What is your "magic number" for retirement?

[Anonymous]

So many factors to consider retiring...it's not only about finances.
We recently retired at 64 and 65- we have about $3M and no debt (own our home and college paid for). We have plenty of $ to live very comfortably. However, both of us are kind of missing the work place- we liked our careers and though we do plenty, its a lot of down time. I also liked having the house to myself all day (work from home), it's an adjustment having DH home all the time.

[Anonymous]

Excluding taxes our annual expenses are $300k so our target is $10 million. We were there at the end of 2021 but we took an equity beating in 2022 and almost fully recovered in 2023. I like my work and I’m very well paid plus I have a lot of equity vesting in 2024 and 2025 that could get us to $13-15 million. If I didn’t like my work I’d retire tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are around $3.5M net worth including home equity of $400k and another $400k in 529. Our HHI rose drastically in the last two years and we are now able to save $250k-$300k per year. Another 10 years to work, we are 44 and 47. So thinking retire with somewhere around $7M net worth after paying two kids college. We both are in tech, so no guarantee that we will continue to be consistently employed or with high HHI.

there's a lot more ageism in tech than in other industries.

We didn't feel ageism (in tech) until we hit our 50s.

Luckily, we saved a lot from our 30s, and so we are planning to retire in our late 50s, early 60s in a few years, with about $4 mil nw.

[Anonymous]

We have 6M (in equities, bonds, cash) + house which we downsized to in anticipation of retirement. We both enjoy our jobs (I can work as much or as little as I want) and spouse WFH and enjoys what he's doing and enjoys the people he works with.

Our expenses are 150K excluding taxes and things like cars or major house repair, and we'll both take SS at 70. We'll see what Medicare costs once we get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. The strategy basically says that you can have a much higher withdrawal rate if you focus on high-dividends stocks. Imagine being able to perpetually withdraw 7% from your portfolio instead of 3-4% – that’s possible if you ignore two mainstream pieces of advice:

1). Don’t buy bonds – they’re garbage.

2). Don’t limit yourself to the usual broad indices like the S&P and an international index. While almost nothing outperforms the S&P 500 long-term, in retirement, it is problematic because it pays low dividends and requires you to sell some of your shares. Because of this, you are a lot more dependent on market cycles and the price of stocks (i.e., sequence of returns risk), and you can only withdraw something like 3-4%.

If anyone has ever inherited a stock portfolio you may have seen this. Both my mother and my MIL had similar stock strategies which was basically "all in, all the time, never sell" with no more than half their money in mutual funds/ETFs. Both started investing when there were no index funds. You invested in companies you knew. I'm also an all in, all the time, never sell but with index funds. When I inherited these old timey portfolios and took a few months to see what was what it was the first time I saw what widows knew: A robust portfolio of CAT, JNJ,KO etc lets you live off that income and let your portfolios grow for decades. I dont need the income now, but later on, for sure moving that way.

Great post, thank you.

I ran a backtest on portfolio visualizer on a total stock market index fund vs SCHD. While the TSM portfolio was a little larger, SCHD was throwing off significantly more income per year. At a certain point, portfolio size doesn’t matter if you’re receiving $200,000+ in income a year.

You gave me something to think about.

What does this even mean? A smaller portfolio with less discretion about realizing income subject to taxes isn’t a good thing.

You can always sell off part of your holdings of a mutual fund— there’a no advantage to taking money out as dividends.

You have to factor in your own mental acuity in making these decisions in the last 20 years of your life. From your late 70s to late 90s, you may be better off with a portfolio that is throwing off money to keep your lights on and dental bills paid. For about half of us, someone else will be calling these shots by the time we get into our 80s. And if that's not ideal, then it's a good idea to NOT give people any reason to regularly touch the nest egg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. The strategy basically says that you can have a much higher withdrawal rate if you focus on high-dividends stocks. Imagine being able to perpetually withdraw 7% from your portfolio instead of 3-4% – that’s possible if you ignore two mainstream pieces of advice:

1). Don’t buy bonds – they’re garbage.

2). Don’t limit yourself to the usual broad indices like the S&P and an international index. While almost nothing outperforms the S&P 500 long-term, in retirement, it is problematic because it pays low dividends and requires you to sell some of your shares. Because of this, you are a lot more dependent on market cycles and the price of stocks (i.e., sequence of returns risk), and you can only withdraw something like 3-4%.

If anyone has ever inherited a stock portfolio you may have seen this. Both my mother and my MIL had similar stock strategies which was basically "all in, all the time, never sell" with no more than half their money in mutual funds/ETFs. Both started investing when there were no index funds. You invested in companies you knew. I'm also an all in, all the time, never sell but with index funds. When I inherited these old timey portfolios and took a few months to see what was what it was the first time I saw what widows knew: A robust portfolio of CAT, JNJ,KO etc lets you live off that income and let your portfolios grow for decades. I dont need the income now, but later on, for sure moving that way.

Great post, thank you.

I ran a backtest on portfolio visualizer on a total stock market index fund vs SCHD. While the TSM portfolio was a little larger, SCHD was throwing off significantly more income per year. At a certain point, portfolio size doesn’t matter if you’re receiving $200,000+ in income a year.

You gave me something to think about.

What does this even mean? A smaller portfolio with less discretion about realizing income subject to taxes isn’t a good thing.

You can always sell off part of your holdings of a mutual fund— there’a no advantage to taking money out as dividends.

You have to factor in your own mental acuity in making these decisions in the last 20 years of your life. From your late 70s to late 90s, you may be better off with a portfolio that is throwing off money to keep your lights on and dental bills paid. For about half of us, someone else will be calling these shots by the time we get into our 80s. And if that's not ideal, then it's a good idea to NOT give people any reason to regularly touch the nest egg

Then the smart thing to do is to buy an annuity when you are 80 that covers basic expenses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. The strategy basically says that you can have a much higher withdrawal rate if you focus on high-dividends stocks. Imagine being able to perpetually withdraw 7% from your portfolio instead of 3-4% – that’s possible if you ignore two mainstream pieces of advice:

1). Don’t buy bonds – they’re garbage.

2). Don’t limit yourself to the usual broad indices like the S&P and an international index. While almost nothing outperforms the S&P 500 long-term, in retirement, it is problematic because it pays low dividends and requires you to sell some of your shares. Because of this, you are a lot more dependent on market cycles and the price of stocks (i.e., sequence of returns risk), and you can only withdraw something like 3-4%.

If anyone has ever inherited a stock portfolio you may have seen this. Both my mother and my MIL had similar stock strategies which was basically "all in, all the time, never sell" with no more than half their money in mutual funds/ETFs. Both started investing when there were no index funds. You invested in companies you knew. I'm also an all in, all the time, never sell but with index funds. When I inherited these old timey portfolios and took a few months to see what was what it was the first time I saw what widows knew: A robust portfolio of CAT, JNJ,KO etc lets you live off that income and let your portfolios grow for decades. I dont need the income now, but later on, for sure moving that way.

Great post, thank you.

I ran a backtest on portfolio visualizer on a total stock market index fund vs SCHD. While the TSM portfolio was a little larger, SCHD was throwing off significantly more income per year. At a certain point, portfolio size doesn’t matter if you’re receiving $200,000+ in income a year.

You gave me something to think about.

What does this even mean? A smaller portfolio with less discretion about realizing income subject to taxes isn’t a good thing.

You can always sell off part of your holdings of a mutual fund— there’a no advantage to taking money out as dividends.

You have to factor in your own mental acuity in making these decisions in the last 20 years of your life. From your late 70s to late 90s, you may be better off with a portfolio that is throwing off money to keep your lights on and dental bills paid. For about half of us, someone else will be calling these shots by the time we get into our 80s. And if that's not ideal, then it's a good idea to NOT give people any reason to regularly touch the nest egg

Then the smart thing to do is to buy an annuity when you are 80 that covers basic expenses

I plan on doing that for your exact reason.

Have an annuity in place in case I spend all my money on hookers and blow and waste the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. The strategy basically says that you can have a much higher withdrawal rate if you focus on high-dividends stocks. Imagine being able to perpetually withdraw 7% from your portfolio instead of 3-4% – that’s possible if you ignore two mainstream pieces of advice:

1). Don’t buy bonds – they’re garbage.

2). Don’t limit yourself to the usual broad indices like the S&P and an international index. While almost nothing outperforms the S&P 500 long-term, in retirement, it is problematic because it pays low dividends and requires you to sell some of your shares. Because of this, you are a lot more dependent on market cycles and the price of stocks (i.e., sequence of returns risk), and you can only withdraw something like 3-4%.

If anyone has ever inherited a stock portfolio you may have seen this. Both my mother and my MIL had similar stock strategies which was basically "all in, all the time, never sell" with no more than half their money in mutual funds/ETFs. Both started investing when there were no index funds. You invested in companies you knew. I'm also an all in, all the time, never sell but with index funds. When I inherited these old timey portfolios and took a few months to see what was what it was the first time I saw what widows knew: A robust portfolio of CAT, JNJ,KO etc lets you live off that income and let your portfolios grow for decades. I dont need the income now, but later on, for sure moving that way.

Great post, thank you.

I ran a backtest on portfolio visualizer on a total stock market index fund vs SCHD. While the TSM portfolio was a little larger, SCHD was throwing off significantly more income per year. At a certain point, portfolio size doesn’t matter if you’re receiving $200,000+ in income a year.

You gave me something to think about.

What does this even mean? A smaller portfolio with less discretion about realizing income subject to taxes isn’t a good thing.

You can always sell off part of your holdings of a mutual fund— there’a no advantage to taking money out as dividends.

You have to factor in your own mental acuity in making these decisions in the last 20 years of your life. From your late 70s to late 90s, you may be better off with a portfolio that is throwing off money to keep your lights on and dental bills paid. For about half of us, someone else will be calling these shots by the time we get into our 80s. And if that's not ideal, then it's a good idea to NOT give people any reason to regularly touch the nest egg

I'll need the income. Otherwise my kids will say, "Sorry Pops, we decided it would cheaper - I mean better! - to pull all our teeth." They'll protect that capital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are around $3.5M net worth including home equity of $400k and another $400k in 529. Our HHI rose drastically in the last two years and we are now able to save $250k-$300k per year. Another 10 years to work, we are 44 and 47. So thinking retire with somewhere around $7M net worth after paying two kids college. We both are in tech, so no guarantee that we will continue to be consistently employed or with high HHI.

there's a lot more ageism in tech than in other industries.

We didn't feel ageism (in tech) until we hit our 50s.

Luckily, we saved a lot from our 30s, and so we are planning to retire in our late 50s, early 60s in a few years, with about $4 mil nw.

Good for you, I am a mid level manager and the leadership is constantly focused on reducing the "average employee age". TBH, we could easily make do with $3M-$4M would need a higher amount due to my chronic health issues

[Anonymous]

Probably won't retire regardless the sum. Too interested in ideas, building things, and investing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are around $3.5M net worth including home equity of $400k and another $400k in 529. Our HHI rose drastically in the last two years and we are now able to save $250k-$300k per year. Another 10 years to work, we are 44 and 47. So thinking retire with somewhere around $7M net worth after paying two kids college. We both are in tech, so no guarantee that we will continue to be consistently employed or with high HHI.

there's a lot more ageism in tech than in other industries.

We didn't feel ageism (in tech) until we hit our 50s.

Luckily, we saved a lot from our 30s, and so we are planning to retire in our late 50s, early 60s in a few years, with about $4 mil nw.

Maybe I’m too much of a noob at my very large tech company, but I just don’t see the ageism thing. There are plenty of colleagues still going strong in their late 50s and early 60s. Maybe my company’s culture is just that good or that aware of age discrimination? I have no idea. But I’m early 40s and more frequently than not, the youngest person in the room or on the call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are around $3.5M net worth including home equity of $400k and another $400k in 529. Our HHI rose drastically in the last two years and we are now able to save $250k-$300k per year. Another 10 years to work, we are 44 and 47. So thinking retire with somewhere around $7M net worth after paying two kids college. We both are in tech, so no guarantee that we will continue to be consistently employed or with high HHI.

there's a lot more ageism in tech than in other industries.

We didn't feel ageism (in tech) until we hit our 50s.

Luckily, we saved a lot from our 30s, and so we are planning to retire in our late 50s, early 60s in a few years, with about $4 mil nw.

Maybe I’m too much of a noob at my very large tech company, but I just don’t see the ageism thing. There are plenty of colleagues still going strong in their late 50s and early 60s. Maybe my company’s culture is just that good or that aware of age discrimination? I have no idea. But I’m early 40s and more frequently than not, the youngest person in the room or on the call.

I think there is a difference between something like IBM, 3M or even Microsoft and places like Meta or Tesla or even Google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are around $3.5M net worth including home equity of $400k and another $400k in 529. Our HHI rose drastically in the last two years and we are now able to save $250k-$300k per year. Another 10 years to work, we are 44 and 47. So thinking retire with somewhere around $7M net worth after paying two kids college. We both are in tech, so no guarantee that we will continue to be consistently employed or with high HHI.

there's a lot more ageism in tech than in other industries.

We didn't feel ageism (in tech) until we hit our 50s.

Luckily, we saved a lot from our 30s, and so we are planning to retire in our late 50s, early 60s in a few years, with about $4 mil nw.

Maybe I’m too much of a noob at my very large tech company, but I just don’t see the ageism thing. There are plenty of colleagues still going strong in their late 50s and early 60s. Maybe my company’s culture is just that good or that aware of age discrimination? I have no idea. But I’m early 40s and more frequently than not, the youngest person in the room or on the call.

I think there is a difference between something like IBM, 3M or even Microsoft and places like Meta or Tesla or even Google.

Noob here again and I work for one of those companies. So is the former group or the latter group the one that’s discriminating based on age? LOL, I’m clearly clueless about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are around $3.5M net worth including home equity of $400k and another $400k in 529. Our HHI rose drastically in the last two years and we are now able to save $250k-$300k per year. Another 10 years to work, we are 44 and 47. So thinking retire with somewhere around $7M net worth after paying two kids college. We both are in tech, so no guarantee that we will continue to be consistently employed or with high HHI.

there's a lot more ageism in tech than in other industries.

We didn't feel ageism (in tech) until we hit our 50s.

Luckily, we saved a lot from our 30s, and so we are planning to retire in our late 50s, early 60s in a few years, with about $4 mil nw.

Maybe I’m too much of a noob at my very large tech company, but I just don’t see the ageism thing. There are plenty of colleagues still going strong in their late 50s and early 60s. Maybe my company’s culture is just that good or that aware of age discrimination? I have no idea. But I’m early 40s and more frequently than not, the youngest person in the room or on the call.

I think there is a difference between something like IBM, 3M or even Microsoft and places like Meta or Tesla or even Google.

Noob here again and I work for one of those companies. So is the former group or the latter group the one that’s discriminating based on age? LOL, I’m clearly clueless about this.

It's the IBMs, 3M, Microsoft type companies that don't have as much age discrimination as the hot, newer companies that try to run young and now lean. Though I was just thinking today that with all their job cuts, I wonder if they are getting older and slower and trying to fix that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are around $3.5M net worth including home equity of $400k and another $400k in 529. Our HHI rose drastically in the last two years and we are now able to save $250k-$300k per year. Another 10 years to work, we are 44 and 47. So thinking retire with somewhere around $7M net worth after paying two kids college. We both are in tech, so no guarantee that we will continue to be consistently employed or with high HHI.

there's a lot more ageism in tech than in other industries.

We didn't feel ageism (in tech) until we hit our 50s.

Luckily, we saved a lot from our 30s, and so we are planning to retire in our late 50s, early 60s in a few years, with about $4 mil nw.

Maybe I’m too much of a noob at my very large tech company, but I just don’t see the ageism thing. There are plenty of colleagues still going strong in their late 50s and early 60s. Maybe my company’s culture is just that good or that aware of age discrimination? I have no idea. But I’m early 40s and more frequently than not, the youngest person in the room or on the call.

I think there is a difference between something like IBM, 3M or even Microsoft and places like Meta or Tesla or even Google.

Noob here again and I work for one of those companies. So is the former group or the latter group the one that’s discriminating based on age? LOL, I’m clearly clueless about this.

It's the IBMs, 3M, Microsoft type companies that don't have as much age discrimination as the hot, newer companies that try to run young and now lean. Though I was just thinking today that with all their job cuts, I wonder if they are getting older and slower and trying to fix that.

Referring to Google in the bolded.