One million saved…can I stop now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would not stop. I am 54, have $1.4 mil saved (spouse has $1.6mil saved at 60, retired due to ageism). You never know if you will get laid off and not be able to find another job at your age.

Private health insurance is super expensive. That's the only reason why I am working now.

When you are 62 and have $2mil, you might be able to self insurance (but who knows what will happen to ACA then). Our plan is to buy private insurance if we have to, but if ACA is gone, or it becomes prohibitively expensive, we plan on moving to my spouse's home country in Europe where private medical care is way cheaper than here.

So, I would keep going.

forgot to mention, we also have $600k in cash, so total $3.6mil. I still wouldn't stop contributing yet because now a days, it's easy to get laid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NO. And that would be DUMB because you don't have to pay cap gains etc on what is in your 401k

This might be the dumbest comment I've ever seen in this subforum.

[Anonymous]

This is OP!! My question is whatever 1mil would grow to in 15 years, is that enough? I am thinking maybe our retirement savings is strong and at that 1 mil mark I can focus on paying off the mortgage faster and cash-flow the kids’ college instead of putting money in a 401k.

One spouse will have a small pension (about 10 yrs public) and as a millennial, I do not even factor social security into the equation! Gah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP!! My question is whatever 1mil would grow to in 15 years, is that enough? I am thinking maybe our retirement savings is strong and at that 1 mil mark I can focus on paying off the mortgage faster and cash-flow the kids’ college instead of putting money in a 401k.

One spouse will have a small pension (about 10 yrs public) and as a millennial, I do not even factor social security into the equation! Gah!

If you’re a millennial it seems like you’re jumping the gun a little bit trying to make plans based on being “on track to” hit the 1 million mark at 50 in this volatile economic climate. Why not wait and see where you actually are 7+ years from now and then plan accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP isn’t planning to retire with $1m. He/She has that now and is asking if it is OK to stop contributing. The $1m will continue to grow, likely reaching $4m by age 65. That is the number to focus on.

It’s shocking how few posters read the actual OP.

I wouldn’t stop saving at $1M personally, but most posters didn’t even answer the correct question. OP isn’t trying to stop working now.

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe 8% of the replies addressed the actual question.

We have similar thoughts to the OP. We are 53 and 56, with ~$3m in invested savings and an HHI of ~$500k. We're continuing to put ~$100k each year into tax advantaged accounts, because (i) we are savers, (ii) it's tax advantaged, and (iii) it will accelerate our retirement age, and (iv) we live just fine now. But if either of us suffers a job reversal (not unheard of in this day and age) we have the option to stop contributions altogether, and let the appreciation take us the rest of the way to our retirement goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you stopped investing today and we had a moderate 7% growth over the next decade you’d have:

2 million at 60
4 million at 70

Rule of 72

If you had a pension and social security, remained healthy for a while and lived within your means you’d probably be fine.

7% is not what I'd consider a moderator growth if you mean inflation-adjusted!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP isn’t planning to retire with $1m. He/She has that now and is asking if it is OK to stop contributing. The $1m will continue to grow, likely reaching $4m by age 65. That is the number to focus on.

It’s shocking how few posters read the actual OP.

I wouldn’t stop saving at $1M personally, but most posters didn’t even answer the correct question. OP isn’t trying to stop working now.

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe 8% of the replies addressed the actual question.

We have similar thoughts to the OP. We are 53 and 56, with ~$3m in invested savings and an HHI of ~$500k. We're continuing to put ~$100k each year into tax advantaged accounts, because (i) we are savers, (ii) it's tax advantaged, and (iii) it will accelerate our retirement age, and (iv) we live just fine now. But if either of us suffers a job reversal (not unheard of in this day and age) we have the option to stop contributions altogether, and let the appreciation take us the rest of the way to our retirement goals.

But OP only has $1mil at 50. That's a different calculus. If OP said they had $3mil, I'd say, probably, depending on the expenses.

But, the contribution also decreases your tax liability. So, don't forget that part. OP could still contribute and pull out from the retirement account to pay for college if they have an IRA. You can always get a loan for college, then pay it back if it turns out that you have the cash later on, but no one is going to give you a loan to retire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP isn’t planning to retire with $1m. He/She has that now and is asking if it is OK to stop contributing. The $1m will continue to grow, likely reaching $4m by age 65. That is the number to focus on.

First of all, it sounds like she isn't even 50 yet especially if she's a millennial, so she probably doesn't have $1M right now.

If she is 50 with $1M, $4M at 65 would take 9.7% annual returns on average, which implies all stocks right up until retirement, which is not what most people would feel comfortable with. Plus the $4M would be nominal, so it's not really the right number to think about now.

[Anonymous]

It depends on your expected expenses. I’ve had two family members retire at 63 and 65 recently who have 400-600k in retirement accounts and qualify for social security - one has a paid off house and the other owes around 200k. They can’t spend lavishly but can enjoy life on their terms comfortably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you stopped investing today and we had a moderate 7% growth over the next decade you’d have:

2 million at 60
4 million at 70

Rule of 72

If you had a pension and social security, remained healthy for a while and lived within your means you’d probably be fine.

Its moderate

7% is not what I'd consider a moderator growth if you mean inflation-adjusted!

Doesn’t the s&p500 historically return around 7% adjusted for inflation?

[Anonymous]

OP- it sounds like you don't have $1million yet (you say you are on track for it) and you have college to pay for and other things. You need to be savings for all of these things at once. This means managing a budget. Share what you spend now and we can help.

[Anonymous]

I assume most or all of that money is in a 401K so you have to pay taxes when you withdraw it. Also you need some extra to protect against the market being down when you enter retirement. Basically you should keep saving. That said if you have some unexpected expenses you can decrease your savings for a bit if you need to.

[Anonymous]

That’s not enough for 2 people. What will your property taxes be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This question depends on your monthly spend. If you live in a low cost of living area with a paid off house and a very frugal lifestyle that could be plenty. If you still have a mortgage, or live in a high cost of living area, or have expensive tastes that won’t be enough.

However, unless you have excellent LTC insurance, you likely need more than that for LTC. Not unusual to end up in Assisted living/nursing care/memory care for more than 1 year, and those typically cost $10-15K/month. $1M plus SS is nowhere near enough for any of that, even with low cost of living/being frugal.

$15k a month gets you a few hours a day of care. When you need 24 hour care it will go up to about $250-$275k a year.

Lol, so you're going to give up literally a decade or more, in the prime of your life, to save up extra millions for slightly nicer accommodations in your mid-80s (which you may never need and of which you would likely never be aware, given your deterioration)? Truly baffling that people think this is a good trade. I'm retiring in 2-3 years at 45-46, will live a modest lifestyle enjoying all my days, and will gladly live in a Medicaid nursing home if that's what's required at age 86.

FYI, a neighbor just passed away after two years in an expensive nursing home (and 1-2 years of six-figure in-home care before that). His life was still as crappy as you might expect for someone who needs these things.

I agree with you that even the expensive assisted living facilities leave a lot to be desired, but if you think the difference is slight, you are insane. My dad has been in both and the difference is incredible. The care he received at a Medicare funded facility was disgusting. Literally because they avoided cleaning/bathing him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you stopped investing today and we had a moderate 7% growth over the next decade you’d have:

2 million at 60
4 million at 70

Rule of 72

If you had a pension and social security, remained healthy for a while and lived within your means you’d probably be fine.

Its moderate

7% is not what I'd consider a moderator growth if you mean inflation-adjusted!

Doesn’t the s&p500 historically return around 7% adjusted for inflation?

Sure but I don't consider using the historical growth rate of 100% stocks all the way through 65 to be moderate. That makes assumptions I don't think most individuals or financial advisors would be comfortable with. It's not the percentage that's "wrong" per se, it's that the assumption requires a very risky asset allocation, so you shouldn't rely on it when thinking about stopping contributions.

Plus I'd rather look at Monte Carlo simulations or even just model some reasonable worst case scenarios to stop saving for retirement altogether.