Once you become a multi millionaire in early 30’s feels pointless to save

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You think your $2.8M is going to grow to 50M???

Please google the Rule of 72. Assuming a 10% return, that math checks out.

OP, I agree with another PP that for these purposes, I'd assume a more conservative 7% annual return. You're still fine, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Through a combination of inheritance and saving from our 150k+250k jobs we hit $2.8M investable assets in our early 30’s. Inherited about $1M several years ago from a relative who passed away and put in VOO, now it’s doubled.

We just realized that even if we live very frugally and save $10k a month, the difference in 30 years between saving this much and nothing is $50 million vs $68 million based on 10% average return in S&P 500 (which I very much realize is not guaranteed and stocks go up and down).

So why should we even save at this point? Fully intending to work till our 60’s since we enjoy our careers. Might as well enjoy our paychecks to the fullest and let the $2.8 mil compound with no further contributions.

What a horrible existence.

Horrible because they can retire by 40 if they want? While you schlep away at your job till your 65

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You think your $2.8M is going to grow to 50M???

Anonymous wrote:I'd assume a more conservative 7% annual return. You're still fine, though.

Finance professor here. Yes, the math is fine, assuming a 10% compound return.

Over the past century, the compound market return was indeed around 10%. The compound return was around 2% lower than the average return. Also, real returns were even lower due to inflation. Finally, the past century was probably a bit lucky. You are still fine.

[Anonymous]

I use a real rate of return of 4 to 5%. OP should expect around 10 to 15 million in today’s dollars when he retires at 60. Hopefully he didn’t commingle the inheritance so his wife can’t get access to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I use a real rate of return of 4 to 5%. OP should expect around 10 to 15 million in today’s dollars when he retires at 60. Hopefully he didn’t commingle the inheritance so his wife can’t get access to it.

Why should he be worried about divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use a real rate of return of 4 to 5%. OP should expect around 10 to 15 million in today’s dollars when he retires at 60. Hopefully he didn’t commingle the inheritance so his wife can’t get access to it.

Why should he be worried about divorce?

NP. Most likely way to lose half of your assets? I mean, it's basically a coin toss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think your $2.8M is going to grow to 50M???

10% doesn’t factor inflation so $50 would be more like $20 mil in 30 years. Not guaranteed but not unlikely either

I'm sure she can manage on 20 mill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use a real rate of return of 4 to 5%. OP should expect around 10 to 15 million in today’s dollars when he retires at 60. Hopefully he didn’t commingle the inheritance so his wife can’t get access to it.

Why should he be worried about divorce?

NP. Most likely way to lose half of your assets? I mean, it's basically a coin toss.

It’s not a coin toss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is with all these posts with people looking for permission to spend their money instead of saving and investing?

Go ahead. You might have big regrets later when inflation eats away at the value of what you’ve saved, but go ahead and enjoy it now. I bet your kids will be thrilled to pitch in to take care of you when you’re 90.

Why would inflation eat away at the value of what you have saved? At that level of finds you would be fully or heavily invested in equities and you should expect --- over time --- for the inflation to be reflected in your value increase. inflation might eat away if you were in cash or heavily in fixed income or similar products but someone with these funds should not heavily be in either catagory.

[Anonymous]

You're making unwise financial choices if you don't at least max out for 401ks.

Max out your 401ks. Don't touch the inheritance for now - let it grow and have for yourself when you are older. Live off what you earn (you make plenty - you dont need the inheritance for everyday spending). If you do that, you will be set.

Realize that old age can be very expensive. 24-7 care at home costs around 150k a year, and that's if you are able to walk with just a one person assist - care agencies may insist on a two person assist.

[Anonymous]

Have been in a somewhat similar position but higher earner. Still save significantly but spend significantly as well. I am comfirtable that what we have plus what we are saving will support the level of spend that we want. So I do not over save just to save. But I do save a lot still. If we were not in the position we are in we would need to save more. In your example I would still want the $54 million rather than the $50 if you are still able to do what you want as you live.

[Anonymous]

Don’t save. Give it away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep I agree with you. I’d be a sahm though. No point in us both working hard and our kids having to be in daycare and aftercare’s and camps.

This! If you want to work PT or be a full time SAHP, do it. You won't get that time back with your kids (no matter what the age).

Or take a PT less stressful job if you dont' want to "not work" a paying job.

In my experience, PT jobs are FT (or close to it) and pay half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe... but my fiance was a multimillionaire through an inheritance in his 20s and he spent it all

Seems like a red flag