What is your "magic number" for retirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People here sounds awfully sure of their future returns.

I'm in my late 50s and while I've studied the stagflation of the 1970s, I lived through the lost decade from 99-09 when stocks went nowhere, I think they lost 1% per year on average. So many investing statements that just were flat to down, month after month, year after year.

The idea that we might have another 10 years of no gains seems foreign no, but it shouldn't. Surely in the next 50 years it will happen.

Which is fine and healthy. But a lot of people here are saying things like, "I'm in the my 40s with 750k now which should be 4mm in my 60s". And I'm thinking, well .. maybe.

Lost decade maybe for those retiring. Everyone else was able to pick stocks up left and right at great prices.Buy on the way down, not up.

Not really.. A lumpsum 100K investment beginning of '99 would have become $109K at the end of 2009. The same $ invested in equal monthly installments would have become $97,937.82. Source: https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1999?amount=100000&endYear=2009

That same $100,000 is worth close to $650,000 today.

Portfolio Visualizer

Sure. But my point is that a retiree will have the 100K to invest at the beginning of 1999. A young employee will have a job that allows them to invest money each month into the market that totals to 100K over the 10 year period. Left untouched, the retiree comes out ahead. If the retiree had structured their portfolio and life so that the equivalent of a 2% withdrawal comes from guaranteed income sources (pensions, SS, etc.) and limits withdrawals to 1%, they would be close to the same level of return as an employee contributing monthly, maybe slightly less.

Agree with the sentiment that it's hard to accumulate that amount and properly structure such withdrawals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People here sounds awfully sure of their future returns.

I'm in my late 50s and while I've studied the stagflation of the 1970s, I lived through the lost decade from 99-09 when stocks went nowhere, I think they lost 1% per year on average. So many investing statements that just were flat to down, month after month, year after year.

The idea that we might have another 10 years of no gains seems foreign no, but it shouldn't. Surely in the next 50 years it will happen.

Which is fine and healthy. But a lot of people here are saying things like, "I'm in the my 40s with 750k now which should be 4mm in my 60s". And I'm thinking, well .. maybe.

Lost decade maybe for those retiring. Everyone else was able to pick stocks up left and right at great prices.Buy on the way down, not up.

Not really.. A lumpsum 100K investment beginning of '99 would have become $109K at the end of 2009. The same $ invested in equal monthly installments would have become $97,937.82. Source: https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1999?amount=100000&endYear=2009

That same $100,000 is worth close to $650,000 today.

Portfolio Visualizer

Sure. But my point is that a retiree will have the 100K to invest at the beginning of 1999. A young employee will have a job that allows them to invest money each month into the market that totals to 100K over the 10 year period. Left untouched, the retiree comes out ahead. If the retiree had structured their portfolio and life so that the equivalent of a 2% withdrawal comes from guaranteed income sources (pensions, SS, etc.) and limits withdrawals to 1%, they would be close to the same level of return as an employee contributing monthly, maybe slightly less.

Agree with the sentiment that it's hard to accumulate that amount and properly structure such withdrawals.

PP. I understand what you’re saying.

You may like this thread on Bogleheads that discusses this. I found it a good read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People here sounds awfully sure of their future returns.

I'm in my late 50s and while I've studied the stagflation of the 1970s, I lived through the lost decade from 99-09 when stocks went nowhere, I think they lost 1% per year on average. So many investing statements that just were flat to down, month after month, year after year.

The idea that we might have another 10 years of no gains seems foreign no, but it shouldn't. Surely in the next 50 years it will happen.

Which is fine and healthy. But a lot of people here are saying things like, "I'm in the my 40s with 750k now which should be 4mm in my 60s". And I'm thinking, well .. maybe.

Lost decade maybe for those retiring. Everyone else was able to pick stocks up left and right at great prices.Buy on the way down, not up.

Not really.. A lumpsum 100K investment beginning of '99 would have become $109K at the end of 2009. The same $ invested in equal monthly installments would have become $97,937.82. Source: https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1999?amount=100000&endYear=2009

That same $100,000 is worth close to $650,000 today.

Portfolio Visualizer

yeah, we did fine. but we were young. now, let's say you have 3mm in retirement and you're retiring now. how much were you planning to draw down a year, 4%. if we have another lost decade, you'll be down in 10 years. You'd have about 2.5mm 10 years into retirement. it's fine, but it probably was not your plan.

if you're 40 .. none of this matters except maybe dont' just plan on things always gong up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People here sounds awfully sure of their future returns.

I'm in my late 50s and while I've studied the stagflation of the 1970s, I lived through the lost decade from 99-09 when stocks went nowhere, I think they lost 1% per year on average. So many investing statements that just were flat to down, month after month, year after year.

The idea that we might have another 10 years of no gains seems foreign no, but it shouldn't. Surely in the next 50 years it will happen.

Which is fine and healthy. But a lot of people here are saying things like, "I'm in the my 40s with 750k now which should be 4mm in my 60s". And I'm thinking, well .. maybe.

Lost decade maybe for those retiring. Everyone else was able to pick stocks up left and right at great prices.Buy on the way down, not up.

Of course it's great for non-retired people to have a down market in which they can then buy. But that isn't the point of posting about down-cycle retiring for people who have run models that don't take into consideration that their portfolio could go down quickly and stay down for a decade.

Some people don't think about getting caught in a down cycle AFTER they are retired and then have no way to go to back to earning income which would enable retiree to not touch principle until markets turn around.

But this is why you do not keep all of your money in stocks in retirement.

If bonds are doing well, sell them.

And two different advisors have told me to always have two years of living expenses set aside that you could use to survive a downturn in it all.

[Anonymous]

While you loons are wasting your life away trying to get to $10M, many people are retiring with $600K and a paid-off house, using the strategies detailed in this article:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4661283-how-to-invest-600000-in-2024-to-live-off-of-dividends-forever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People here sounds awfully sure of their future returns.

I'm in my late 50s and while I've studied the stagflation of the 1970s, I lived through the lost decade from 99-09 when stocks went nowhere, I think they lost 1% per year on average. So many investing statements that just were flat to down, month after month, year after year.

The idea that we might have another 10 years of no gains seems foreign no, but it shouldn't. Surely in the next 50 years it will happen.

Which is fine and healthy. But a lot of people here are saying things like, "I'm in the my 40s with 750k now which should be 4mm in my 60s". And I'm thinking, well .. maybe.

Lost decade maybe for those retiring. Everyone else was able to pick stocks up left and right at great prices.Buy on the way down, not up.

Not really.. A lumpsum 100K investment beginning of '99 would have become $109K at the end of 2009. The same $ invested in equal monthly installments would have become $97,937.82. Source: https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1999?amount=100000&endYear=2009

That same $100,000 is worth close to $650,000 today.

Portfolio Visualizer

Sure. But my point is that a retiree will have the 100K to invest at the beginning of 1999. A young employee will have a job that allows them to invest money each month into the market that totals to 100K over the 10 year period. Left untouched, the retiree comes out ahead. If the retiree had structured their portfolio and life so that the equivalent of a 2% withdrawal comes from guaranteed income sources (pensions, SS, etc.) and limits withdrawals to 1%, they would be close to the same level of return as an employee contributing monthly, maybe slightly less.

Agree with the sentiment that it's hard to accumulate that amount and properly structure such withdrawals.

PP. I understand what you’re saying.

You may like this thread on Bogleheads that discusses this. I found it a good read.

Will check it out. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

we will continue working until our youngest can no longer be on our health insurance. this puts retirement on the table in 2035 when we are 57. Will have at least 1.5M in liquidity. Plan to be nomads until we are 65. we should have 7M to live the remainder of our lives out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While you loons are wasting your life away trying to get to $10M, many people are retiring with $600K and a paid-off house, using the strategies detailed in this article:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4661283-how-to-invest-600000-in-2024-to-live-off-of-dividends-forever

this “strategy” requires SS which means i’d have to work until age 67🤮

no thanks. i’m out mid 50s so i’ll continue to power save.

[Anonymous]

$7 million, but we are kicking around the idea of raising it to $10m. Currently at $3m age 42 and 46 (very young kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People here sounds awfully sure of their future returns.

I'm in my late 50s and while I've studied the stagflation of the 1970s, I lived through the lost decade from 99-09 when stocks went nowhere, I think they lost 1% per year on average. So many investing statements that just were flat to down, month after month, year after year.

The idea that we might have another 10 years of no gains seems foreign no, but it shouldn't. Surely in the next 50 years it will happen.

Which is fine and healthy. But a lot of people here are saying things like, "I'm in the my 40s with 750k now which should be 4mm in my 60s". And I'm thinking, well .. maybe.

Thank you for being a practical, sane voice.

I remember those years well, and when your statements are flat month after month after month, it's hard to be steady with contributions. Sure, in the long run it should work out, but tell that to the Japanese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People here sounds awfully sure of their future returns.

I'm in my late 50s and while I've studied the stagflation of the 1970s, I lived through the lost decade from 99-09 when stocks went nowhere, I think they lost 1% per year on average. So many investing statements that just were flat to down, month after month, year after year.

The idea that we might have another 10 years of no gains seems foreign no, but it shouldn't. Surely in the next 50 years it will happen.

Which is fine and healthy. But a lot of people here are saying things like, "I'm in the my 40s with 750k now which should be 4mm in my 60s". And I'm thinking, well .. maybe.

Lost decade maybe for those retiring. Everyone else was able to pick stocks up left and right at great prices.Buy on the way down, not up.

Not really.. A lumpsum 100K investment beginning of '99 would have become $109K at the end of 2009. The same $ invested in equal monthly installments would have become $97,937.82. Source: https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1999?amount=100000&endYear=2009

That same $100,000 is worth close to $650,000 today.

Portfolio Visualizer

Sure. But my point is that a retiree will have the 100K to invest at the beginning of 1999. A young employee will have a job that allows them to invest money each month into the market that totals to 100K over the 10 year period. Left untouched, the retiree comes out ahead. If the retiree had structured their portfolio and life so that the equivalent of a 2% withdrawal comes from guaranteed income sources (pensions, SS, etc.) and limits withdrawals to 1%, they would be close to the same level of return as an employee contributing monthly, maybe slightly less.

Agree with the sentiment that it's hard to accumulate that amount and properly structure such withdrawals.

PP. I understand what you’re saying.

You may like this thread on Bogleheads that discusses this. I found it a good read.

Thank you for the link. I love bogleheads. We are getting close to retiring so I find that I am looking at everything differently than when we were just in jobs/income time period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post scares me. A lot.

how much will you have in retirement?

You don't need $5mil unless you have huge expenses and/or want to travel in luxury a lot.

Think about what your expenses might be in retirement. Then pad it with an extra 20%.

My mom has Parkinson’s. She will need care costing 100k per year at some point. You can live a lone time with many diseases. Grandfather was chronically ill 40s and 50s. Could not work. Health disasters can blow through savings. For me, 3 million is the minimum I would be comfortable with to retire. My magic number is 4 million.

I can be prudent and have health insurance and savings, but there's no way I can save enough to cover all possible health disasters. And in some cases, money can't fix the problem.

People with Parkinson’s can be cared for for far less than 100K/ year in the DMV. Who are you talking to that is trying to scare you into spending this much?

The quote is from Boston. I am talking about round the clock care. Actual estimates were 100-125 a year. My mom was diagnosed many ago. She is 70 now and immobile. We are getting close to needing full time care. She could live another 20 years. My grandma is 96 (in better health). The bed for my mom just cost 7k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People here sounds awfully sure of their future returns.

I'm in my late 50s and while I've studied the stagflation of the 1970s, I lived through the lost decade from 99-09 when stocks went nowhere, I think they lost 1% per year on average. So many investing statements that just were flat to down, month after month, year after year.

The idea that we might have another 10 years of no gains seems foreign no, but it shouldn't. Surely in the next 50 years it will happen.

Which is fine and healthy. But a lot of people here are saying things like, "I'm in the my 40s with 750k now which should be 4mm in my 60s". And I'm thinking, well .. maybe.

Thank you for being a practical, sane voice.

I remember those years well, and when your statements are flat month after month after month, it's hard to be steady with contributions. Sure, in the long run it should work out, but tell that to the Japanese.

I save 35% of my income. Not 15%. Of course “maybe”—but it is not unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Three (million) -- it's the magic number, yes it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$9000/ mth

I’m a single woman and own my home, btw

This is fine unless/until you need assisted living.
In an ALF it will cost $11,000/month to be in a decent place with Mrs management and level 2 caregiving. Can sometimes be $13-14K/month. If you own your home you should be fine though.