U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 11:33 AM
 
1,100 posts, read 528,838 times
Reputation: 1864

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Some of us have the temerity to aim for three commas.



Invigorating article - thanks for linking! But... what ought we to make of the advice? A precious-metals and commodities fund? How would that have fared? And, the article emphasizes long-term care insurance... for a 53-year-old... while totally eliding any mention of taxes. In my opinion, that's a gross misapprehension of priorities.

Off topic, but Mathjak's spouse looks very much like how I pictured her, whereas he himself looks totally different... I imagined a lanky balding fellow with a bushy goatee and thick-framed glasses.
Mj’s a lot better looking than I pictured. Why is it we always assume the more educated, the geekier they look? But I digress.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 11:39 AM
 
1,100 posts, read 528,838 times
Reputation: 1864
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Following the newsletter he does no. Also not sure that’s all the money he currently has.
Doubling your money over the last 12 years is no magic. However doubling after multiple years of draw down is not as easy.

The rule of 72.
The rule says that to find the number of years required to double your money at a given interest rate, you just divide the interest rate into 72. For example, if you want to know how long it will take to double your money at eight percent interest, divide 8 into 72 and get 9 years.
Moneychimp › features › rule72
The Rule of 72 (with calculator) - Estimate Compound Interest

So easy to double plus some in twelve years.
Yes, but that was 2006, and we all know what happened in 2008. Say he (or anyone, myself included) lost 30% until the bottom hit in early 2009. Now you’re looking at having to grow about 500k to 1.7M from 2009 to 2019? Maybe. But maybe not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:39 AM
 
29,884 posts, read 34,936,573 times
Reputation: 11793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabound1 View Post
Mj’s a lot better looking than I pictured. Why is it we always assume the more educated, the geekier they look? But I digress.....
MathJak is smart and self educated. Not sure he has a college degree. May have gone to trade school.

He applied himself and showed self discipline when many he grew up and worked with didn’t.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
1,578 posts, read 1,356,877 times
Reputation: 2057
Quote:
Originally Posted by numsgal View Post
I wonder if there's a direct correlation between fluff pieces like this and the number of people who don't save for retirement at all? If someone had told me I needed that much to retire and I believed it, I don't know that I would have saved what I did. I'd like to think I would have, but I honestly don't know.
Exactly....it's a demoralizing number for a vast majority of the population. Such a huge number for most, that hearing it does nothing to motive you, and actually does just the opposite. I'll never get anywhere near that amount...so why even try.

I've done far better than average, at least amongst the people I know who have shared with me their situation....but I'm not at that number. If you include my house I'm fairly close...but still not there.

And my budgeting shows I'll be able to live a very comfortable retirement. It all depends on how you want to live. If you want 4 two week European vacations ever year and a couple 70 grand SUV's in your garage, you might be in trouble, but I don't need that to be happy...so it's all good, on a lot less than 1.7 million.

Last edited by jasper1372; Today at 12:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:57 AM
 
7,991 posts, read 5,073,457 times
Reputation: 13676
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
...So easy to double plus some in twelve years.
To have doubled one's money since 2006 (thirteen years) was doable, but not so flagrantly easy. It would have required an underweighting in international stocks, and outsized exposure to US large-caps. Were Mathjak to have followed Money Magazine's advice about commodities, his performance would have suffered.

A portfolio that's diversified between large-cap and small-cap, US and foreign, stocks and bonds and commodities, has NOT doubled over the past 13 years. It's only done well since the nadir of March 2009... but said nadir, was a nearly 50% drop from the highs of 2006 (even more, from the highs of 2007).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:58 AM
 
72,033 posts, read 72,043,164 times
Reputation: 49601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabound1 View Post
So if you hadn’t gotten this, we’ll call it “windfall” , from your wife’s deceased husband’s father, and only had the 700k at 53, where do you think you’d be today? Serious question....would you have retired with presumably way less than 1.7M at 65?
f you read what i wrote it wasn't an inheritance ... it was supposed to be but the documents were defective and we ended up buying out the step children and selling the business. we would have had way more regardless , that was 16 years ago ago , markets doubled including 2008..had i not had to buy out the business i would have stayed in the 100% equity growth model and we would not have planned to retire so early initially . i had just gotten divorced a few years prior so ex got half .

Last edited by mathjak107; Today at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:02 PM
 
72,033 posts, read 72,043,164 times
Reputation: 49601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabound1 View Post
Yes, but that was 2006, and we all know what happened in 2008. Say he (or anyone, myself included) lost 30% until the bottom hit in early 2009. Now you’re looking at having to grow about 500k to 1.7M from 2009 to 2019? Maybe. But maybe not.
we wanted to retire early initially after we sold the business . . so we were in a far more conservative model in 2007 .

we didn't retire early as planned but instead put a lot of the money in to the Manhattan real estate venture so 2008 was really not bad. the real estate was the big winner for us ....in fact we sold two co-ops in 2008-2009 for only 10% less then the all time peak . that real estate venture turned out to be golden .

back in 2006 i was still bouncing back from a divorce where we split 1/2 of everything in 2002-2003

Last edited by mathjak107; Today at 12:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:08 PM
 
29,884 posts, read 34,936,573 times
Reputation: 11793
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
To have doubled one's money since 2006 (thirteen years) was doable, but not so flagrantly easy. It would have required an underweighting in international stocks, and outsized exposure to US large-caps. Were Mathjak to have followed Money Magazine's advice about commodities, his performance would have suffered.

A portfolio that's diversified between large-cap and small-cap, US and foreign, stocks and bonds and commodities, has NOT doubled over the past 13 years. It's only done well since the nadir of March 2009... but said nadir, was a nearly 50% drop from the highs of 2006 (even more, from the highs of 2007).
MathJak was/is following Fidelity Monitor/Insight as many others were/are. That performance is within the norms of their model portfolio's . He is clear he reads and follows what he finds to be good advice. The only question is which of their portfolios he was in at any given time. They do tend to discard and not heavily weigh/consider international stocks and does tend to prefer large cap stocks with a diversification of holdings based on the profile of the funds selected. Fidelity Contrafund and Growth Company are staples over the years with other holdings built around them and varying with the selected portfolio.

It is this long term performance that MathJak and others swear by.

Last edited by TuborgP; Today at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:17 PM
 
29,884 posts, read 34,936,573 times
Reputation: 11793
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper1372 View Post
Exactly....it's a demoralizing number for a vast majority of the population. Such a huge number for most, that hearing it does nothing to motive you, and actually does just the opposite. I'll never get anywhere near that amount...so why even try.

I've done far better than average, at least amongst the people I know who have shared with me their situation....but I'm not at that number. If you include my house I'm fairly close...but still not there.

And my budgeting shows I'll be able to live a very comfortable retirement. It all depends on how you want to live. If you want 4 two week European vacations ever year and a couple 70 grand SUV's in your garage, you might be in trouble, but I don't need that to be happy...so it's all good, on a lot less than 1.7 million.
The article as posted by the OP DOES NOT clearly represent the Schwab study it is based on the conclusions it presented. If it had just about everyone participating in this thread would have agreed.

The survey pool consisted of individuals with Schwab accounts.

They were asked how much annual income they felt they needed in retirement from their accounts.
Based on that information Schwab came up with the 1.7 million as the amount needed to provide their average drawdown goal.


Schwab then presented using a 15% of income contribution rate the amount of salary and years they would need to reach that 1.7 based on sample age and balance examples.


It showed that for most people after a certain age they were not going to be able to reach that goal at a 15% contribution rate based on sample incomes. In some cases at certain ages they needed multiple 100k a year incomes ( clearly not realistic). For many the amount they needed to contribute exceeded the annual contribution limits.


Their summary was that many people have unrealistic expectations based on their personal financial conditions and that the only way to meet many goals was to have started early and all in.

Something most of us would have agreed with.

It was not the OP but the writer of the article linked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:24 PM
 
72,033 posts, read 72,043,164 times
Reputation: 49601
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
MathJak was/is following Fidelity Monitor/Insight as many others were/are. That performance is within the norms of their model portfolio's . He is clear he reads and follows what he finds to be good advice. The only question is which of their portfolios he was in at any given time.
i make use of the income model and growth and income model today ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top