$3 million the new rule of thumb?
-
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:57 pm
$3 million the new rule of thumb?
I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Yes, it's clickbait.
-
- Posts: 18501
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
It's quite a "nothing" article unless basic multiplication is a revelation to you. Ok now....4% of $1M is $40k. Oh, wow! But wait, 4% of 2M is $80k. Can't be! And if you want to eat out, you'll want $120k, or double the medium income of a family of 4. That takes.....wait, let me carry the zero.....$3M.
Or we could skip right to Suze Orman when she's not on her private island and say that you need at least $10M because, well, you're going to have to support 2 parents in $120k per year nursing homes plus pay the kids' student loans and hey...you want to go out to eat, right?
Or we could skip right to Suze Orman when she's not on her private island and say that you need at least $10M because, well, you're going to have to support 2 parents in $120k per year nursing homes plus pay the kids' student loans and hey...you want to go out to eat, right?
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Absolute BS, unless maybe you're living an upper-middle-class lifestyle in a coastal bubble area (Boswash or Sansan).Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 amretirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings
Meet my pet, Peeve, who loves to convert non-acronyms into acronyms: FED, ROTH, CASH, IVY, ...
- CyclingDuo
- Posts: 6009
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Seems legit depending on the level of FIRE one wants to attain: lean FIRE, regular FIRE, fat FIRE, or obese FIRE. $120K a year is just into the fat FIRE camp according to this web page...Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
https://www.campfirefinance.com/fire-is-for-everyone/
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel |
"Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
In 30 years, $120k may be the new $60k. The median family making $60K NOW doesn't need $120k NOW, but with inflation the median family may be earning $120k by the time they retire. So sure, that's probably a believable number with a few reasonable assumptions.
- abuss368
- Posts: 27850
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
- Contact:
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
"Investment porn" as Taylor so often describes it. I would not bother to listen.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
-
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:36 am
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Ha! So, our household income is currently $75k. Of that, taxes, savings, and mortgage eat up 72% (and we're still left with excess cash at the end of the month). All of those expenses should be zero (or close to it) in retirement. So I'll need to go from less than $21k to $120k in retirement? Got it. I'll keep that in mind.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4412
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
-
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:52 am
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
If you are having caviar for lunch and drinking expensive wines with every dinner and traveling to Paris every 2 weeks then yes, you need that much. If you are going to enjoy a simple but comfortable life then you can get by easily on $30K/yr. I'm personally not comfortable with the 4% rule, but at 3% that's a nest egg of just under a million. However, if you're closer to SS age then probably even less would be fine... say $600K.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings,
$3 million is so ridiculous it's not even funny... the vast majority of people on this globe will not even see anything remotely close to that number in their entire lifetimes so stating that it is something normal so casually is a joke.
Last edited by stocknoob4111 on Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:02 pm
- Location: USA
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I know the 4% rule has been debated to death here, but this is another good reminder it's only a suggested withdrawal rate. Many, many families have kids that are going to be just fine financially on their own and not relying on an inheritance. Their parents can comfortably take more than 4% each year from their nest-egg. It is their money after all.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
And in 50 years it will probably be even more, but any article that isn't written in "real" dollars based on the present (or an otherwise specified approach) would be absolutely meaningless.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:21 pm In 30 years, $120k may be the new $60k. The median family making $60K NOW doesn't need $120k NOW, but with inflation the median family may be earning $120k by the time they retire. So sure, that's probably a believable number with a few reasonable assumptions.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Agreed. Not to mention technology advances are going to lower the cost on a number of things.22twain wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:02 pmAbsolute BS, unless maybe you're living an upper-middle-class lifestyle in a coastal bubble area (Boswash or Sansan).Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 amretirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
CyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:13 pmSeems legit depending on the level of FIRE one wants to attain: lean FIRE, regular FIRE, fat FIRE, or obese FIRE. $120K a year is just into the fat FIRE camp according to this web page...Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
https://www.campfirefinance.com/fire-is-for-everyone/
Obese fire, please.... LOL.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Long Bogleheads.org thread about the $3 million:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=150595
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=150595
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I would guess Obese fire would be $200,001-$1 million per year retirement spending. Then "Morbidly Obese FIRE" would be >$1 million/yr spendingrascott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:40 pmCyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:13 pmSeems legit depending on the level of FIRE one wants to attain: lean FIRE, regular FIRE, fat FIRE, or obese FIRE. $120K a year is just into the fat FIRE camp according to this web page...Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
https://www.campfirefinance.com/fire-is-for-everyone/
[Image removed]
Obese fire, please.... LOL.
I would like to remind everyone what Larry Swedroe says about this topic. You should have a written Plan B of steps you would actually take if the risks show up (e.g. sell a vacation home, reduce international trips from every year to once every X years, go back to work, etc). If you have a robust Plan B and substantial "wants" you could eliminate, then a SWR higher than 4% is possible. If you cannot make such a Plan B because your expenses are already nearly totally devoted to needs, not wants, then a 4% rule may be too greedy due to high stock valuations and low bond yields, and a 3%-3.5% rule would be more appropriate. The 4% rule did originally take into account bad times to retire, but had only a 95% success rate in a 30 year retirement, and if you cannot cut any spending, a 1-in-20 chance of catastrophe may be unacceptable. Also of course age is relevant (since we are discussing "FIRE" and the "E" stands for "Early"). People are living a lot longer now. You may need to plan for a longer than 30-year retirement. Even moreso if you are a couple and need to plan for at least one of you living to a ripe old age.
Last edited by Day9 on Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm just a fan of the person I got my user name from
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Taking the likely audience of this piece's viewpoint into account, it's pretty clear he means $3mm nominal and the retirement date is pretty far in the future. Maybe not 30 years, but not 5 either. I just don't think this article is at all ridiculous. People don't think in real dollars, they think in nominal dollars.EddyB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:35 pmAnd in 50 years it will probably be even more, but any article that isn't written in "real" dollars based on the present (or an otherwise specified approach) would be absolutely meaningless.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:21 pm In 30 years, $120k may be the new $60k. The median family making $60K NOW doesn't need $120k NOW, but with inflation the median family may be earning $120k by the time they retire. So sure, that's probably a believable number with a few reasonable assumptions.
- Phineas J. Whoopee
- Posts: 9675
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:18 pm
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Spending $120,000 a year I could keep myself constantly tipsy. On Champagne.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
...
PJW
-
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:12 pm
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
The article is standard media fluff piece. I'm sure it will be relevant to some people as any article always is. But it provides very little insight.
The article says that only 3% in the US have a net worth over $1M. And then it goes on to say $3M is the new $1M. I guess the writer is addressing just this 3% of US population. Perhaps his audience is the 50 people that both read MSN and meet his criteria.
The article says that only 3% in the US have a net worth over $1M. And then it goes on to say $3M is the new $1M. I guess the writer is addressing just this 3% of US population. Perhaps his audience is the 50 people that both read MSN and meet his criteria.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
The great news is that it generally seems that the people who "don't think [about retirement] in real dollars" don't save any substantial number of any dollars for retirement, so it's really not an issue.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:05 pmTaking the likely audience of this piece's viewpoint into account, it's pretty clear he means $3mm nominal and the retirement date is pretty far in the future. Maybe not 30 years, but not 5 either. I just don't think this article is at all ridiculous. People don't think in real dollars, they think in nominal dollars.EddyB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:35 pmAnd in 50 years it will probably be even more, but any article that isn't written in "real" dollars based on the present (or an otherwise specified approach) would be absolutely meaningless.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:21 pm In 30 years, $120k may be the new $60k. The median family making $60K NOW doesn't need $120k NOW, but with inflation the median family may be earning $120k by the time they retire. So sure, that's probably a believable number with a few reasonable assumptions.
-
- Posts: 1339
- Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:42 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
ClickbaitAmadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Thoughts?
But it’s not wrong
The US market always recovers. It’s never different this time. Retired in my 40s. Investing is a simple game of rinse and repeat
- CyclingDuo
- Posts: 6009
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
rascott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:40 pmCyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:13 pmSeems legit depending on the level of FIRE one wants to attain: lean FIRE, regular FIRE, fat FIRE, or obese FIRE. $120K a year is just into the fat FIRE camp according to this web page...Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
https://www.campfirefinance.com/fire-is-for-everyone/
Obese fire, please.... LOL.
Obviously, if one is accounting for SS benefits, pension benefits, or other streams of income away from the risk portfolio that would require a SWR of the suggested Trinity Study 4% in the graphic above - then one would adjust their numbers accordingly in terms of risk portfolio size. If one was getting $65K - $95K per year in pension and SS benefits, then you wouldn't need $3M. In that scenario, and if one had the need for $120K, then $1M - $1.4M should be adequate.
Not to mention, cost of living dictates one's target numbers. Retiring in NYC, San Francisco or Seattle would be an entirely different scenario cost wise than Toledo, Bozeman, or Jackson...
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel |
"Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
"the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings"Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
The article does not say you need $120K per year - it says that is for travel , dining out and living the life.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
The article is pretty clearly written for people entering the job market. It explicitly talks about getting to 3 million by saving $1k/month for 47 years (ages 20 - 67). It also has a "what if you don't start until you're 30?" option ($1,800/month for 37 years). In that context, $120k is absolutely going to be a run-of-the-mill retirement income in 30 or 40 years.EddyB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:35 pmAnd in 50 years it will probably be even more, but any article that isn't written in "real" dollars based on the present (or an otherwise specified approach) would be absolutely meaningless.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:21 pm In 30 years, $120k may be the new $60k. The median family making $60K NOW doesn't need $120k NOW, but with inflation the median family may be earning $120k by the time they retire. So sure, that's probably a believable number with a few reasonable assumptions.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I'm 100% certain that isn't the case.EddyB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:28 pmThe great news is that it generally seems that the people who "don't think [about retirement] in real dollars" don't save any substantial number of any dollars for retirement, so it's really not an issue.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:05 pmTaking the likely audience of this piece's viewpoint into account, it's pretty clear he means $3mm nominal and the retirement date is pretty far in the future. Maybe not 30 years, but not 5 either. I just don't think this article is at all ridiculous. People don't think in real dollars, they think in nominal dollars.EddyB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:35 pmAnd in 50 years it will probably be even more, but any article that isn't written in "real" dollars based on the present (or an otherwise specified approach) would be absolutely meaningless.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:21 pm In 30 years, $120k may be the new $60k. The median family making $60K NOW doesn't need $120k NOW, but with inflation the median family may be earning $120k by the time they retire. So sure, that's probably a believable number with a few reasonable assumptions.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
It would at least seem less ridiculous if that were the audience, but the article starts off addressing the situation of someone who has already "ridden this relentless bull market into glorious millionaire territory," but notes that "isn’t cutting it these days." I have no doubt that a day will come when $120,000 in nominal dollars will be a floor for retirement, but I don't think that tells anyone much.Quirkz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:22 pmThe article is pretty clearly written for people entering the job market.EddyB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:35 pmAnd in 50 years it will probably be even more, but any article that isn't written in "real" dollars based on the present (or an otherwise specified approach) would be absolutely meaningless.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:21 pm In 30 years, $120k may be the new $60k. The median family making $60K NOW doesn't need $120k NOW, but with inflation the median family may be earning $120k by the time they retire. So sure, that's probably a believable number with a few reasonable assumptions.
-
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:57 pm
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I'd love to retire to Bozeman. It's beautiful there! Well, for half the year, it's beautiful there. . .CyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:53 pm
Obviously, if one is accounting for SS benefits, pension benefits, or other streams of income away from the risk portfolio that would require a SWR of the suggested Trinity Study 4% in the graphic above - then one would adjust their numbers accordingly in terms of risk portfolio size. If one was getting $65K - $95K per year in pension and SS benefits, then you wouldn't need $3M. In that scenario, and if one had the need for $120K, then $1M - $1.4M should be adequate.
Not to mention, cost of living dictates one's target numbers. Retiring in NYC, San Francisco or Seattle would be an entirely different scenario cost wise than Toledo, Bozeman, or Jackson...
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Everything you said was correct.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 amThat may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
Ridiculous is the correct description.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Jack FFR1846 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:00 pm It's quite a "nothing" article unless basic multiplication is a revelation to you. Ok now....4% of $1M is $40k. Oh, wow! But wait, 4% of 2M is $80k. Can't be! And if you want to eat out, you'll want $120k, or double the medium income of a family of 4. That takes.....wait, let me carry the zero.....$3M.
Or we could skip right to Suze Orman when she's not on her private island and say that you need at least $10M because, well, you're going to have to support 2 parents in $120k per year nursing homes plus pay the kids' student loans and hey...you want to go out to eat, right?
When I heard Suze Orman on the Afford Anything podcast, I was shaking my head and laughing almost the whole time. She's so far out of touch with the reality of how most people live their lives that it's utterly ridiculous.
The idea that retirees must spend double the median U.S. household income is almost as ridiculous.
The Sensible Steward
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I cannot take more than 4% each year and do so comfortably, I have been influenced by Wade Pfau and Larry Swedroe and with today's low interest rates and high PE ratios I am far more comfortable at 3.0 to 3.5 percent.lessismore22 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:33 pm I know the 4% rule has been debated to death here, but this is another good reminder it's only a suggested withdrawal rate. Many, many families have kids that are going to be just fine financially on their own and not relying on an inheritance. Their parents can comfortably take more than 4% each year from their nest-egg. It is their money after all.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Fair point. I guess it's more muddled than I remembered. I agree it's not a typical baseline in today's dollars.EddyB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:42 pm
It would at least seem less ridiculous if that were the audience, but the article starts off addressing the situation of someone who has already "ridden this relentless bull market into glorious millionaire territory," but notes that "isn’t cutting it these days." I have no doubt that a day will come when $120,000 in nominal dollars will be a floor for retirement, but I don't think that tells anyone much.
-
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:12 pm
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I saw this mentioned recently here somewhere, about Suze Ormans $5 - $10M recommendation. I thought, surely this was in jest.Jack FFR1846 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:00 pm It's quite a "nothing" article unless basic multiplication is a revelation to you. Ok now....4% of $1M is $40k. Oh, wow! But wait, 4% of 2M is $80k. Can't be! And if you want to eat out, you'll want $120k, or double the medium income of a family of 4. That takes.....wait, let me carry the zero.....$3M.
Or we could skip right to Suze Orman when she's not on her private island and say that you need at least $10M because, well, you're going to have to support 2 parents in $120k per year nursing homes plus pay the kids' student loans and hey...you want to go out to eat, right?
I guess not.
I wonder if some public figures make ridiculous pronouncements to make a headline (after which they would back peddle), or are they truly preaching from a bubble to only a select audience. But Orman has a varied audience, am I mistaken?
Well, we are talking about her.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong." - Richard Feynman
- quantAndHold
- Posts: 10141
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
$3M is an absolutely reasonable number, if you want to retire on $120k/year.
That said, we live a solidly upper middle class retirement life in a HCOL city. We managed to spend $103k last year. Nearly half of it was on travel. This year, we'll probably spend $120k, but we're cash flowing a major bathroom remodel, and spending 3 months traveling in Europe.
I'm pretty sure people can retire on less than $120k per year.
That said, we live a solidly upper middle class retirement life in a HCOL city. We managed to spend $103k last year. Nearly half of it was on travel. This year, we'll probably spend $120k, but we're cash flowing a major bathroom remodel, and spending 3 months traveling in Europe.
I'm pretty sure people can retire on less than $120k per year.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Exactly - - and it may be sooner than 30 years. The article may be clickbait, but considering the possibility of meaningful inflation is very reasonable when thinking about asset allocation and potential asset needs.KyleAAA wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:21 pm In 30 years, $120k may be the new $60k. The median family making $60K NOW doesn't need $120k NOW, but with inflation the median family may be earning $120k by the time they retire. So sure, that's probably a believable number with a few reasonable assumptions.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Yes clickbait. Yes, probably not useful to anyone who has spent any time on this forum. But, I felt the article was realistic. It did not say that you couldn’t retire with $1 million, it said that would not be enough for what people imagined to be a glorious lifestyle.
$1 million is not enough for a SWR equal to a typical school teacher pension. You need to annuitize almost $3 million in household savings to put you on equal footing with a dual teacher couple in my locale who started teaching at 25 and retired at 60. So, for those of us with no pension, that does not seem to be an “obese” retirement. I am fully aware though that almost all retirees will live on less than this.
$1 million is not enough for a SWR equal to a typical school teacher pension. You need to annuitize almost $3 million in household savings to put you on equal footing with a dual teacher couple in my locale who started teaching at 25 and retired at 60. So, for those of us with no pension, that does not seem to be an “obese” retirement. I am fully aware though that almost all retirees will live on less than this.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
The other part f the year it is beautiful, cold and snowy. Not too bad.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:44 pmI'd love to retire to Bozeman. It's beautiful there! Well, for half the year, it's beautiful there. . .CyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:53 pm
Obviously, if one is accounting for SS benefits, pension benefits, or other streams of income away from the risk portfolio that would require a SWR of the suggested Trinity Study 4% in the graphic above - then one would adjust their numbers accordingly in terms of risk portfolio size. If one was getting $65K - $95K per year in pension and SS benefits, then you wouldn't need $3M. In that scenario, and if one had the need for $120K, then $1M - $1.4M should be adequate.
Not to mention, cost of living dictates one's target numbers. Retiring in NYC, San Francisco or Seattle would be an entirely different scenario cost wise than Toledo, Bozeman, or Jackson...
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I think it's fair. $1M retirement goal is really for the past decade. The article talked about "retirement dreams" and $120k per year. It should give a couple (or single retiree) much room to enjoy traveling and discretionary spending. Will it be reality for most Americans? No. But if you can, shoot for $3M for a "fat FIRE", as they call it nowadays.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
Time is the ultimate currency.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I was just skiing at Big Sky a few days ago. The mountains surrounding Bozeman are breathtaking. We could very happily live there.Dottie57 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:18 pmThe other part f the year it is beautiful, cold and snowy. Not too bad.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:44 pmI'd love to retire to Bozeman. It's beautiful there! Well, for half the year, it's beautiful there. . .CyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:53 pm
Obviously, if one is accounting for SS benefits, pension benefits, or other streams of income away from the risk portfolio that would require a SWR of the suggested Trinity Study 4% in the graphic above - then one would adjust their numbers accordingly in terms of risk portfolio size. If one was getting $65K - $95K per year in pension and SS benefits, then you wouldn't need $3M. In that scenario, and if one had the need for $120K, then $1M - $1.4M should be adequate.
Not to mention, cost of living dictates one's target numbers. Retiring in NYC, San Francisco or Seattle would be an entirely different scenario cost wise than Toledo, Bozeman, or Jackson...
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 2351
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:29 pm
- Location: Colorado
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Bozeman in summer, San Antonio in winter. An option I've been giving serious thought to.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:44 pmI'd love to retire to Bozeman. It's beautiful there! Well, for half the year, it's beautiful there. . .CyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:53 pm
Obviously, if one is accounting for SS benefits, pension benefits, or other streams of income away from the risk portfolio that would require a SWR of the suggested Trinity Study 4% in the graphic above - then one would adjust their numbers accordingly in terms of risk portfolio size. If one was getting $65K - $95K per year in pension and SS benefits, then you wouldn't need $3M. In that scenario, and if one had the need for $120K, then $1M - $1.4M should be adequate.
Not to mention, cost of living dictates one's target numbers. Retiring in NYC, San Francisco or Seattle would be an entirely different scenario cost wise than Toledo, Bozeman, or Jackson...
Or to put it another way, eat great Mexican food for half the year, then spend the other half hiking up mountains to burn it off.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I like me some spicy flavorful food. How is the winter weather in San Antonio?HawkeyePierce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:31 pmBozeman in summer, San Antonio in winter. An option I've been giving serious thought to.Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:44 pmI'd love to retire to Bozeman. It's beautiful there! Well, for half the year, it's beautiful there. . .CyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:53 pm
Obviously, if one is accounting for SS benefits, pension benefits, or other streams of income away from the risk portfolio that would require a SWR of the suggested Trinity Study 4% in the graphic above - then one would adjust their numbers accordingly in terms of risk portfolio size. If one was getting $65K - $95K per year in pension and SS benefits, then you wouldn't need $3M. In that scenario, and if one had the need for $120K, then $1M - $1.4M should be adequate.
Not to mention, cost of living dictates one's target numbers. Retiring in NYC, San Francisco or Seattle would be an entirely different scenario cost wise than Toledo, Bozeman, or Jackson...
Or to put it another way, eat great Mexican food for half the year, then spend the other half hiking up mountains to burn it off.
- Cheez-It Guy
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:20 pm
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I won't need anything close to this. The internet doesn't tell me what to do!
- abuss368
- Posts: 27850
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
- Contact:
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Well said.Cheez-It Guy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:03 pm I won't need anything close to this. The internet doesn't tell me what to do!
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
- abuss368
- Posts: 27850
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
- Contact:
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Aspen is the most beautiful ski resort I ever visited. Breathtaking views.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
This thread is now in the Personal Finance (Not Investing) forum (retirement planning).
- CyclingDuo
- Posts: 6009
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:07 am
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Ask, and ye shall receive...rascott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:40 pmCyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:13 pmSeems legit depending on the level of FIRE one wants to attain: lean FIRE, regular FIRE, fat FIRE, or obese FIRE. $120K a year is just into the fat FIRE camp according to this web page...Amadis_of_Gaul wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:48 am I have a bad habit of clicking on financial clickbait. This one is worse than normal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/re ... ar-BBZnv6v
Essentially, the financial planner quoted in the article says that retirees should expect to need $120K a year from their retirement savings, so using the good ole 4 percent rule, you'd better have $3 million saved up by the time you retire.
That may be true for some (maybe true for many on here), but it isn't true for the vast majority of Americans. More than 75 percent of American households don't bring in $120K a year, period, and so hardly would need to replace an amount of income they don't have. It ignores the impact of Social Security, which is significant for higher-earning households. It ignores the decline in expenses that most older folks see once the house is paid off and the kids move out. Realistically, a household would have to have a standard of living around $200K to need that much in savings, which is less than 10 percent of the population.
In short, one-size-fits-all retirement numbers are silly, and this one is particularly ridiculous. For most workers, achieving such a goal is impossible, and setting it up can only lead to discouragement for them. Instead, the only way to determine what your needs will be in retirement is to look at your budget.
Thoughts?
https://www.campfirefinance.com/fire-is-for-everyone/
Obese fire, please.... LOL.
moFIRE (morbidly obese FIRE):
https://thedarwiniandoctor.com/mofire/
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel |
"Pick a bushel, save a peck!" - Grandpa
- Clever_Username
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:24 am
- Location: Southern California
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
I'm not even 40 years old yet, and I believe that a portfolio of $3M in today's dollars could very well last me the rest of my life if I had it today. So I don't think the average person needs it to retire at a traditional time.
"What was true then is true now. Have a plan. Stick to it." -- XXXX, _Layer Cake_ |
|
I survived my first downturn and all I got was this signature line.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Same here. I'm planning on a 40-45 year retirement, and I'd be quite happy with $2 million in today's dollars.Clever_Username wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:17 pm I'm not even 40 years old yet, and I believe that a portfolio of $3M in today's dollars could very well last me the rest of my life if I had it today. So I don't think the average person needs it to retire at a traditional time.
The Sensible Steward
- abuss368
- Posts: 27850
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
- Contact:
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
Agreed and more people are living longer today so yes, plan for a possible longer retirement.Clever_Username wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:17 pm I'm not even 40 years old yet, and I believe that a portfolio of $3M in today's dollars could very well last me the rest of my life if I had it today. So I don't think the average person needs it to retire at a traditional time.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
-
- Posts: 2775
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:47 pm
- Location: CA
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
It may not be outrageous. Today's $1M will be $2M and $3M in 30 years for an annual inflation rate of 2.3% and 3.7%, respectively.
Re: $3 million the new rule of thumb?
If you were planning on 30 years, what would you be happy with?willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:19 pmSame here. I'm planning on a 40-45 year retirement, and I'd be quite happy with $2 million in today's dollars.Clever_Username wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:17 pm I'm not even 40 years old yet, and I believe that a portfolio of $3M in today's dollars could very well last me the rest of my life if I had it today. So I don't think the average person needs it to retire at a traditional time.