Why wouldn't you retire on $5M?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our goal is to build generational wealth. We want to leave as much of the capital to our kids as possible, not spend it down.

In order to live on the dividends only, the capital needs to be a lot more than 5M.

Choice of stocks depends on whether you favor a growth portfolio, where dividends will be very small compared to stock price, or whether you wish to max out dividends immediately, in which case you pick stocks with low potential for growth but high returns.

I’m sure I agree with leaving most of your capital with kids. We should have a a sizeable estate by the time we are in our 50s. We plan to only leave about 25% to our heirs. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to earn their own keep and we feel it will make them better human beings.

Good for you. Others disagree.

NP here. Noticed most first gen immigrants prefer to leave 100% to kids, zero to others. You must be one of them. Sad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very simple reason. My spend is way higher than $10,000 a month. In retirement looking to match current spend. Around $30,000 to $35,000 a month. Need to hit $12 million or perhaps $15 million.

This. $10k a month is really not much. We have $9M in cash/investments and no where near retirement (young 50s). Sure we could retire but I’m not living frugally in retirement

You could travel the world full time on 9 mil and never run out of money. You would have to blow your money on dumb stuff like fancy cars or jewelry to run out of money.

[Anonymous]

Why aren't we walking about the fact that 5million is more like 17K a month? Even after taxes, it would be more like 12-13K or even more depending on how the money is structured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very simple reason. My spend is way higher than $10,000 a month. In retirement looking to match current spend. Around $30,000 to $35,000 a month. Need to hit $12 million or perhaps $15 million.

This. $10k a month is really not much. We have $9M in cash/investments and no where near retirement (young 50s). Sure we could retire but I’m not living frugally in retirement

You could travel the world full time on 9 mil and never run out of money. You would have to blow your money on dumb stuff like fancy cars or jewelry to run out of money.

Depends how you like to travel. We are early 50s, retired and spend ~$45-50K/month.
We have a 2nd home, nicer cars, and like to travel in luxury (95% of time fly business/first)

Also, cars and jewelry are not "dumb stuff", if that's what you enjoy. We like to travel in luxury and enjoy fine dining and wines. Some may consider that dumb, but we do not. We earned the money, can easily afford to spend it, and will have plenty to give away when we die and plenty to ensure we live well until then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren't we walking about the fact that 5million is more like 17K a month? Even after taxes, it would be more like 12-13K or even more depending on how the money is structured.

So the 12-13K isn't "a lot" if you consider what advanced care/memory care/nursing care will run you for 2 people. If you spend all of that you could be in trouble if you need more than a few months of advanced care. And given that my older aunts and uncles and grandparents all required "advanced care" for 4-5+ years (some made it 10+), I'll plan for that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren't we walking about the fact that 5million is more like 17K a month? Even after taxes, it would be more like 12-13K or even more depending on how the money is structured.

10k is conservative but yeah you could stretch it out to 12-13k with a bit more risk.

I used 3% withdrawal ratio on 5M which is 150k/yr and then assuming 20% goes to taxes. Brings you to 10k a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple: Because for some people work isn’t work..
When you’re 30 and at the beginning of your career it’s stressful and time consuming and you’re probably counting down the days you no longer have to work. if you have the luck to grow so much in your career, by the time you could retire you may not really want or need to.

I’m now in a position where I make a LOT to pretty much do nothing but use my brain At my level I get lots of job satisfaction by mentoring and giving back the next generation. People in my field/conpany respect and look up to me, reach out to network, and want my advice. I speak at conferences. I have the ability to refer someone for a job or give someone a leg up. I get lots of perks from my job which enhance my personal life (eating out at the nicest restaurants, Uber black, first class flights, free computer and phone, subscriptions, etc). I have a admin assistant and career coach. Work life balance is great! My status gives me lots of once-in-a-lifetime bucket list experiences. Earlier this year I shared a stage and had private lunch with an A-list celebrity who works with my company and I have box seats at the US Open in 2 months.

I see this perspective from others I know who may not even have such extreme circumstances. Usually the type of person who has the drive to earn and save multi-millions has the intrinsic need to continue achieving. Think of top athletes, politicians, and business moguls. The way I see it - I’ve worked really hard for a lot less and had to juggle life on top of it. With all the sacrifices and effort I put in over the last 25 years to get here, why would I stop “working” now. Retiring at this point would be boring and feel more like giving up and leaving a lot on the table. I grew up with a kit less, so I do think the generational wealth I’m creating is a key driver for me, but aside from more money I’m a lot healthier mentally and physically and emotionally as well. I may step back in 10 years for some unforeseen reason, but until then I’m going to keep logging in.

This is a pretty good showcase of how in many cases the more money you make, the easier and cushier your job is. The most difficult, back breaking, soul crushing jobs pay the least which ironically means you’ll have a harder time retiring. The folks who actually have the money to retire early work in jobs that are bearable and don’t make them feel like they need to quit asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our goal is to build generational wealth. We want to leave as much of the capital to our kids as possible, not spend it down.

In order to live on the dividends only, the capital needs to be a lot more than 5M.

Choice of stocks depends on whether you favor a growth portfolio, where dividends will be very small compared to stock price, or whether you wish to max out dividends immediately, in which case you pick stocks with low potential for growth but high returns.

I’m sure I agree with leaving most of your capital with kids. We should have a a sizeable estate by the time we are in our 50s. We plan to only leave about 25% to our heirs. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to earn their own keep and we feel it will make them better human beings.

Sounds about white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our goal is to build generational wealth. We want to leave as much of the capital to our kids as possible, not spend it down.

In order to live on the dividends only, the capital needs to be a lot more than 5M.

Choice of stocks depends on whether you favor a growth portfolio, where dividends will be very small compared to stock price, or whether you wish to max out dividends immediately, in which case you pick stocks with low potential for growth but high returns.

I’m sure I agree with leaving most of your capital with kids. We should have a a sizeable estate by the time we are in our 50s. We plan to only leave about 25% to our heirs. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to earn their own keep and we feel it will make them better human beings.

Good for you. Others disagree.

NP here. Noticed most first gen immigrants prefer to leave 100% to kids, zero to others. You must be one of them. Sad

Wow, a racist/xenophobe too. Shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did, but I became a SAHM so I don’t look “retired.” I still work some and will work more when kids are older, but it’s because I want to and it’s all projects/jobs that are fun for me. I also have a several major hobbies/pursuits that are unpaid.

You’re not retired if you’re a stay at home mom AND still “work some.” Who are you trying to kid??

[Anonymous]

I'm the poster who is building generational wealth. My husband was a war refugee as a child. His family was well-off in their home country and started again from scratch in their host country. I know a lot about my family's boom and bust cycles of wealth going back hundreds of years.

So neither of us think in terms of what would make our kids "better people". They already are decent people. They are kind and help others and have a strong work ethic. They know they will have to work anyway, because that will give meaning to their lives, if not a career to fall back on if things don't go as planned.

I'm thinking more about future generations beyond that. I would like, if possible, to extend economic stability as far down my line as I can. Of course, we could all die tomorrow. Maybe my kids won't have kids. I don't control anything, really. But I need to take care of my family first.

Which doesn't exclude regular donations to causes we cherish, of course. My favorite is Doctors Without Border - they work in war zones that no one else wants to work in. They're instrumental in Sudan and Gaza and other terrible places of this world. And they're going to pick up some of the slack after USAID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren't we walking about the fact that 5million is more like 17K a month? Even after taxes, it would be more like 12-13K.

I am in this situation and agree (not sure about taxes). You are using the conservative 4% spending rule, $5MM generates $200K per year.

But I chose a big house in an expensive D.C. suburban. I'm the sole support of family with two children in diapers and need a reliable $300K-$400K+. The market has rallied 25% since April 8, but might fall as much or more. Fortunately, I am at peak career flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster who is building generational wealth. My husband was a war refugee as a child. His family was well-off in their home country and started again from scratch in their host country. I know a lot about my family's boom and bust cycles of wealth going back hundreds of years.

So neither of us think in terms of what would make our kids "better people". They already are decent people. They are kind and help others and have a strong work ethic. They know they will have to work anyway, because that will give meaning to their lives, if not a career to fall back on if things don't go as planned.

I'm thinking more about future generations beyond that. I would like, if possible, to extend economic stability as far down my line as I can. Of course, we could all die tomorrow. Maybe my kids won't have kids. I don't control anything, really. But I need to take care of my family first.

Which doesn't exclude regular donations to causes we cherish, of course. My favorite is Doctors Without Border - they work in war zones that no one else wants to work in. They're instrumental in Sudan and Gaza and other terrible places of this world. And they're going to pick up some of the slack after USAID.

Oh…very generous of you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You certainly can but for folks it depends on variables--what is college tuition projection, etc.

What is your income to amass 2 million and it must be liquid because you won't be able to access retirement accounts until 59 1/2 or sometimes 55.

You can access regular income from retirement accounts before 59.5. Checkout rule 72t.

Yes that is why referred to age 55 as well.

[Anonymous]

Because I don’t mind working (for now) and I like the idea of enjoy amazing trips without watching the budget too much for the first 5 or so years after we do retire.