2026 Trustees Report.

Crossing the first 2026 IRMAA tier costs $1,148/year single, $2,297/year for a couple.

What crossing an IRMAA tier costs a Roth conversion: 2026, tier by tier

The Medicare surcharge is a fixed-dollar cliff two years later, so a small conversion that just clips a new tier is punished hardest per dollar. This study prices the first dollar over every 2026 tier, the room to the next one, and when crossing still beats leaving the money for future RMDs.

The 4% rule runs dry on 17% of paths; Guyton-Klinger guardrails cut that to 1.1%.

Dynamic vs. static withdrawal strategies, quantified

Four withdrawal rules — the static 4% rule, a constant 5%-of-balance rule, Guyton-Klinger guardrails, and Variable Percentage Withdrawal — run on the same 10,000 Monte Carlo paths over 35 years. The guardrail plan cuts the 4% rule’s failure rate from 17% to 1.1% — a 94% reduction, by trading depletion for spending cuts — at about 40% less median legacy.

The 2026 ACA subsidy cliff costs naive early retirees a median $77k–$213k over a 10-year bridge.

The 2026 ACA subsidy cliff for early retirees: an 80,000-path Monte Carlo study

Modeling a 55-to-65 healthcare bridge with 2026 tax and ACA parameters, the study measures what the subsidy cliff costs a retiree who does not manage MAGI — and how much a tax-optimized withdrawal order recovers.

Delaying Social Security to 70 beats claiming at 62 in only 42% of lifetimes once the early checks are invested.

Social Security at 70 beats 62 only 42% of the time — if you invest

A 400,000-life Monte Carlo over real mortality (SSA 2021 Period Life Table) and real investment returns shows the famous age-80 break-even hides a coin flip: at a balanced 4% real return, delaying wins 42% of lifetimes; at an equity-tilted 6% real return, only 28% for men.

Two identical $1M portfolios on the same 4% withdrawal plan see a 46% failure rate in the worst-decile decade of returns, vs. 0% in the best.

Retiring into a bear market: same plan, 46% failure vs. 0%

A 50,000-path block-bootstrap Monte Carlo of U.S. historical returns (1928–2024) isolates sequence-of-returns risk by holding the plan fixed and only reordering the first decade. A reversed 1973–2002 sequence with the identical average return leaves 6× more terminal wealth than the forward order.

None of six published Capital Market Expectations reproduce the 4% rule’s near-100% historical safety; five land between 78% and 91% over 30 years, and one mean-reverting forecast collapses it to 2.5%.

Does the 4% rule survive forward-looking forecasts? Six published CMEs stress-tested

10,000-path Monte Carlo simulations of a classic $1M, 60/40, 4% inflation-adjusted withdrawal with no other income, run under six publicly-published Capital Market Expectations. Against a 95.9% historical baseline every forecast lands lower, and among the survivors median terminal balance spans 2.3× — a plan’s safety margin depends heavily on which return assumption it borrows.

A $1M Traditional IRA that skips gap-year Roth conversions pays a median $31,741 more in lifetime federal tax; at $2M, about $113,000 more.

The lifetime tax cost of skipping Roth conversions in the gap years

A deterministic federal-tax simulation (2025 MFJ brackets, SECURE 2.0 RMD age 73) compares doing nothing with a Traditional IRA against filling the 12% bracket with Roth conversions before RMDs start. A $500,000 IRA can lose money converting — the benefit scales with balance size.

At a stressed 5.5% withdrawal rate, a diversified 20% alternative-asset sleeve lifts 35-year success +7.51 points and rescues the bottom-quartile retiree from a depleted balance to $134,451.

Do alternative assets actually improve retirement outcomes? 60,000 Monte Carlo paths on gold, commodities, TIPS & bitcoin

60,000 paths through the same engine as the live calculator test gold, commodities, TIPS, and a small bitcoin sleeve against a standard 5-asset portfolio. TIPS lower success at this withdrawal rate; bitcoin’s headline gain traces back to its assumed return, not diversification.

A retiree in California pays $167,580 more in lifetime state tax than an identical retiree in Wyoming, with a 9.16-point lower 30-year success rate.

510,000 retirement Monte Carlo paths across all 51 U.S. jurisdictions: the state-tax cost of retirement in 2026

The same representative retiree (age 60, $2M, 60/40 portfolio, $80K real annual spend) runs through 10,000 Monte Carlo paths in every state plus DC, changing only the state tax code. Wyoming, Louisiana, and South Dakota cluster at the top; California, DC, and New York rank worst.

Harvesting a $10,000 loss produces a positive net present value in 78.4% of 768 tested scenarios — but 0%-bracket harvests always lose, up to $1,865.

When does tax-loss harvesting actually pay? NPV across 768 scenarios

Every scenario runs through the same open, unit-tested 2026 federal tax engine as the free calculator, computing exact with-versus-without differences rather than marginal-rate shortcuts. Short-term-gain offsets save 1.71× more than long-term offsets at the top income level tested.

Converting the same $50,000 IRA balance costs $4,375 in Oregon state tax alone — and $0 in the 13 states that don’t tax the conversion at all.

Roth Conversion Breakeven by State (2026)

A traditional→Roth conversion costs the same federal tax everywhere, but the state slice of the bill varies wildly by jurisdiction. This study runs a 1,224-scenario sweep across all 51 U.S. jurisdictions to price the state, federal, and combined cost of converting — and the future tax rate above which converting today wins.

Across 123 historical U.S. retirement cohorts (1871–1993), a 60/40 retiree’s maximum sustainable 30-year withdrawal rate ranged from 3.69% (the unluckiest, 1966) to 10.64%, median 6.15%.

The 4% rule across 123 historical retirement cohorts

A rolling-cohort study of every U.S. retirement start year with a full 30-year window in the Shiller dataset, computing the maximum sustainable withdrawal rate and survival at 4.0/4.5/5.0% for 60/40, 50/50, and 80/20 portfolios. Historical results, not a forecast — a companion to the CME stress test above.

The largest single 2026 IRMAA cliff costs $1,736 per person the moment income crosses it — 51% more than the first cliff’s $1,148, with the top tier reaching $6,936 per person a year.

The 2026 IRMAA Cliff Map

Maps every 2026 Medicare IRMAA tier boundary for single and MFJ filers — the surcharge just below vs. at each cliff, the cost of the single dollar that crosses it, and the headroom to the next one. Distinct from and cross-linked with the companion Roth-conversion IRMAA cost study above.

A single filer turning 65 in 2026 stacks $8,050 in extra deductions below $75,000 MAGI (an MFJ couple both 65+ stacks $15,300 below $150,000) — and loses the $6,000 OBBBA piece entirely by $175,000 single / $250,000 MFJ.

The 2026 OBBBA Senior Deduction, Decomposed

A retiree’s 2026 standard deduction is three deductions stacked together: the base standard deduction, the IRC §63(f) additional deduction for the aged, and the temporary OBBBA §70103 senior deduction. This study decomposes the stack by filing status, age, and MAGI, and maps exactly where the $6,000-per-filer OBBBA piece phases out to zero.

Under QuantCalc’s forward-looking model, the optimal 5-period glide-path shape depends on the withdrawal rate — the optimizer ties or beats every preset schedule, its edge over static 60/40 growing from a statistical tie at 3.5% to +5.7 pp at 4.5%.

The Optimal Retirement Glide Path (2026)

Should a retiree’s equity allocation glide down, hold flat, or rise? This study hands the whole 5-period schedule to QuantCalc’s optimizer at 3.5% / 4.0% / 4.5% withdrawal rates, then independently re-scores its choice against static 60/40, static 40/60, declining 70→30, and rising 30→70 schedules on common random numbers — reporting a winner only when it beats the sampling noise.

In 2026 the ACA subsidy cliff is back above 400% FPL. Across six early-retiree households, a plan that ignores the cliff costs $65k–$234k more over a three-to-five-year bridge than the recommended year-by-year income and conversion plan that holds the premium subsidy.

The ACA Bridge Income Plan (2026)

How much income should an early retiree realize — and how much traditional balance to convert to Roth — before Medicare, without crossing the 400% FPL cliff? This study gives six households a recommended year-by-year plan with its per-year coverage regime, against never converting and against a plan that fills the 12% bracket and ignores the cliff.

Measured path by path over full retirements, a single-year tax-minimizing withdrawal order lowers a pre-RMD corridor retiree's lifetime taxes by a paired median of $28,807 — but for a traditional-heavy retiree deep in the required-distribution years the same order raises them by a paired median of $10,613 versus simply drawing traditional first.

When Withdrawal Order Helps, and When It Backfires (2026)

Does drawing your accounts in the "tax-smart" order actually cut lifetime taxes? For nine households this study reports the paired per-path median difference, with bands, between a single-year tax-minimizing order and a traditional-first order — and shows the horizon crossover where the benefit inverts into a cost.

Across the 51 U.S. tax jurisdictions in 2026, 7 states tax the SAME retirement income differently by source: Alabama makes a $75,000 employer pension state-tax-free but charges $3,185 on the same amount drawn from an IRA, and Missouri exempts a $75,000 government pension down to $286 while taxing a private pension or IRA at $2,588.

Where Retirement Income Is Actually Taxed: the State Pension-Exclusion Map (2026)

Which states exempt or cap pension income versus IRA and 401(k) distributions, at what age, and where the pension SOURCE (government vs private) changes the bill. All 51 jurisdictions grouped by treatment, with the exclusion shown in dollars, computed from the frozen state-tax engine.

Every study ships a seeded, deterministic engine and open data (CSV + JSON) under an open-data license (CC0 or CC BY 4.0, noted on each study). Methods and capital-market assumptions are documented on our methodology page. These studies are educational research, not financial advice.

Want to test these ideas on your own numbers? The free Monte Carlo retirement planner runs in your browser with no signup, and the Social Security claiming-age calculator applies the 2033-reduction analysis to your own benefit.