quote:

Well, other than potential medical expenses.

And that right there is the game breaker.

A 401k is just one piece of the overall retirement puzzle. I don't know how anyone can say how much should be in it with certainty without looking at the rest of the pieces. For example, I have $0 in any retirement account, I'm screwed right? On the other hand, I own two homes, a few rental properties, and have no debt.

quote:

Originally posted by apf383:

quote:

Well, other than potential medical expenses.

And that right there is the game breaker.

Once they become significant, they tend not to be an issue very long.

When I retire I'm becoming a ward of the state.

Time to reclaim all the money I've paid to the Free Shit crowd.

I'm only 49 so I've got six years to catch up.

Let's see...

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
Once they become significant, they tend not to be an issue very long.

I think that is correct. There are very few people who can save enough to pay for a major medical event out of pocket. At that point, the unprepared will be on government assistance in a month, and the well prepared will be on it in 6 months. There won't be a happy financial outcome, either way.

quote:

When I retire I'm becoming a ward of the state.

good luck with that. I hope you were trying to be humorous.

Trapper, That is good as well.

In the last 30 years most who work in the private sector have had access to a 401k as a main retirement vehicle.

As in your case if you do not have one or a very small one but have other assets that you plan to sell to fund your retirement that is good.

My retirement philosophy is "save as much as I can and hope for the best." That said, I'm 52 and I'm at a little over 5x my annual salary in my 401k. I've got a small pension based on 12 years of vested service before my company did away with the pension. My wife is a teacher. No 401k but has a teacher's pension. Then our both of our SS. Plus the equity in our home and any inheritance, which will help. That's about all we have. Not enough but way better than the average American. Just gotta make sure I don't live to 100. So I'm eating a lot of twinkies.

I think that statement serves only one purpose... to scare you into upping your contribution to your 401k... Fidelity thinking hopefully with them.

But whatever gets folks attention is a positive.

I've seen ~50 yr olds up to their eyeballs in debt so bad that 6 x salary probably wouldn't even put them in the black.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
You should have 6 times your annual salary in your 401k to be able to retire at 67. 7x at 55.

That is pretty vague as it does not address many other aspects.

Just food for thought to share.

They put that out there to get you to think about it more. Unfortunately what it does is frustrated more people to the point they are less likely to save a higher percentage of gross income.

In order to get to that number, you would need to average dedicating 10% of your annual salary, earn a guaranteed 6% per annum, and never have a bad year, and increase your salary by an average 3.5% per year. The power of compounding interest would kick off $45,000 a year if when you hit $800,000 in your account when you retire at 65.

Nosler, from what age is that the case. Starting at age 25?

That is an interesting calculation but we need that piece.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:

quote:

When I retire I'm becoming a ward of the state.

good luck with that. I hope you were trying to be humorous.

I was hence the . It certainly would be nice to get some of what we have paid in over the years that has gone to people that haven't worked as hard as we have for it.

I am closing in on the figure you mention in your original post with 4 years to go before hitting 55 and the way the economy is going it certainly feels like whatever is in there once I retire is not going to be enough.

It certainly isn't anywhere near where Fidelity said it would be by this time 25 years ago when I started.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Nosler, from what age is that the case. Starting at age 25?

That is an interesting calculation but we need that piece.

It is pretty base case, but assumes you start earning money to put away at 22 and stop putting money away at 60.

I will say that a lot of these things are marketing ploys to get your to think about your needs.

Just a few things that need to be discussed are:
Do you own your home
Do you plan on being a hermit, or do you plan on traveling
Are you married
Do either of you have a pension
Do you have health care benefits into retirement
Do you have assets aside from investments
Do you have family
Are your wishes spelled out (DO YOU HAVE A WILL)
Are you willing to live in a retirement community
Do you support anyone else

Answering about 2 dozen questions will help most people paint a much more complete picture. Just saying I have 6x my income in my 401k does not mean shit.

You could own a beach house that rents for $4,000 a week that is paid for or not own any property and rent, and both people who have 6x their income will be forced to live very different lives. Also, 6x my income is different than 6x your income, but just 1 or 2 variables could sink the person with higher 401k balance.

At that rate, I'll retire at noon on the day that I die.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolan_Kraps:
At that rate, I'll retire at noon on the day that I die.

Yes, that is right 280 just as cpardtd said. Lots of variables.

But if you have in the ball park of what fidelity says that is a big step in the process of being prepared for retirement for most, not all people.

In our case neither of us worked for the government so no pension.

I’m 58. I have great health insurance . If I retire at 60, it will cost me $100,000 just for the insurance to age 65.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
You should have 6 times your annual salary in your 401k to be able to retire at 67. 7x at 55.

That is pretty vague as it does not address many other aspects.

Just food for thought to share.

Fudge. I'll be working 'til I'm 90.

This is where even getting a military reserve retirement is great, since you'll get healthcare at 60 plus some $$$/monthly.

quote:

Originally posted by OMCHamlin:I may be wrong, but I took it to mean that you should have 6 times your annual salary in your 401k to be able to retire at 67.
And that you should have 7 times your annual salary in your 401k to be able to retire at 55.

So in other words, you'll need more money saved to retire a decade + earlier, is that what they might be saying?

That is not correct. The numbers are savings mileposts all based on retirement at 67. To retire at 55, you'd need significantly more than 7x in savings. Less years to contribute, less years for investment growth and more years of drawdown.