Average Person is the Richest Ever as of 4PM today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were adding up 401ks this weekend. My wife who last worked in 2000 we got a 401k statement last week, I dont think we saw one in a decade. She left workforce at 35. Well it was 1.3 million.

She put in around 2k a year for 15 years and got 100 percent match. So her 30K investment is now 1.3 million. Which means even SAHMs with low paid jobs who quit at 33-35 for good are not millionaires on their way to be multimillinaires by retirement.

BTW with rule of 7 money doubling every year the amounts you put in early before 35 is a huge impact.
in 1986 a new college graduates puts 2k in 401k with match is 4k
in 1993 it becomes 8k
in 2000 becomes 16k
2007 becomes 32k
2014 becomes 64k
2021 becomes 128K
2028 becomes 256K
2035 becomes 512k
2042 when person is 77 that 2k is now worth $1,024,,000
at 84 is $2,048,000
at 91 is $4,096,000
at 98 is $8,192,000

Can you imagine investing $2,000 at 21 and somehow when you die a it is worth $8,192,000

It is why old people are rich.

Between 2000 (1314) and today (7398), the S&P 500 has increased in value by 463% with annualized returns of approximately 6.87%. Thus, a portfolio invested in 100% equities worth $1.3M today was worth $230,900 in 2000. A target date or age-based fund would have progressively reduced exposure to equities over time and required even more.

PP also claims that his wife contributed $4K per year (including company match) for 15 years in order to achieve the alleged starting amount in 2000, which must have been close to $230K per the above evidence. Using a simple compound interest calculator shows that in order for a $4K per year investment to grow to an accumulated $230K total requires an annualized investment yield of 15.2%. The annualized return of the S&P 500 between 1985 (202) and 2000 (1314) was roughly 13.3%.

So, while I originally thought PP was blowing smoke, the actual data and analysis suggests that this rags to riches story may have a hint of validity after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: BTW with rule of 7 money doubling every year the amounts you put in early before 35 is a huge impact.
in 1986 a new college graduates puts 2k in 401k with match is 4k
in 1993 it becomes 8k
in 2000 becomes 16k
2007 becomes 32k
2014 becomes 64k
2021 becomes 128K
2028 becomes 256K
2035 becomes 512k
2042 when person is 77 that 2k is now worth $1,024,,000
at 84 is $2,048,000
at 91 is $4,096,000
at 98 is $8,192,000

Can you imagine investing $2,000 at 21 and somehow when you die a it is worth $8,192,000

It is why old people are rich.

On the other hand, however, the latter half of PP’s narrative is a bit of a yarn. The claimed $2K investment was immediately doubled by an employer match and that combined $4K would have to earn an annualized return of 10.4% for 77 years to grow to $8,192,000. There hasn’t been a 77-year period in the history of stock trading that has generated annualized returns of more than 8%.

[Anonymous]

[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were adding up 401ks this weekend. My wife who last worked in 2000 we got a 401k statement last week, I dont think we saw one in a decade. She left workforce at 35. Well it was 1.3 million.

She put in around 2k a year for 15 years and got 100 percent match. So her 30K investment is now 1.3 million. Which means even SAHMs with low paid jobs who quit at 33-35 for good are not millionaires on their way to be multimillinaires by retirement.

BTW with rule of 7 money doubling every year the amounts you put in early before 35 is a huge impact.
in 1986 a new college graduates puts 2k in 401k with match is 4k
in 1993 it becomes 8k
in 2000 becomes 16k
2007 becomes 32k
2014 becomes 64k
2021 becomes 128K
2028 becomes 256K
2035 becomes 512k
2042 when person is 77 that 2k is now worth $1,024,,000
at 84 is $2,048,000
at 91 is $4,096,000
at 98 is $8,192,000

Can you imagine investing $2,000 at 21 and somehow when you die a it is worth $8,192,000

It is why old people are rich.

Between 2000 (1314) and today (7398), the S&P 500 has increased in value by 463% with annualized returns of approximately 6.87%. Thus, a portfolio invested in 100% equities worth $1.3M today was worth $230,900 in 2000. A target date or age-based fund would have progressively reduced exposure to equities over time and required even more.

PP also claims that his wife contributed $4K per year (including company match) for 15 years in order to achieve the alleged starting amount in 2000, which must have been close to $230K per the above evidence. Using a simple compound interest calculator shows that in order for a $4K per year investment to grow to an accumulated $230K total requires an annualized investment yield of 15.2%. The annualized return of the S&P 500 between 1985 (202) and 2000 (1314) was roughly 13.3%.

So, while I originally thought PP was blowing smoke, the actual data and analysis suggests that this rags to riches story may have a hint of validity after all.

She slightly outperformed S&P as part of 401k is in employee stock that outperformed S&P. Pre Enron, worldcom etc was common

[Anonymous]

I put $40,000 into an S&P 500 index fund in 1993. Dividends reinvested but no additional contributions. 33 years later, the value is just shy of $1.2 million.

In 2026 dollars the initial investment would be $91,500. So on an inflation adjusted basis, the investment has grown more than 13 times, for an annual post-inflation rate of 10.85%.