Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We plan to retire at $3.5M, for a comfortable $100k/year.

Thats considered low by today’s standards.

Less than 2% of Americans have 2 mil saved for retirement - 3.5 million saved is a real achievement.

This statistic is true but it might be misleading. It's true that less than 2% have $2M SAVED, but that number most likely doesn't take into consideration the value of people's pensions (or even Social Security). I know most people don't have pensions, but there are plenty of people (especially public sector folks) with nice pensions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just crossed it, this morning, based on this market price advance. (Investment portfolio, not counting house.)

You know this is not enough right?
We crossed it 20 years ago. We are now at $31M. We are 65 and it’s not enough to retire. We might have to work past 70.

Lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We plan to retire at $3.5M, for a comfortable $100k/year.

Thats considered low by today’s standards.

Less than 2% of Americans have 2 mil saved for retirement - 3.5 million saved is a real achievement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can retire with basically nothing if you have a big enough pension or real estate. If you think that you need more than 5 mil, you probably have a spending/mental problem.

For those without a pension, $5M is only $150k a year on the 3% rule.

3% is very conservative. You can draw more than 3% and still be very safe.
But even $150k a year to use is more than enough once you stop saving.
We earn $300k and enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle in Arlington. We save around a third of our earnings. If our house were fully paid off, we could maintain the same comfortable lifestyle we have now with just $150k.

Yes, 3% is very conservative. It started out as the 4% rule. Then some wanted to be more conservative but most advisors that I listen to/follow now think that even 4% is too conservative. Some go up to 5% as long as you keep a 60/40 split between stocks and bonds. And these rules are supposed to be so your money lasts at least 30 years.

Right. 3% is for the FIRE at 35 crowd.

Anonymous wrote:We just crossed it, this morning, based on this market price advance. (Investment portfolio, not counting house.)

You know this is not enough right?
We crossed it 20 years ago. We are now at $31M. We are 65 and it’s not enough to retire. We might have to work past 70.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can retire with basically nothing if you have a big enough pension or real estate. If you think that you need more than 5 mil, you probably have a spending/mental problem.

For those without a pension, $5M is only $150k a year on the 3% rule.

3% is very conservative. You can draw more than 3% and still be very safe.
But even $150k a year to use is more than enough once you stop saving.
We earn $300k and enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle in Arlington. We save around a third of our earnings. If our house were fully paid off, we could maintain the same comfortable lifestyle we have now with just $150k.

Yes, 3% is very conservative. It started out as the 4% rule. Then some wanted to be more conservative but most advisors that I listen to/follow now think that even 4% is too conservative. Some go up to 5% as long as you keep a 60/40 split between stocks and bonds. And these rules are supposed to be so your money lasts at least 30 years.

Agree, plus most get SS and Medicare on top once you hit your 60’s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can retire with basically nothing if you have a big enough pension or real estate. If you think that you need more than 5 mil, you probably have a spending/mental problem.

For those without a pension, $5M is only $150k a year on the 3% rule.

3% is very conservative. You can draw more than 3% and still be very safe.
But even $150k a year to use is more than enough once you stop saving.
We earn $300k and enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle in Arlington. We save around a third of our earnings. If our house were fully paid off, we could maintain the same comfortable lifestyle we have now with just $150k.

Yes, 3% is very conservative. It started out as the 4% rule. Then some wanted to be more conservative but most advisors that I listen to/follow now think that even 4% is too conservative. Some go up to 5% as long as you keep a 60/40 split between stocks and bonds. And these rules are supposed to be so your money lasts at least 30 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can retire with basically nothing if you have a big enough pension or real estate. If you think that you need more than 5 mil, you probably have a spending/mental problem.

For those without a pension, $5M is only $150k a year on the 3% rule.

Look at you multiplying! Thanks for sharing!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just crossed it, this morning, based on this market price advance. (Investment portfolio, not counting house.)

So that's $2.5M per person. Not enough to retire early.

Don’t listen to this person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can retire with basically nothing if you have a big enough pension or real estate. If you think that you need more than 5 mil, you probably have a spending/mental problem.

For those without a pension, $5M is only $150k a year on the 3% rule.

3% is very conservative. You can draw more than 3% and still be very safe.
But even $150k a year to use is more than enough once you stop saving.
We earn $300k and enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle in Arlington. We save around a third of our earnings. If our house were fully paid off, we could maintain the same comfortable lifestyle we have now with just $150k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We plan to retire at $3.5M, for a comfortable $100k/year.

Thats considered low by today’s standards.

It’s enough for most. Most people don’t even spend 100k/year.

Anonymous wrote:You can retire with basically nothing if you have a big enough pension or real estate. If you think that you need more than 5 mil, you probably have a spending/mental problem.

+1

DCUM is full of the stupidest wealthy people who ever lived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can retire with basically nothing if you have a big enough pension or real estate. If you think that you need more than 5 mil, you probably have a spending/mental problem.

Well the two things you mentioned are things most people don’t have so

Then you have a spending problem. So your options are too either fix the problem or work until you're an old goat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just crossed it, this morning, based on this market price advance. (Investment portfolio, not counting house.)

So that's $2.5M per person. Not enough to retire early.

Not true for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just crossed it, this morning, based on this market price advance. (Investment portfolio, not counting house.)

When do you expect to retire? We’re at 5.5M, and it’s hard to know what number is realistic. Not asking for advice; just curious what others are doing.

The number is different for everyone. We retired with ~4M and we’ll be more than comfortable.

What does that look like? Are you relying on the cash to produce income without drawing down the funds or are you relying on pensions and social security if you are old enough to collect those?

So far so good. We live comfortably and take several vacations a year. 4M was our magic number as we estimated we would need 4% per year and we conservatively estimated we’d earn 4% a year. We actually set a yearly budget of 150k. That includes mortgage and medical. We have a brokerage account that will be slowly dwindled down to pay for the yearly expenses as well as Roth conversions. We have no pensions and are targeting taking SS at 70 to maximize our Roth conversions.

There are a lot of moving parts and variables but we’ll navigate each year as it comes.