Congrats!
millionaires
639,018 Views |
2725 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by jja79
I bleed maroon said:
A millionaire has a dollar net worth of a one, followed by 6 zeros. It may be "worth" less than it used to be, but the definition is indisputable math-wise.
Yeah... and I would add it is still worth celebrating, especially seeing these folks hit millionaire status in their 30's and 40's. No need to diminish what people are achieving. That first million is the hardest, and if you can make it there, it's still a symbolic milestone in a person's ability to build wealth.
It appears about 10-12% of households in the US are millionaires, so while it's not a super-rare thing anymore, it's still something to be celebrated.
I'd also make an argument that the value of a millionaire has not been diluted as much as people might think over the decades. You have to also consider:
I'd also make an argument that the value of a millionaire has not been diluted as much as people might think over the decades. You have to also consider:
- The rising standard of living (virtually everyone has a TV, A/C, indoor plumbing, mobile phone, etc.)
- Productivity improvements due to technology (online applications for licenses, grocery delivery services, work-from-home opportunities, etc.)
- The expansion of the safety net (Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs)
And I'll continue to state that it also depends on your age and how you want to live on that $1M which he weirdly ignores.
It's not enough for my wife and me at 51 and 49 to live on $1M plus SS assuming we live 30-40 more years. Math doesn't work.
If you are 82, like my parents, who coincidentally have a little less than $1M then you are good. They lived off of passive rental income until they were about 79 and never had to touch their next egg other than RMDs.
I'm sure there are some folks not too much older than me with $1M who can scrape by couponing everything they buy and not really able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but I selfishly do not want to have to do that.
It's not enough for my wife and me at 51 and 49 to live on $1M plus SS assuming we live 30-40 more years. Math doesn't work.
If you are 82, like my parents, who coincidentally have a little less than $1M then you are good. They lived off of passive rental income until they were about 79 and never had to touch their next egg other than RMDs.
I'm sure there are some folks not too much older than me with $1M who can scrape by couponing everything they buy and not really able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but I selfishly do not want to have to do that.
YouBet said:
And I'll continue to state that it also depends on your age and how you want to live on that $1M which he weirdly ignores.
It's not enough for my wife and me at 51 and 49 to live on $1M plus SS assuming we live 30-40 more years. Math doesn't work.
If you are 82, like my parents, who coincidentally have a little less than $1M then you are good. They lived off of passive rental income until they were about 79 and never had to touch their next egg other than RMDs.
I'm sure there are some folks not too much older than me with $1M who can scrape by couponing everything they buy and not really able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but I selfishly do not want to have to do that.
I figure if someone is in their 70's with a million nest egg and zero debt would be fine. It wouldn't be luxurious obviously but with SS plus 40k a year or so off the million would be fine.
When we were down, and we would come to Lubbock, you people would treat us like kings.-Paul Stanley of KISS
YouBet said:
And I'll continue to state that it also depends on your age and how you want to live on that $1M which he weirdly ignores.
It's not enough for my wife and me at 51 and 49 to live on $1M plus SS assuming we live 30-40 more years. Math doesn't work.
If you are 82, like my parents, who coincidentally have a little less than $1M then you are good. They lived off of passive rental income until they were about 79 and never had to touch their next egg other than RMDs.
I'm sure there are some folks not too much older than me with $1M who can scrape by couponing everything they buy and not really able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but I selfishly do not want to have to do that.
I think your argument with him is semantics, and you probably actually agree with each other. It comes down to how much you spend. If you can live how you want on $100k or less a year, the math works just fine. You are stating you don't want to live on less than $100k a year (and are worried about expenses creeping up over time), which is fine. You're both "right".
If we could all estimate our accurate date of death, the math would actually be super-easy!
I bleed maroon said:
I think the last two posters need to either go back to elementary school, or start a thread called "High Net Worth Individuals", because the last time I checked,
A millionaire has a dollar net worth of a one, followed by 6 zeros. It may be "worth" less than it used to be, but the definition is indisputable math-wise.
Just kidding, guys - I agree with your points, but I had to point that out!
That's fair but then boomers shouldn't count either because they played life on easy mode buying houses for a nickel.
Irwin M. Fletcher said:YouBet said:
And I'll continue to state that it also depends on your age and how you want to live on that $1M which he weirdly ignores.
It's not enough for my wife and me at 51 and 49 to live on $1M plus SS assuming we live 30-40 more years. Math doesn't work.
If you are 82, like my parents, who coincidentally have a little less than $1M then you are good. They lived off of passive rental income until they were about 79 and never had to touch their next egg other than RMDs.
I'm sure there are some folks not too much older than me with $1M who can scrape by couponing everything they buy and not really able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but I selfishly do not want to have to do that.
I figure if someone is in their 70's with a million nest egg and zero debt would be fine. It wouldn't be luxurious obviously but with SS plus 40k a year or so off the million would be fine.
Probably so.
I bleed maroon said:YouBet said:
And I'll continue to state that it also depends on your age and how you want to live on that $1M which he weirdly ignores.
It's not enough for my wife and me at 51 and 49 to live on $1M plus SS assuming we live 30-40 more years. Math doesn't work.
If you are 82, like my parents, who coincidentally have a little less than $1M then you are good. They lived off of passive rental income until they were about 79 and never had to touch their next egg other than RMDs.
I'm sure there are some folks not too much older than me with $1M who can scrape by couponing everything they buy and not really able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but I selfishly do not want to have to do that.
I think your argument with him is semantics, and you probably actually agree with each other. It comes down to how much you spend. If you can live how you want on $100k or less a year, the math works just fine. You are stating you don't want to live on less than $100k a year (and are worried about expenses creeping up over time), which is fine. You're both "right".
If we could all estimate our accurate date of death, the math would actually be super-easy!
Right, which is what I stated. And I also agree it comes down to how you manage your spend. Personally, I'm a pretty big budget hawk with our spend and have even started entire threads in the past about cutting costs and how to do that.
My point is that there are multiple scenarios here depending on your age, where you live, how you spend - fixed and variable, healthcare needs, etc. And that this blanket statement of "anyone can retire with $1M because my immediate peer group is doing it" is one data point not necessarily relevant for everyone else.
There are all kinds of different factors at play here.
I said 3-3.5% of retirees have $1MM. Those numbers are from the Fed and Fidelity. That's different than saying that percentage of American households have that.
jja79 said:
I said 3-3.5% of retirees have $1MM. Those numbers are from the Fed and Fidelity. That's different than saying that percentage of American households have that.
Agree. If they're 2-retiree households, that's 6-7% millionaire households using that measure - I'd also like to assume that the millionaires not yet retired can also maintain that level until retirement, as well (your percentage is destined to grow, I hope).
And, most of your friends are actually millionaires, using my real-world all-inclusive measures. You're right about level of spending being paramount.
Thanks!
Most married retirees I know only had one spouse working. I've just shared my experience living in retirement in a community with 5,000+ retirees the vast majority of which have <$1MM in retirement funds. Equity in a home is pretty irrelevant at that point in life except to the heirs.
Skipped around a little on this thread (long thread). I spent the first 20 years of my career climbing corporate ladders. Finally, at age 42 I had my full entrepreneurial seizure and started a business. I thought I was a little old at the time, but it turns out the average age for entrepreneurs to start is age 42.
Still, it was hard to walk away from an executive position when I had a wife who worked part time, two kids, a mortgage, two car payments, and a pair of Shelties. It turned out to be the best financial decision of my life. Fifteen years later, I sold to private equity for generational wealth.
A couple of thoughts...
When you work for a paycheck, you're building wealth for other people. When you write the paychecks, you're building wealth for yourself, or rather, your employees are building wealth for you.
A wealthy Aggie buddy of mine likes to say that HR managers' goals are to figure out what it takes financially to keep you from leaving and pay you $1 more. It's a form of golden handcuffs. You think you can't afford to leave, but if your goal is to build real wealth for yourself and your family, you can't afford to stay.
The way an employee creates wealth is by squeezing his lifestyle far enough below his pay that there's a little left over to put in the bank. The way a business owner creates wealth is growing his business and/or bottom line. One is scarcity thinking. The other is prosperity thinking.
It's never too late to become an entrepreneur. The average age of first time entrepreneurs is 42. There are a number of legendary entrepreneurs who started after that... Ray Kroc, Harlan Sanders, Reed Hastings, etc.
I worked in the service trades. I personally know dozens of HVAC contractors, plumbers, and electrical contractors who never went to college, but went into business for themselves, and are now multi-millionaires.
Being a millionaire is not enough. One day a friend who was an air conditioning contractor called me. He was excited because he was offered $3 million for his company. He was too young for social security to be a factor (and it's not much of one, in any case).
I said, "Let's say you sell it. A financial advisor will tell you to expect 7% to 8% from investments and to budget 4% to 5% for living expenses with the difference building equity for inflation. Five percent of $3 million is $150 thousand. Can you live on that?"
There was a pause, then he said, "Not with my current lifestyle."
"Well," I said, "It gets worse. You've got to pay capital gains. I don't know what your state capital gains is, but federal capital gains and the Obamacare tax will take just under a quarter of your sale proceeds."
He decided to continue to build his business and eventually sold for a healthy eight figures. He never went to college. He started his business by moonlighting from the phone company.
Anyone who went to A&M can certainly do what my friend did, but you've got to be comfortable with the risk.
Don't think about your lifestyle today. If you're surviving on $150K today, triple that and work backward to a wealth number. You don't have to share the result with anyone, but keep focused on it. Don't limit yourself.
I can remember talking with a couple of plumbers in Australia. Both owned successful plumbing companies, but one of them also owned a small, specialty manufacturing business and developed commercial properties. When really successful people like this guy start talking, I listen.
The uber successful one said, "A million dollars a year. That's all I need. I can live on that."
A million dollars a year? I was stunned. I'd never imagined that for myself, but here was this guy, who was a regular guy despite his success, talking about it in a matter of fact manner. Over the following days and weeks, I kept thinking about that conversation. Finally my thinking shifted. Why not, I started thinking. I didn't know how I'd get there, but I did.
Today, I don't work for money. I have money that works for me. I don't try to manage it myself. I use people who do this for a living and are better at it than I am. They know about things like tax harvesting. They know how to hedge investments. These are things you can't do with an index fund. Besides the peace of mind, I'd rather hunt or fish or travel or waste time on TexAgs. If I didn't start a business, I would probably still be working for someone, wondering how I can ever afford to retire. START A BUSINESS!!!
If you're still in school, get involved with the McFerrin Center or the Meloy program in the College of Engineering. A&M is doing a lot these days to develop entrepreneurs. And if you're out of school, remember, it's never too late to start your entrepreneurial journey.
Still, it was hard to walk away from an executive position when I had a wife who worked part time, two kids, a mortgage, two car payments, and a pair of Shelties. It turned out to be the best financial decision of my life. Fifteen years later, I sold to private equity for generational wealth.
A couple of thoughts...
When you work for a paycheck, you're building wealth for other people. When you write the paychecks, you're building wealth for yourself, or rather, your employees are building wealth for you.
A wealthy Aggie buddy of mine likes to say that HR managers' goals are to figure out what it takes financially to keep you from leaving and pay you $1 more. It's a form of golden handcuffs. You think you can't afford to leave, but if your goal is to build real wealth for yourself and your family, you can't afford to stay.
The way an employee creates wealth is by squeezing his lifestyle far enough below his pay that there's a little left over to put in the bank. The way a business owner creates wealth is growing his business and/or bottom line. One is scarcity thinking. The other is prosperity thinking.
It's never too late to become an entrepreneur. The average age of first time entrepreneurs is 42. There are a number of legendary entrepreneurs who started after that... Ray Kroc, Harlan Sanders, Reed Hastings, etc.
I worked in the service trades. I personally know dozens of HVAC contractors, plumbers, and electrical contractors who never went to college, but went into business for themselves, and are now multi-millionaires.
Being a millionaire is not enough. One day a friend who was an air conditioning contractor called me. He was excited because he was offered $3 million for his company. He was too young for social security to be a factor (and it's not much of one, in any case).
I said, "Let's say you sell it. A financial advisor will tell you to expect 7% to 8% from investments and to budget 4% to 5% for living expenses with the difference building equity for inflation. Five percent of $3 million is $150 thousand. Can you live on that?"
There was a pause, then he said, "Not with my current lifestyle."
"Well," I said, "It gets worse. You've got to pay capital gains. I don't know what your state capital gains is, but federal capital gains and the Obamacare tax will take just under a quarter of your sale proceeds."
He decided to continue to build his business and eventually sold for a healthy eight figures. He never went to college. He started his business by moonlighting from the phone company.
Anyone who went to A&M can certainly do what my friend did, but you've got to be comfortable with the risk.
Don't think about your lifestyle today. If you're surviving on $150K today, triple that and work backward to a wealth number. You don't have to share the result with anyone, but keep focused on it. Don't limit yourself.
I can remember talking with a couple of plumbers in Australia. Both owned successful plumbing companies, but one of them also owned a small, specialty manufacturing business and developed commercial properties. When really successful people like this guy start talking, I listen.
The uber successful one said, "A million dollars a year. That's all I need. I can live on that."
A million dollars a year? I was stunned. I'd never imagined that for myself, but here was this guy, who was a regular guy despite his success, talking about it in a matter of fact manner. Over the following days and weeks, I kept thinking about that conversation. Finally my thinking shifted. Why not, I started thinking. I didn't know how I'd get there, but I did.
Today, I don't work for money. I have money that works for me. I don't try to manage it myself. I use people who do this for a living and are better at it than I am. They know about things like tax harvesting. They know how to hedge investments. These are things you can't do with an index fund. Besides the peace of mind, I'd rather hunt or fish or travel or waste time on TexAgs. If I didn't start a business, I would probably still be working for someone, wondering how I can ever afford to retire. START A BUSINESS!!!
If you're still in school, get involved with the McFerrin Center or the Meloy program in the College of Engineering. A&M is doing a lot these days to develop entrepreneurs. And if you're out of school, remember, it's never too late to start your entrepreneurial journey.
jja79 said:
I said 3-3.5% of retirees have $1MM. Those numbers are from the Fed and Fidelity. That's different than saying that percentage of American households have that.
You're correct. In fact less than 1% of people have 3 million in retirement and only .1% have 5 million. I was a little surprised by this as the 1% on net worth is like $11 million but most of that will be in their business or single stock they invested in.
When we were down, and we would come to Lubbock, you people would treat us like kings.-Paul Stanley of KISS
Irwin M. Fletcher said:jja79 said:
I said 3-3.5% of retirees have $1MM. Those numbers are from the Fed and Fidelity. That's different than saying that percentage of American households have that.
You're correct. In fact less than 1% of people have 3 million in retirement and only .1% have 5 million. I was a little surprised by this as the 1% on net worth is like $11 million but most of that will be in their business or single stock they invested in.
I don't understand what you're saying with regards to the $11 million figure. I would assume that figure is so skewed because it's a cutoff, and there are families/individuals within that 1% with multiple tens of millions and even billions in net worth. Is it a discrepancy between net worth and money in retirement funds??
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Meant to make this a reply to RAB83
My dad worked for the same company for 30+ years. Retired in his mid 50s and has generational wealth. I don't know how much but they are very generous and have started passing down wealth to their 6 kids and haven't yet hit 70. Still live pretty frugal but have a very nice house, lake house, boat, new cars, travel overseas, paid for 6 kids to go to private school and through college, etc.
Not discounting that starting a business is a great idea and can pay off in a massive way, but working for the man can still get it done. Just may not be as sexy or fun to do it that way.
I work for the man, rarely check emails after 4:30 or on the weekend, get 5 weeks off, and when I'm off I'm off, 6 weeks paternity where I legally can't work. About to be 36, 1.5MM net worth, wife stays home, and we live very comfortably.
Quote:
but if your goal is to build real wealth for yourself and your family, you can't afford to stay.
My dad worked for the same company for 30+ years. Retired in his mid 50s and has generational wealth. I don't know how much but they are very generous and have started passing down wealth to their 6 kids and haven't yet hit 70. Still live pretty frugal but have a very nice house, lake house, boat, new cars, travel overseas, paid for 6 kids to go to private school and through college, etc.
Not discounting that starting a business is a great idea and can pay off in a massive way, but working for the man can still get it done. Just may not be as sexy or fun to do it that way.
I work for the man, rarely check emails after 4:30 or on the weekend, get 5 weeks off, and when I'm off I'm off, 6 weeks paternity where I legally can't work. About to be 36, 1.5MM net worth, wife stays home, and we live very comfortably.
"Generational wealth" could also mean different things to different people. Very subjective term.
Agreed. I would consider setting up college accounts for 18 grandkids (and counting) a form of generational wealth. Also starting to distribute inheritance before 70 works in my definition.
I really appreciate your post and your perspective. I also appreciate some of the pointers you added. And congrats on doing so well!
I would offer two counterpoints:
- Not every business is a success and not every successful business has the potential to net generational wealth. There's a risk leaving a good situation to set out on your own.
- Often, owning your own business requires you to be invested with your time and attention to another level than working for a company. Working for someone else does afford some freedoms that are important to some folks
Just speaking for myself, I'm closing in on the executive level in a large business. I also know what folks that own firms in this sector are making, and I'd be taking a major cut and risk to leave where I'm at. I don't think the market would support a lot of growth for me as a business owner. I don't think that's true in all fields, locations, markets, etc.
I agree that people who build successful businesses have the highest potential for significant wealth. But I think for myself (and probably a lot of people), my earning potential and risk profile is better where I'm at working for someone else. Hard to make that claim universally, though.
Interesting discussion!
I would offer two counterpoints:
- Not every business is a success and not every successful business has the potential to net generational wealth. There's a risk leaving a good situation to set out on your own.
- Often, owning your own business requires you to be invested with your time and attention to another level than working for a company. Working for someone else does afford some freedoms that are important to some folks
Just speaking for myself, I'm closing in on the executive level in a large business. I also know what folks that own firms in this sector are making, and I'd be taking a major cut and risk to leave where I'm at. I don't think the market would support a lot of growth for me as a business owner. I don't think that's true in all fields, locations, markets, etc.
I agree that people who build successful businesses have the highest potential for significant wealth. But I think for myself (and probably a lot of people), my earning potential and risk profile is better where I'm at working for someone else. Hard to make that claim universally, though.
Interesting discussion!
coolerguy12 said:
Meant to make this a reply to RAB83Quote:
but if your goal is to build real wealth for yourself and your family, you can't afford to stay.
My dad worked for the same company for 30+ years. Retired in his mid 50s and has generational wealth. I don't know how much but they are very generous and have started passing down wealth to their 6 kids and haven't yet hit 70. Still live pretty frugal but have a very nice house, lake house, boat, new cars, travel overseas, paid for 6 kids to go to private school and through college, etc.
Not discounting that starting a business is a great idea and can pay off in a massive way, but working for the man can still get it done. Just may not be as sexy or fun to do it that way.
I work for the man, rarely check emails after 4:30 or on the weekend, get 5 weeks off, and when I'm off I'm off, 6 weeks paternity where I legally can't work. About to be 36, 1.5MM net worth, wife stays home, and we live very comfortably.
Good for you! I wasn't doing nearly as well when I was 36. I also never got that much time off.
There are trade-offs entrepreneurs make. I worked my butt off before starting a business, but nothing compared to afterwards. Even when I did take a day off, I was never really off. I never went anywhere for more than a few hours without a laptop. There was constant pressure for the company to perform because of my family, my investors, and my team. I was responsible for a lot of mouths to feed. I was AA Exec Plat for years and missed a fair amount at home, though I did my best. I realize it's not for everyone. For my case, I loved what I did and felt like my business made a tangible difference in a lot of people's lives.
Your father is an exception. My dad was a self-made millionaire as an employee, but he did it through frugality and investments. Growing up I was under the impression that we were always one-step away from being homeless. That's a different type of pressure.
I suspect your father was in an equity/option position with a company that had stellar growth. I know one individual who got a very small equity position as an early employee with a company that eventually sold for billions. He's done better than me financially, so you're right. It is possible.
MAS444 said:
"Generational wealth" could also mean different things to different people. Very subjective term.
You're right, but it gives one the general idea.
BenTheGoodAg said:
I really appreciate your post and your perspective. I also appreciate some of the pointers you added. And congrats on doing so well!
I would offer two counterpoints:
- Not every business is a success and not every successful business has the potential to net generational wealth. There's a risk leaving a good situation to set out on your own.
- Often, owning your own business requires you to be invested with your time and attention to another level than working for a company. Working for someone else does afford some freedoms that are important to some folks
Just speaking for myself, I'm closing in on the executive level in a large business. I also know what folks that own firms in this sector are making, and I'd be taking a major cut and risk to leave where I'm at. I don't think the market would support a lot of growth for me as a business owner. I don't think that's true in all fields, locations, markets, etc.
I agree that people who build successful businesses have the highest potential for significant wealth. But I think for myself (and probably a lot of people), my earning potential and risk profile is better where I'm at working for someone else. Hard to make that claim universally, though.
Interesting discussion!
I appreciate your thoughts.
You are correct that not every business is a success. However, that holds for a company that employs you as well as a company you own. If the economy goes south, the employee faces risk of layoff and his investments are subject to the vagaries of the market. There are limits to what you can do as an employee to affect company performance, not to mention what can happen because of jealousies, power plays, and corporation politics.
As a business owner, I always felt like I could rally my team during a downturn and personally make a difference in company performance. I never laid off an employee, even during Covid when I was running the company after selling it. However, I always had a running list of where I could cut if needed and it didn't start with hourly people.
I hear you about closing in on an executive position. If you're Fortune 1000 or equivalent, you're going to be well compensated and riding the horse that brought you probably is the best decision under a risk/reward scenario. FWIW, I did take a huge hit financially when I started and things were tight for a time. It was probably a decade before I caught up salary wise (remember, the wealth was in the company, somewhat theoretical, and I couldn't spend it until I sold). Fortunately, I created a great, disruptive business concept that hit at the right time in the development of the Internet and the industries I served, was blessed with stupid competition, and just smart enough to hire people a lot better than me.
What you note in your final paragraph is something I discuss often with the wealthy Aggie I mentioned. He's a friend and a mentor. He makes the case that Aggies get out of school and do better than their peers from other universities, making high salaries, and become locked in. This keeps many from scratching the entrepreneurial itch. We've talked a lot about what we can do about it. We've both spoken to students and tried to plant the seeds of entrepreneurialism. It would have been easier for me to start sooner when failure meant less. That's really why I made my original post.
All valid points.
I think it's good to plant the seed with the next generation of Aggies to consider being an entrepreneur, and an interesting point that early success almost locks people into corporate tracks.
And one further wrinkle I see - the experience you gain in structured corporate environment can be invaluable when you start a business. So there's this paradox where you need/benefit from the knowledge gained at a company, but it starts to lock you into a corporate career.
Every situation is different too. I guess the main takeaway for someone like me (or anyone, really) is keep your eyes open for opportunities to start a business, even if you don't think they're there. I don't see myself leaving the corporate world anytime soon, but it's good food for thought.
I think it's good to plant the seed with the next generation of Aggies to consider being an entrepreneur, and an interesting point that early success almost locks people into corporate tracks.
And one further wrinkle I see - the experience you gain in structured corporate environment can be invaluable when you start a business. So there's this paradox where you need/benefit from the knowledge gained at a company, but it starts to lock you into a corporate career.
Every situation is different too. I guess the main takeaway for someone like me (or anyone, really) is keep your eyes open for opportunities to start a business, even if you don't think they're there. I don't see myself leaving the corporate world anytime soon, but it's good food for thought.
Kool said:Irwin M. Fletcher said:jja79 said:
I said 3-3.5% of retirees have $1MM. Those numbers are from the Fed and Fidelity. That's different than saying that percentage of American households have that.
You're correct. In fact less than 1% of people have 3 million in retirement and only .1% have 5 million. I was a little surprised by this as the 1% on net worth is like $11 million but most of that will be in their business or single stock they invested in.
I don't understand what you're saying with regards to the $11 million figure. I would assume that figure is so skewed because it's a cutoff, and there are families/individuals within that 1% with multiple tens of millions and even billions in net worth. Is it a discrepancy between net worth and money in retirement funds??
The point is that the 1% of net worth individuals don't have huge retirement accounts generally as most of their net worth will be in the businesses they start or found and or seed capital provided by being an Angel Investor and then that company goes public. So the 1% in retirement accounts is $3million and the .1% is 5 million in retirement. That's all.
When we were down, and we would come to Lubbock, you people would treat us like kings.-Paul Stanley of KISS
jja79 said:
Most married retirees I know only had one spouse working. I've just shared my experience living in retirement in a community with 5,000+ retirees the vast majority of which have <$1MM in retirement funds. Equity in a home is pretty irrelevant at that point in life except to the heirs.
I couldn't disagree more with this part of your statement. Home equity is a part of net worth as important as any other. By keeping equity in a home, you are foregoing investing that cash or using it to fund retirement needs. They could cash out and pay an equivalent (or less) amount to rent the house next door, probably with less risk (home repairs, market volatility, etc.). In fact, it's a key part of why I think most of your friends are indeed millionaires. Just ask them these questions:
- how much home equity they have (realizable, after selling expenses)
- how many more years they (and spouse) expect to receive SS benefits
- how much is their pension (using the same lifespan expectation as for SS)
- how much of your definition of "retirement funds" they have left
A typical 65 year old couple might have this, in those categories:
- $400k paid off house, reduced for selling expenses = maybe $350k net
- $640k on average per person for expected lifetime present value of future SS income
- Pension of $400k per person (present value of future income)
- Retirement funds of $500k on average
Using this true economic valuation suggests an individual realizable net worth of around $1.9 million, and for a typical couple, may approach $3 million. If they have modest spending habits, they're set for life! This is a good thing, and why I hesitate to freak out at our "retirement crisis". It will get worse when pensions continue to be phased out over time, but hopefully enhanced 401(k) and IRA savings will fill the gap.
You can also use that equity to your advantage as a last case funding resort (as collateral) if you get behind the eight ball elsewhere. Another reason why home equity matters.
YouBet said:
You can also use that equity to your advantage as a last case funding resort (as collateral) if you get behind the eight ball elsewhere. Another reason why home equity matters.
Totally agree - thought I had put that in there.
I could include present value of medicare, but for ease of calculation, I'll just assume it's a wash with actual medical expenses that go over a "normal" healthcare budget.
I also just want to reiterate jja79's assertion that what matters most is what you spend. That's very accurate, as well.
I bleed maroon said:jja79 said:
Most married retirees I know only had one spouse working. I've just shared my experience living in retirement in a community with 5,000+ retirees the vast majority of which have <$1MM in retirement funds. Equity in a home is pretty irrelevant at that point in life except to the heirs.
I couldn't disagree more with this part of your statement. Home equity is a part of net worth as important as any other. By keeping equity in a home, you are foregoing investing that cash or using it to fund retirement needs. They could cash out and pay an equivalent (or less) amount to rent the house next door, probably with less risk (home repairs, market volatility, etc.). In fact, it's a key part of why I think most of your friends are indeed millionaires. Just ask them these questions:
A typical 65 year old couple might have this, in those categories:
- $400k paid off house, reduced for selling expenses = maybe $350k net
- $640k on average per person for expected lifetime present value of future SS income
- Pension of $400k per person (present value of future income)
- Retirement funds of $500k on average
Using this true economic valuation suggests an individual realizable net worth of around $1.9 million, and for a typical couple, may approach $3 million. If they have modest spending habits, they're set for life! This is a good thing, and why I hesitate to freak out at our "retirement crisis". It will get worse when pensions continue to be phased out over time, but hopefully enhanced 401(k) and IRA savings will fill the gap.
Wow, that describes me in amazingly accurate detail, except I'm 51. You should write a book.
Irwin M. Fletcher said:YouBet said:
And I'll continue to state that it also depends on your age and how you want to live on that $1M which he weirdly ignores.
It's not enough for my wife and me at 51 and 49 to live on $1M plus SS assuming we live 30-40 more years. Math doesn't work.
If you are 82, like my parents, who coincidentally have a little less than $1M then you are good. They lived off of passive rental income until they were about 79 and never had to touch their next egg other than RMDs.
I'm sure there are some folks not too much older than me with $1M who can scrape by couponing everything they buy and not really able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but I selfishly do not want to have to do that.
I figure if someone is in their 70's with a million nest egg and zero debt would be fine. It wouldn't be luxurious obviously but with SS plus 40k a year or so off the million would be fine.
4% withdrawal rate for someone in their 70s is way too conservative, they could easily push it to 6% or maybe a little higher if they are willing to pull back if the market tanks.
How can retirees use their home equity? Sell or borrow.
Featured Stories
See All
18:23
2m ago
48
The Loochador Podcast: Texas Aggies win track meet at Notre Dame
by Billy Liucci
Magical Reed-to-Boerkircher connection stuns Irish in final seconds
by Olin Buchanan
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Texas A&M 41, Notre Dame 40
by Olin Buchanan
12 Key Statistics: Texas A&M 41, Notre Dame 40
by Luke Evangelist
cmiller00
Pretty easily the lamest, most quiet stadium I've ever been to
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
215