2016 net worth poll

[shalab]

We have had a bull market from 2009 till now without a major correction. Let us do a poll to see how things are looking like for our board members at the tag end of 2016.

 

[shalab]

We have a large % of the people who have taken the poll who can retire when they want - 63.5% with assets > 500K which is nice.

 

 

 

[Travis Wiedower]

A lot of people need a lot more than $500k to retire.

[ScottHall]

That is only if you don't want to live like a bum off of rice and lentils for the rest of your life, if you dare to dream about travelling the world or partaking in any expensive hobbies with your well-earned twilight years. Most people are total slobs and so many just want to sit in front of FOX News and complain about how GREAT we USED to be. Oh bother!

[Jurgis]

A lot of people need a lot more than $500k to retire.

 

+1. Not to restart my soapbox, but I pretty much stay with opinion that in US you need 500K-1M just to be on the safe side of medical/long-term care.

 

Also assuming 3% withdrawal 500K gives you only 15K per year income...

[racemize]

I imagine most people on the forum are in the $2 million+ category to retire.  If you are compounding wealth, it seems a little silly to stop just at the rate that stops compounding (since you spend all the money you earn to stay afloat)--margin of safety would be to get to a point where it compounds at a rate greater than you need, conservatively. 

[wachtwoord]

A lot of people need a lot more than $500k to retire.

 

+1. Not to restart my soapbox, but I pretty much stay with opinion that in US you need 500K-1M just to be on the safe side of medical/long-term care.

 

Also assuming 3% withdrawal 500K gives you only 15K per year income...

 

Isn't 4% more conventional? 20k USD buys you a pretty decent life in many places in the world (but not a very rich one)

 

I imagine most people on the forum are in the $2 million+ category to retire.  If you are compounding wealth, it seems a little silly to stop just at the rate that stops compounding (since you spend all the money you earn to stay afloat)--margin of safety would be to get to a point where it compounds at a rate greater than you need, conservatively.

 

How much are you planning to spend? 10% on $2M is $200k. Compounding will go on at a lower net wealth than that.

 

I do like the $2M figure though to take out all risk. If you stop working and need to restart again because of a large unseen event that will be quite hard emotionally.

[Jurgis]

I imagine most people on the forum are in the $2 million+ category to retire.  If you are compounding wealth, it seems a little silly to stop just at the rate that stops compounding (since you spend all the money you earn to stay afloat)--margin of safety would be to get to a point where it compounds at a rate greater than you need, conservatively.

 

Right.

 

BTW, I used 3% since that's conservative estimate for "never go to zero". Some studies have shown 4% to be a bit risky especially if downturn strikes in the beginning. But anyone can make their own assumptions. I'm being (very) conservative.

[Alekbaylee]

1-2 million with a good employer pension plan is very good; without is okay.

Size of the family is important too, so is the partner net worth.

So it all depends.

[racemize]

 

How much are you planning to spend? 10% on $2M is $200k. Compounding will go on at a lower net wealth than that.

 

I do like the $2M figure though to take out all risk. If you stop working and need to restart again because of a large unseen event that will be quite hard emotionally.

 

Well, taking out 10% a year will kill you.  As Jurgis said, something on the order of 3-4%.  Of course, when you are making sure you are fine in the bottom 1-5% of outcomes, that means most of your actual outcomes will go exponential.  That's why I feel like you either barely make it (or not) or you are incredibly wealthy.  And the difference is a pretty thin line, so might as well be on the other side of it.

[wachtwoord]

 

How much are you planning to spend? 10% on $2M is $200k. Compounding will go on at a lower net wealth than that.

 

I do like the $2M figure though to take out all risk. If you stop working and need to restart again because of a large unseen event that will be quite hard emotionally.

 

Well, taking out 10% a year will kill you.  As Jurgis said, something on the order of 3-4%.  Of course, when you are making sure you are fine in the bottom 1-5% of outcomes, that means most of your actual outcomes will go exponential.  That's why I feel like you either barely make it (or not) or you are incredibly wealthy.  And the difference is a pretty thin line, so might as well be on the other side of it.

 

Not taking out 10+%, but long term absolute returns. So with 2M you'll make $200k a year of which a portion is reinvested. I was saying that at that point the vast majority can be reinvested (do you need more than $40k spending money?) so you can stop earlier.

[Liberty]

How much money do you guys think the average middle-class US retiree has? Honest question, I don't know.

[writser]

I expected this forum to be way poorer. Maybe the poll is biased but looks like people here are doing well for themselves. Nice.

[Jurgis]

How much money do you guys think the average middle-class US retiree has? Honest question, I don't know.

 

I Bing'ed it and got this:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/04/21/no-retirement-savings/26070017/

 

Last two lines of the article talk about retirees. It doesn't give average (which would be mostly meaningless anyway, you really would want median I'd think).

 

It is bad. Very very few have 500K, forget about 2M. Assuming they own a house, they may be able to survive on social security + medicare... (medicaid might not apply if you have a house, not sure).

[rkbabang]

How much money do you guys think the average middle-class US retiree has? Honest question, I don't know.

 

So the average of the middle?  I don't know either, but I'd suspect that the average middle class retiree has a house that is paid off (otherwise they would still be working) and maybe a small pension and/or annuity, plus low 6 figures (<$300K) in savings/investments, plus depending on social security to make up the difference.

 

That is just a guess based on people I know, but I live in the North East which is probably better off in general than much of the country.

 

[Jurgis]

People have retired at 30 or so - Mr Money Mustache with 600K, Early retirement extreme even earlier. They seem to be living a full life from what I can tell.

 

OK, I probably should shut up, but: I believe that MMM and similar early retirees have not enough allocation for medical/long term care in the old age. MMM will be fine since he's now blog-rich. But in general don't retire in 30-40s expecting great health forever.

[rkbabang]

People have retired at 30 or so - Mr Money Mustache with 600K, Early retirement extreme even earlier. They seem to be living a full life from what I can tell.

 

OK, I probably should shut up, but: I believe that MMM and similar early retirees have not enough allocation for medical/long term care in the old age. MMM will be fine since he's now blog-rich. But in general don't retire in 30-40s expecting great health forever.

 

I would agree with that.  The younger you decide to retire the more of a buffer you need for the unexpected.  I'd probably retire at 60 with $1.5M-$2M, but I wouldn't retire at 35 with any less than $10M.

 

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

A lot of people need a lot more than $500k to retire.

 

There is a typo in your sentence above. 

 

A lot of people want a lot more than $500k to retire.

 

The word need is inherently premised on conditions.  Nobody needs more than $500k to retire.  They want to maintain a certain lifestyle, and therefore want more to retire. 

[racemize]

 

How much are you planning to spend? 10% on $2M is $200k. Compounding will go on at a lower net wealth than that.

 

I do like the $2M figure though to take out all risk. If you stop working and need to restart again because of a large unseen event that will be quite hard emotionally.

 

Well, taking out 10% a year will kill you.  As Jurgis said, something on the order of 3-4%.  Of course, when you are making sure you are fine in the bottom 1-5% of outcomes, that means most of your actual outcomes will go exponential.  That's why I feel like you either barely make it (or not) or you are incredibly wealthy.  And the difference is a pretty thin line, so might as well be on the other side of it.

 

Not taking out 10+%, but long term absolute returns. So with 2M you'll make $200k a year of which a portion is reinvested. I was saying that at that point the vast majority can be reinvested (do you need more than $40k spending money?) so you can stop earlier.

 

Yes, that's right on average, it's just that there are some bad situations where you kill yourself quickly in the beginning--that's why retirement folks run those monte carlo simulations and the 3-4% rule comes out.

[racemize]

People have retired at 30 or so - Mr Money Mustache with 600K, Early retirement extreme even earlier. They seem to be living a full life from what I can tell.

 

I agree they have, and I certainly have looked into this.  Honestly, I'd just rather set my permanent standard of living a little higher.  I want to go traveling to different areas and prefer higher-end when I do.  I also figure if it is easy to get the money to compound into oblivion, why not?  I can see what life is like at those levels, and if it doesn't add much to my quality of life, then that's great.  Anyway, I'm going to give all my money away, so maybe that will benefit some other people (hopefully anyway).

 

Also, ultimately this "you can be happy with lower money" concept is Buddhism.  And if you are actually a Buddhist, you can be just as happy working as not working.  Chop wood, carry water and all that.

[merkhet]

I'd like to add that you're also considering retirement in the United States. I'm not sure that $500,000 isn't enough to retire on a beach in Thailand somewhere. Anyhow, just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that embedded assumptions are important.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

I'd like to add that you're also considering retirement in the United States. I'm not sure that $500,000 isn't enough to retire on a beach in Thailand somewhere. Anyhow, just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that embedded assumptions are important.

 

Yea - most people aren't going to move to cheaper cost district just so they can retire with fewer dollars. Hell, outside of moving to Florida there's not many people who consider moving states, let alone countries, for retirement.

[ScottHall]

I'd like to add that you're also considering retirement in the United States. I'm not sure that $500,000 isn't enough to retire on a beach in Thailand somewhere. Anyhow, just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that embedded assumptions are important.

 

Yea - most people are going to move to cheaper cost district just so they can retire with fewer dollars. Hell, outside of moving to Florida there's not many people who consider moving states, let alone countries, for retirement.

 

I agree. It's important not to settle for what is reasonable and practical; we should strive to live the lifestyle we dream of because some moderate pressure is good for us as a species.

[Liberty]

So the average of the middle?

 

Funny when said like that, but pretty sure the middle class isn't actually the middle when it comes to absolute $ amounts. It's more an arbitrary group than a mathematical thing. Vast quantities of the wealth in this country are controlled by a few % of people, so if you include them in the average amount in retirement, it'll skew things a lot.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

I'd like to add that you're also considering retirement in the United States. I'm not sure that $500,000 isn't enough to retire on a beach in Thailand somewhere. Anyhow, just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that embedded assumptions are important.

 

Yea - most people are going to move to cheaper cost district just so they can retire with fewer dollars. Hell, outside of moving to Florida there's not many people who consider moving states, let alone countries, for retirement.

 

I agree. It's important not to settle for what is reasonable and practical; we should strive to live the lifestyle we dream of because some moderate pressure is good for us as a species.

 

That's how I operate, but it's not how 90% of this country operates. It never has been. It never will be. It's a pipe dream to expect people to be responsible for themselves and do whatever is necessary to survive. However you slice it, the "have nots" outweight the "haves" and will demand at least a modicum of comfort for their lifestyle, at others expense if necessary,  because they know they outnumber the "haves".

 

While I agree with you, and it's how I live my life, I also recognize that no one else in this country will ever be expected to do that.