i take it back... my first transaction was 11/19/1997 for a $201.50 ATM cash withdrawal...RightWingConspirator said:Allow me to dunk on the other two Quicken comments. My Quicken goes back to 1998 where my wife and I paid $12.77 to TCA Cable for our television services!Captain Winky said:
Is this another thread for people to try to dunk on one another?
Wait ... I think 1992 trumps 1998! But your cable cost was definitely better than mine.RightWingConspirator said:Allow me to dunk on the other two Quicken comments. My Quicken goes back to 1998 where my wife and I paid $12.77 to TCA Cable for our television services!Captain Winky said:
Is this another thread for people to try to dunk on one another?
okHoyt Ag said:
40
single
no kids
I want to be done around 55 and seem to be on track to get to where I want to be financially. Planning on retiring in SE Asia or Central America. Teach English or something to keep me busy and bring in a little income.
you thinking North Korea or Haiti?Hoyt Ag said:
40
single
no kids
I want to be done around 55 and seem to be on track to get to where I want to be financially. Planning on retiring in SE Asia or Central America. Teach English or something to keep me busy and bring in a little income.
If you actually drove an Eclipse you definitely win the tiebreaker.EclipseAg said:Wait ... I think 1992 trumps 1998! But your cable cost was definitely better than mine.RightWingConspirator said:Allow me to dunk on the other two Quicken comments. My Quicken goes back to 1998 where my wife and I paid $12.77 to TCA Cable for our television services!Captain Winky said:
Is this another thread for people to try to dunk on one another?
aggiepaintrain said:
I'll retire when I am dead
How old are you?aggiepaintrain said:
I'll retire when I am dead
To actually respond to the OP, we used the 4% rule as a baseline and then worked with a financial planner to fine tune. For us it's more of a number to hit when we can comfortably quit the corporate gigs (if we want), with the option (but not the obligation) to continue work in some capacity if we so desire.CuriousAg said:
How did you come up with your number? I don't know what to shoot for and have time to plan.
GasAg90 said:
$7mln. I basically made a retirement budget, then calculated how much it would take to last 35 years at 3.5% then finally added $2.5 mln to make it politician proof.
In my experience, actual savings is far more impactful on success than actual returns. Similarly, behavior management (all of the various biases we are prone to have, etc...) I believe is sometimes more impactful than actual returns. This is generally true until the magic numbers are approached at which point actual market returns and still behavior drive the boat.EliteZags said:
I've pretty much accepted that the actual future market performance rate is going to have exponentially more impact on my net worth than my savings or earnings rate will ever be able to moving forward
which makes projecting decades out just a trivial fortune telling exercise
I agree, but I don't have the same read on the comment as you.Casey TableTennis said:In my experience, actual savings is far more impactful on success than actual returns. Similarly, behavior management (all of the various biases we are prone to have, etc...) I believe is sometimes more impactful than actual returns. This is generally true until the magic numbers are approached at which point actual market returns and still behavior drive the boat.EliteZags said:
I've pretty much accepted that the actual future market performance rate is going to have exponentially more impact on my net worth than my savings or earnings rate will ever be able to moving forward
which makes projecting decades out just a trivial fortune telling exercise
The reasons actual savings is so relevant early is that it is the counterbalance to spend. The higher spend is, the lower savings are, and the higher the number you are chasing. So, a double negative impact. Conversely, lower spend, higher savings leads to a lower "number", an exponentially positive impact.
I wouldn't characterize the behavioral elements as linear or exponential. Instead they are asymmetric. There are rarely enough decisions born out of biases to smooth the impact over time. This leads to significant error term from occasional very good or bad emotional (or even irrational) decisions. With a big error term, the negatives of overconfidence on early right decisions and pain from early bad decisions, too often creates perverse dynamics in someone's attitudes toward risk and future decision making, often leading to worse outcomes.
At some point critical mass gets hit (or approached) and the savings/spending dynamic is deemphasized in the calculus of the wealth trajectory, unless hitting magic numbers greatly loosens up spend/gift/legacy desires, which can lead to a treadmill effect.
Zag's probably has a stash that is starting to return more than they save for the same period. By weight, market performance will eventually be the differentiator for us all (we won't have W2 income contributing to net worth).Quote:
moving forward
I'm sort of like this. I don't mind my current job and enjoy my life with my family. Wife stays home and I WFH 2 days a week. I have 7 weeks of vacation every year, and lots of freedom with my job. Occasional travel and I get to set those times. I have about 8X my income saved and will likely end up with 20X by retirement age.dreyOO said:
I remember when I had two young kids, living in Houston as a consultant. Damn I was miserable and stressed out. This was easily 10 years ago and I constantly fantasized about walking away from the job and reinventing myself.
Fast forward a decade. We live in CO with a very fun lifestyle. I'm not billable and I'm not quite sales. I dig it. And the wife doesn't work. I don't ever look at my investments and calculate when I can retire anymore. Although my numbers are looking pretty good and responsible for my age.
I guess what I'm saying is that happiness really overrides being so focused on retirement numbers. I'm thankful to be in this position.
I can read it the way you are too. Didn't the first time, but makes sense.RangerRick9211 said:I agree, but I don't have the same read on the comment as you.Casey TableTennis said:In my experience, actual savings is far more impactful on success than actual returns. Similarly, behavior management (all of the various biases we are prone to have, etc...) I believe is sometimes more impactful than actual returns. This is generally true until the magic numbers are approached at which point actual market returns and still behavior drive the boat.EliteZags said:
I've pretty much accepted that the actual future market performance rate is going to have exponentially more impact on my net worth than my savings or earnings rate will ever be able to moving forward
which makes projecting decades out just a trivial fortune telling exercise
The reasons actual savings is so relevant early is that it is the counterbalance to spend. The higher spend is, the lower savings are, and the higher the number you are chasing. So, a double negative impact. Conversely, lower spend, higher savings leads to a lower "number", an exponentially positive impact.
I wouldn't characterize the behavioral elements as linear or exponential. Instead they are asymmetric. There are rarely enough decisions born out of biases to smooth the impact over time. This leads to significant error term from occasional very good or bad emotional (or even irrational) decisions. With a big error term, the negatives of overconfidence on early right decisions and pain from early bad decisions, too often creates perverse dynamics in someone's attitudes toward risk and future decision making, often leading to worse outcomes.
At some point critical mass gets hit (or approached) and the savings/spending dynamic is deemphasized in the calculus of the wealth trajectory, unless hitting magic numbers greatly loosens up spend/gift/legacy desires, which can lead to a treadmill effect.Zag's probably has a stash that is starting to return more than they save for the same period. By weight, market performance will eventually be the differentiator for us all (we won't have W2 income contributing to net worth).Quote:
moving forward
So this isn't Income - Expenses = Savings; more savings = less expenses, less expenses = lower FI #; ergo, more savings = lower FI number conversation.
Rather, it's important to randomly walk the potential market scenarios: from today to your FIRE date, at maybe 5 year (SOR scenarios) and some other intervals. You also need to play with withdrawal strategies, SS scenarios, etc. That's a complex model and for Jeff @ 31 to pin-point 52-59 is what Zags is hinting at. That is fully dependent on the market: less at 31, way more at 45 and ultimately dependent at 52-59. We have decent control over income, more control over expenses, zero control over the market.
And I say all that with my own models projecting potential FIRE windows in the future.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Oh, and one of the stocks I was heavily invested in was Roku. So if you take a look at the 5Y chart... you'll have a pretty good idea of how that went.
Basically picture the worst case investment scenario for that chart, and that was me.
