There are HBI (Hookers n Blow Index) market fluctuations that are difficult to integrate into a robust planning strategy.
Printable View
There are HBI (Hookers n Blow Index) market fluctuations that are difficult to integrate into a robust planning strategy.
I've hedged that risk with investments in colombian agricultural RE and eastern european brothels. Subscribe to my newsletter!Quote:
Originally Posted by frorider
Link please :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
$28k a year sounds like just barely covering living expenses like taxes, insurance, utilities, etc. I don't think that covers food, entertainment, trips, a new car, etc. Using my numbers we need about $7k per month gross income to cover everything (including insurance before Medicare coverage kicks in)Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
That was my original statement. That is was a poor retirement INVESTMENT.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Curious. When your "number" is over $1Mil, how much of that money do you plan on leaving behind when you die?
Likely about $3M in RE, so I can fuck the Gubermunt out of Capital Gain taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wooley12
That should give you a good laugh! Oh wait.
Dude, you taking a bath on your investments recently or something? You seem quite upsetQuote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
I think I would need on the higher end than most to retire. A lot of time people running these numbers look at their current spending habits and needs. I know the amount of money I spend this week is substantially less than the amount I will spend next week in the midst of a vacation. Retirement would be the same way. I will spend substantially more than I do during a typical work week.
Married, high cost of living state, retire by 55. Small second home, travel, ski, help kids a little. Big concern is 10+ yrs health insurance before govt health. At 4%, 160k year less 25% tax = 120k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Tucker
25k property tax, utilities, maintenance. ( 2038?)
24k health insurance for two old farts 2038?
Leaves 71k which is about 6k a month. Seems like a good number to walk away at.
What's 6k a month gonna get you in 20 years?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
I've thought about racking up $1-200k in cc debt just before I go. Fuck the Bankers!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
most people travel at the beginning of their retirement and the travel, etc. drop off to often pretty minimal expenditures - excluding healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by alembical
Fucking healthcare is the wildcard for most.
Meanwhile my friends and family in CH/NZ/Australia don’t think about it much at all in these retirement conversations.
So your plan is to simply live off the interest and not dip into that $4 million savings at all? I mean that's great if you're able to do it, but personally I'd be willing to actually spend some of the money I've saved over my working career.Quote:
Originally Posted by VTeton
^^^
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timei...ate-retirement
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
I feel like I'm pretty fiscally conservative and this even seems absurd to me. 90% of the time investors would have ended up with more than they started? I'd say that makes it a little more than 'reasonable.' Personally it seems excessively constraining.Quote:
On the contrary, 90% of the time investors following the 4% rule would have ended up with more than the amount they started with, and two-thirds of the time they would have more than double their original principal remaining even after 30 years of inflation-adjusted withdrawals. Based on that record, Kitces believes that a withdrawal rate of 4% “is still reasonable in today’s environment.”
4M in 2038 is equal to 2.2M today at a 3% discount rate. That may bring the number closer to today's reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
The 4% theory doesnt account for the age you call it quits. Big difference between bagging out at 50 vs 70 and following the 4% theory. At 70, fuck it, draw 10%.... do that at 50 and you'll be greeting at Wally world.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Health care is wrapped up in it, but if you end up in the old folks home at age 80 or 85, you'd better be able to cash flow 5k+++ per month until you die.Quote:
Originally Posted by VTeton
My grandmother (the one who lived into her 90s) found herself in these shoes. SS, the proceeds of selling her house, and the survivors' benefit of her husband's pension covered a chunk of that, but the kids were kicking in to cover the remainder.
That shit ain't getting cheaper, either.
But the numbers I quoted above don't really bear that out. 90% had more money after 30 years than they started with in the sim. Yeah, I agree 10% would be rolling the dice, but 4% seems way too conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by VTeton
Add 60K to whatever my number is thanks to my side sewer under the road. That's a tough check to write before christmas.
over what time frame? shit's been really good in the past few decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
The study used data back to the 1870s and evaluated every 30 year period from that time to today, so it certainly seems like it covered the gamut of possibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
The 4% rule looking back 30 years still had 20 years with at least a 4% risk free rate and equity dividend rates were also much higher. That's the problem I see with backward looking metrics today.