How much should be in 401k at age 40?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:300k and you're fine. Would more be better? Of course, but 300k is fine. Most Americans have much less.

Most Americans are poor.

[Anonymous]

Let me give you one possible scenario:
If you have 300k now and max your own contribution every year, and have an employer contribution of 25k. You 401k will become $1.6M in 10 years assuming 9% annual return (so you have to take the risk and invest aggressively).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:43 and 460k. Feeling behind.

You are not behind

[Anonymous]

Age 46. Single. 740k. Nonprofit worker.

[Anonymous]

$450k. I’m 39.

[Anonymous]

OP wasn't asking what you HAVE. OP was asking what you SHOULD have. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Not much, took major chuck out for kid's grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:43 and 460k. Feeling behind.

You are not behind

Maybe in not being an AH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Millionaire next door says (age x annual income)/10. Ie: ($150,000x 40)/10 = $600,000.

I’ve read that book so many times during my 20s and always wondered how anyone could meet their formulas. It was very disheartening.

Fast forward to 20 years and I’m close to a PAW. It amazing what compound gains can do for you.

[Anonymous]

I just did the millionaire next door calculation. I have never gotten a match. I have always been in conservative plans. And the number that I should be at is almost exact.

Had I gotten a match and been in aggressive plans, I can see how this would have been much higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me give you one possible scenario:
If you have 300k now and max your own contribution every year, and have an employer contribution of 25k. You 401k will become $1.6M in 10 years assuming 9% annual return (so you have to take the risk and invest aggressively).

WHAT EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTES 25K YEARLY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're asking about the 401k, but by 40 you should try backdoor contributions to a Roth IRA as well.

Odd advice without knowing income. Most Americans make below the Roth contribution phase out.

Strongly suggest looking up the details for “backdoor” Roth contributions.

You missed the point. The average American doesn't make enough money to have to use a backdoor to contribute to a Roth. Sorry you live in a UMC bubble.

No, you missed the point. Regardless of OP’s income, Roth IRA benefits are available to OP. And by 40, the advice is to look into taking advantage of that by contributing to a Roth IRA. Thats solid advice, and you’re focused on whether or not a backdoor is needed - who cares.

I don't think you understand how tight the average American's finances are. While I appreciate your mansplaining, you continue to miss the point.

Your virtue signaling is a waste of time, irrelevant to this discussion, and worst of all boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're asking about the 401k, but by 40 you should try backdoor contributions to a Roth IRA as well.

Odd advice without knowing income. Most Americans make below the Roth contribution phase out.

Strongly suggest looking up the details for “backdoor” Roth contributions.

You missed the point. The average American doesn't make enough money to have to use a backdoor to contribute to a Roth. Sorry you live in a UMC bubble.

No, you missed the point. Regardless of OP’s income, Roth IRA benefits are available to OP. And by 40, the advice is to look into taking advantage of that by contributing to a Roth IRA. Thats solid advice, and you’re focused on whether or not a backdoor is needed - who cares.

I don't think you understand how tight the average American's finances are. While I appreciate your mansplaining, you continue to miss the point.

Your virtue signaling is a waste of time, irrelevant to this discussion, and worst of all boring.

Your being a douche is tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me give you one possible scenario:
If you have 300k now and max your own contribution every year, and have an employer contribution of 25k. You 401k will become $1.6M in 10 years assuming 9% annual return (so you have to take the risk and invest aggressively).

WHAT EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTES 25K YEARLY

I get 30k per year from my employer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me give you one possible scenario:
If you have 300k now and max your own contribution every year, and have an employer contribution of 25k. You 401k will become $1.6M in 10 years assuming 9% annual return (so you have to take the risk and invest aggressively).

WHAT EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTES 25K YEARLY

I get 30k per year from my employer.

Like a 125% match?? Or is this firm profit-sharing?