^^^ That sounds like a good attitude for someone in your position.
But every situation is a little different. you have two pensions. Many people have no pension and little savings.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ That sounds like a good attitude for someone in your position.
But every situation is a little different. you have two pensions. Many people have no pension and little savings.

I know, I’m really referring to acquaintances I know that don’t need to maintain their principle but do. I guess people like to leave a nest egg for their family.

Is the “rule of 7” still accurate, meaning your balance(s) will double approximately every 7 years? I’m happy to be part of that 13%...

for the last 20n years I have been putting aside 15% right off the top into my 401k, have two IRA's and a Roth

not much in savings unless you add them all up

I need about $1.6 million to retire and have the same standard of living I do now.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nhtagmember,

I hit a milestone today...not a million or even a hundred thousand...but if I can keep everything up I will be able to retire at around 50 and never have to work again.

I'll still do something to keep myself occupied, but it will damn sure not require a body camera or constant fear of getting railroaded because of someone's politics.

Now, if I can just make it another 15 years without getting fired...

Since the nest egg topic has come up, I'll mention this. Life insurance is a much better way to leave something to the kids. As I understand it not to be taxable the way a 401 would be. Professionals can chime in (please).

I'm planning on retiring (OK, full disclosure is forced retirement early) on 5% +SS, + part time, and drawing down more to live better in the early years. My nest egg is not what it should be, but I'm debt free so I'll make do.

Ha ha, yes the rule of 7, being math, hasn’t changed.

The biggest single issue is the time value of money. 1 dollar invested at 18 years old will be worth more than a much bigger number invested late in life.

I won’t attach the graph but trust me on this. Two identical twins making same exact money. Twin #1 invests a set amount every year from age 20 to age 30 and then stops. Twin#2 invests the same amount but starts at age 30 and continues to age 65. Who ends up with more money? Twin #1 wins even though his actual principal outlayed is far smaller. It’s just math. Time value of money. Beat that concept into every one of your children because it’s probably too late for you guys. Lol

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
Is the “rule of 7” still accurate, meaning your balance(s) will double approximately every 7 years? I’m happy to be part of that 13%...

That assumes an average return of about 10.5% I believe which has been easily achievable in the last 7 years with an investment in stocks such as an S&P500 index fund. Who knows what the next 7 years will bring considering such current high valuations.

The law of 72 says take the number 72 and divide by the rate of return. That result is the number of years for the total to double. Example your current rate of return is 6%, 72 divide by 6=12, at that roi it would double in 12 years.

The rule assumes compounding, correct? If so, may not be directly applicable during retirement, only leading up to it.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:The biggest single issue is the time value of money. 1 dollar invested at 18 years old will be worth more than a much bigger number invested late in life.

I won’t attach the graph but trust me on this. Two identical twins making same exact money. Twin #1 invests a set amount every year from age 20 to age 30 and then stops. Twin#2 invests the same amount but starts at age 30 and continues to age 65. Who ends up with more money? Twin #1 wins even though his actual principal outlayed is far smaller. It’s just math. Time value of money. Beat that concept into every one of your children because it’s probably too late for you guys. Lol

I won't argue that saving early is a bad idea, because it's a great idea. BUT, those illustrations are a bit deceptive. The "dollar" that twin one invested at age 20 is worth more than the dollar that twin two invests at age 30 and FAR more than the dollar that twin two invests at 65. The discrepancy isn't nearly as great if you adjust for inflation.

My goal was to supplement my retirement income with earnings, while leaving the principal untouched. With our defined benefit retirement plans, we've left the portfolio alone so far. When issues come up (kid going to college) I go back to work. Currently I'm part-timing in a gun store; it keeps me happily married. D

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

With a few exceptions, there is nobody on this Forum that can come even close to knowing how much they will actually need for retirement. 70,80, 90? How long will you live and what medical conditions will you have to deal with during those periods?

Actuaries have a pretty good idea. Once you get into your 60s you get a better idea of what health problems you may be facing. Family history and how you take care of yourself are two factors as well. I am self employed and have myself to blame if I have not put away enough money for retirement.

Yeah, I know all about actuaries. I have two of them in my Thursday night Poker League. Damn them!

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

With a few exceptions, there is nobody on this Forum that can come even close to knowing how much they will actually need for retirement. 70,80, 90? How long will you live and what medical conditions will you have to deal with during those periods?

Actuaries have a pretty good idea. Once you get into your 60s you get a better idea of what health problems you may be facing. Family history and how you take care of yourself are two factors as well. I am self employed and have myself to blame if I have not put away enough money for retirement.

Actuaries can estimate how many people your age will die this year, next year, etc. Fascinating, eh? But not which ones, which is where the money is. They can say, for example, that 3 people in a thousand will reach age 90, but not whether you will.

Mere special purpose statisticians!

I never had a retirement goal, at 74 I still work and may continue for a bit.
We have more than sufficient funds to last 30+ years of a comfortable life. We have no debt and for the most part good health.

My biggest issue is being frugal and leaving it all behind. I truly wish I could adapt the attitude that the "the check for my funeral bounces".

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
My goal was to supplement my retirement income with earnings, while leaving the principal untouched. With our defined benefit retirement plans, we've left the portfolio alone so far. When issues come up (kid going to college) I go back to work. Currently I'm part-timing in a gun store; it keeps me happily married. D

. According to a recent survey of cfa’s a recent article in Bloomberg actually indicated a majority of retirees were accumulating wealth , making the 4% rule a fallacy.

quote:

Actuaries can estimate how many people your age will die this year, next year, etc. Fascinating, eh? But not which ones, which is where the money is. They can say, for example, that 3 people in a thousand will reach age 90, but not whether you will.

Mere special purpose statisticians!

Yep. The definition of an actuary is someone who failed the personality test to be an accountant. It is always later than we think. When a family member died recently at 93, the cemetary caretaker asked us to guess the average age of the folks buried there. {The cemetary has been there maybe forty years}. I was surprised when he said 50 years of age.

quote:

Actuaries can estimate how many people your age will die this year, next year, etc. Fascinating, eh? But not which ones, which is where the money is. They can say, for example, that 3 people in a thousand will reach age 90, but not whether you will.
Mere special purpose statisticians!

Yep.
Actuaries merely extrapolate the past (statistics) into the future. A 'black swan' event like a major war or an epidemic would throw the whole thing off.

I respectfully disagree. Time value of money is the single biggest tool you gave in your toolbox. Period. Unless you have a crystal ball in there as well. Lol

Adjusting for inflation tells only a part of 5he equation. Yes a dollar at 20is harder to come by than a dollar at 30. I enlisted in the Navy at 18, my father made me start an IRA. I put in very little because I had very little. To recreate that amount starting a decade or two later would be very hard.

Beat the concept of starting early into your head and that of your children. It is your most powerful way to wealth. Whatever your method of investment is, starting early pays outsized dividends. Don’t let anyone talk you out of starting early.

Ask a farmer. What is the best day to plant a tree? Yesterday.

^^^ I started early, but it was hard to put in much making $10-$15/hr as the sole provider of a family. The biggest benefit of my prior employer was they put 9.5% into your 401k.