How much will you have if you don't retire early?!

[catccc]

I plan on retiring in 5-10 years, in my early 40s.  I think I need 1M to 1.5M.  Big range, I know, but it depends on spouse's job, 'fun' retirement work I might do, etc.

I like to run projections to see how close I am to freedom.  Today I ran it out to a normal retirement age, and guess what?  If keep doing what I'm doing, but retire at 60, I just might have $10 million dollars. 

Boggles my mind.  What in the world would I do that much money?  Better retire early to avoid that problem!!

Anybody else ever peek at this figure and marvel at its enormity?

[JLee]

There was actually a recent discussion on this topic - http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/do-you-hypothetically-calculate-your-wealth-a-retirement-age-if-you-didn't-re/

[Retire-Canada]

Boggles my mind.  What in the world would I do that much money?  Better retire early to avoid that problem!!

Anybody else ever peek at this figure and marvel at its enormity?

Yes and that train of thought made me realize I was planning to work and save far too long for FIRE.

You'l never get more years at your current age range and I think it's foolish to assume 5yrs at 40-45 and the same as 5yrs at 60-65 so it's well worth looking at your calculations and understanding how much "safety" you are paying for with days at work.

My simulations were averaging $2M to $10M when I started planning FIRE. My current simulations average $700K when I get to 100, but they let me stop working fulltime at a much lower $$ target.

-- Vik

[Cheddar Stacker]

Anybody else ever peek at this figure and marvel at its enormity?

Yes. At 65, I think it's somewhere in the $12-14M range. That's 28 years from now, so inflation brings it back to a lower number, but it still blows my mind.

[catccc]

There was actually a recent discussion on this topic - http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/do-you-hypothetically-calculate-your-wealth-a-retirement-age-if-you-didn't-re/

ah!  thanks for the link.  (and that topic says it has been discussed before, too, ha!)  Sorry for the duplicate, I hadn't seen that one.

Yes. At 65, I think it's somewhere in the $12-14M range. That's 28 years from now, so inflation brings it back to a lower number, but it still blows my mind.

Crazy, right?!

Of course, I'm still planning on bowing out early.  My time is precious. 

In the excel rows leading up to those later years, I have little notes like "DD1 turns 10" or  "DD2 graduates from college."  I look at 60 and think, all that will have passed.  I want to enjoy it and not just keep aiming for the next million.  the first will be just fine for our purposes!

But holy compounding.

[lindsayk]

How do you figure this out?

[Cheddar Stacker]

Crazy, right?!

Of course, I'm still planning on bowing out early.  My time is precious. 

In the excel rows leading up to those later years, I have little notes like "DD1 turns 10" or  "DD2 graduates from college."  I look at 60 and think, all that will have passed.  I want to enjoy it and not just keep aiming for the next million.  the first will be just fine for our purposes!

But holy compounding.

I have a feeling most of us that get to the first $1M then FIRE will end up with $5M anyway due to compounding, tax planning, frugal living, and just stumbling into income generating activities after we pull the plug.

How do you figure this out?

Microsoft Excel, or many other ways I'm sure. A simple compound interest calculator would work.

[James]

I hit a milestone last year in which I realized that even if I didn't contribute another dime to my retirement accounts, by the time I was around 55-60 it would to more than fund my current lifestyle. I could spend everything I make for the next 40 years, living life wildly and spending lavishly, and still want for nothing in a traditional retirement. Of course that isn't what I want, so I will continue to save and spend as we currently do.

But your point is different, the idea that I could contribute at my current rate, and even more once the kids are gone, and see how much would be there at 60. I would guess we could hit 8 figures, mostly depending on the rate of growth (since that counts for so much when looking at a 40 year time frame). If growth was slow maybe it would be under 8 figures, but would still be close.

I have no problem with the idea of having that kind of wealth, setting up a foundation that does real and long lasting good in the world would be a fun hobby in retirement. But in reality I won't have that much because I plan on cutting back on work and spending time going on medical trips over the coming years. I only go on a trip or two each year now, and would like to up that to 3 or even 4 trips. That gets expensive, and with the cut back in work  the savings will slow down quite a bit. I will still save more than I need over the years, and might retire early if I tire of my job (both employment and volunteer aspects). But I look forward to the security of having more than I need as I get closer to my retirement.

[yandz]

James, we hit that same milestone this year - just let the current retirement dollars grow without further contributions and maintain our current standard of living by retirement age.  Fun to realize that. And that much more motivating since every dollar from here on out buys back time before 65.  Love thinking about that.

We are same boat - keep doing what we are doing and hit well over 10 million in todays dollars.  Makes my soul hurt thinking about working that long...

[fartface]

Yes, I ran those numbers before and it astounded me too.

Recently I came upon a required minimum distribution (RMD) article.

Curious, I chose one of my many retirement accounts (my 403b w/current employer) and did the calculations....EVEN if I retired at 50 and never contributed another DIME, the RMD on that ONE account when I turn 70 1/2 would be $82K/year....JUST THAT ONE ACCOUNT.

Sooo yeah I hear you bro!

[yoga mama]

How do you figure this out?

I like Dave Ramsey's Investment Calculator for a simple calculation.

WOW - just ran the #s on retirement contributions alone.  If I contributed for the next 20 years at 2015 max allowable rates (tax deductible), I would have 4.5 million in retirement accounts 25 years from now at age 61.  That doesn't take into account all the other savings we're doing. 

[Mississippi Mudstache]

My retirement spreadsheet only shows ~4-5 million at age 65, but that's in real dollars, not inflated dollars. I track everything in present-day dollars and use somewhat conservative investment assumptions.

I hit a milestone last year in which I realized that even if I didn't contribute another dime to my retirement accounts, by the time I was around 55-60 it would to more than fund my current lifestyle. I could spend everything I make for the next 40 years, living life wildly and spending lavishly, and still want for nothing in a traditional retirement. Of course that isn't what I want, so I will continue to save and spend as we currently do.

I regularly track the time it would take to reach various savings milestones, assuming that I stopped saving (but did not draw down those savings) at various points in the future. My spreadsheet currently shows that I would have $600,000 (in today's dollars) by age 53, $1 million by age 60, and $2 million by age 70. It's fun to watch those ages come down with each year that passes, and besides that, it's comforting to know that, if push comes to shove, I could take a job (or start a business) that didn't pay me enough to save a single dime, and still be set for a comfortable - and reasonably early - retirement.

[KittyFooFoo]

Anybody else ever peek at this figure and marvel at its enormity?

Sorry to be a giant dildo, but this is a common misuse of the word "enormity."  Enormity means evil or wickedness, not enormousness.  :)

[MustachianAccountant]

Sorry to be a giant dildo, but this is a common misuse of the word "enormity."  Enormity means evil or wickedness, not enormousness.  :)

I kind of feel like you're "sorry not sorry." Nevertheless:

"Usage
Enormity traditionally means ‘the extreme scale or seriousness of something bad or morally wrong,’ as in ‘they were struggling to deal with the enormity of the crime’. Today, however, a more neutral sense as a synonym for hugeness or immensity, as in ‘he soon discovered the enormity of the task’, is common. Some people regard this use as wrong, arguing that enormity in its original sense meant ‘an extreme wickedness’ and should therefore continue to be used only of contexts in which a negative moral judgment is implied. Nevertheless, the sense of ‘great size’ is now broadly accepted in standard English, although it generally relates to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement."

From the Oxford Dictionary site: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/enormity

[FIreDrill]

If I don't account for any future raises, we would end up with something crazy like 30 Million or 14 Million after adjusting for inflation.  We are also 21 and 25 though so time is on our side with this one.

I started messing with the calculator and realized that if we didn't add anything to our current investments, we would have 1 Mil after inflation by the age of 58.  So we have already "Secured" tradition retirement in our early 20's..... Hell yeah!

[catccc]

Sorry to be a giant dildo, but this is a common misuse of the word "enormity."  Enormity means evil or wickedness, not enormousness.  :)

I kind of feel like you're "sorry not sorry." Nevertheless:

"Usage
Enormity traditionally means ‘the extreme scale or seriousness of something bad or morally wrong,’ as in ‘they were struggling to deal with the enormity of the crime’. Today, however, a more neutral sense as a synonym for hugeness or immensity, as in ‘he soon discovered the enormity of the task’, is common. Some people regard this use as wrong, arguing that enormity in its original sense meant ‘an extreme wickedness’ and should therefore continue to be used only of contexts in which a negative moral judgment is implied. Nevertheless, the sense of ‘great size’ is now broadly accepted in standard English, although it generally relates to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement."

From the Oxford Dictionary site: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/enormity

Thanks MustachianAccountant.  Merriam-Webster also concurs with my usage:  "great size, the quality or state of being huge, a quality of momentous importance or impact."

KittyFooFoo, I actually questioned and looked it up before my post.  My sister teaches middle school English, I try to state on the straight and narrow in regards to grammar and language to avoid scrutiny.

[catccc]

I hit a milestone last year in which I realized that even if I didn't contribute another dime to my retirement accounts, by the time I was around 55-60 it would to more than fund my current lifestyle. I could spend everything I make for the next 40 years, living life wildly and spending lavishly, and still want for nothing in a traditional retirement. Of course that isn't what I want, so I will continue to save and spend as we currently do.

Oh!  This is a fun one.  What a nice realization!  I had thought about this before but never really looked at numbers.  I'm surprised to see that at this point if I stopped contributing, worked 25 more years to 60, I'd still have a plump 4M.  More than I expected!  It's not 10M, but as we've noted, that's quite unnecessary.   If I had stopped contributing at 30, but continued to work for 30 more years, I'd still have $2.8M.

Fun to see these figures, but still no way I'll be doing this work for another 25 years... although as Cheddar mentioned, side gigs and fun work will likely have us sitting pretty even with the early plug pulling.

It's a really amazing feeling that what I feel are moderate lifestyle choices can lead to so much freedom.

[Mr. Green]

$15 million when I'm 65 @ 6.0 annual return after inflation.

[Psychstache]

If I waited until DW and I are eligible for pensions, we're on pace for $8 million in accts plus $90k annual 'salary'. That'll buy a lot of Starburst.

[JLee]

I hit a milestone last year in which I realized that even if I didn't contribute another dime to my retirement accounts, by the time I was around 55-60 it would to more than fund my current lifestyle.

That's an awesome way to think about it. If I do nothing but max 401k (which I should do for the first time next year!) for two years, I could retire at 65 even contributing nothing else for the next 30+ years.

Now to get that number by 40.. :D

[Cwadda]

If I were to keep doing Roth IRA only like I'm doing now, there'd be $2.8M by the time I'm 70.

[JoJo]

$18,441,295.63

[Scandium]

ah thanks, now you made me put another column in my spreadsheet! ugh!
Next to projected assets for each year I now have "What age will we have 25x spending if we stop saving this year". I believe it's right, the equation I worked out to be:

= ln(spendingX25/assets) / (ln(1+Return%) + (year-birthyear)
Then drag this down for each year. Fun to see the number go down. At 61 this year, and with our low savings it only drop 2 years/year. I'm sure most do much better.

Probably not the best way to do it, but seems to work.

[GGNoob]

We should be FI by the time I'm 40 with $2M (inflation adjusted), otherwise $15M by age 59.5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Geta]

We did this just yesterday, nearly blew my mind.

We'd be looking at 24 million if we worked to 65, 50 million if we worked through to 75.

Crazy!

[The_path_less_taken]

Did the OP really ask "what would I do with all that money?"

Because...I hereby volunteer to help ANYONE with excess cash. PM me and I'll help you spend it!

Anytime.

Really.

[hodedofome]

I want to give millions of dollars away in my lifetime so I plan to work (doing something I enjoy) until I'm dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KittyFooFoo]

Sorry to be a giant dildo, but this is a common misuse of the word "enormity."  Enormity means evil or wickedness, not enormousness.  :)

I kind of feel like you're "sorry not sorry." Nevertheless:

"Usage
Enormity traditionally means ‘the extreme scale or seriousness of something bad or morally wrong,’ as in ‘they were struggling to deal with the enormity of the crime’. Today, however, a more neutral sense as a synonym for hugeness or immensity, as in ‘he soon discovered the enormity of the task’, is common. Some people regard this use as wrong, arguing that enormity in its original sense meant ‘an extreme wickedness’ and should therefore continue to be used only of contexts in which a negative moral judgment is implied. Nevertheless, the sense of ‘great size’ is now broadly accepted in standard English, although it generally relates to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement."

From the Oxford Dictionary site: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/enormity

Thanks MustachianAccountant.  Merriam-Webster also concurs with my usage:  "great size, the quality or state of being huge, a quality of momentous importance or impact."

KittyFooFoo, I actually questioned and looked it up before my post.  My sister teaches middle school English, I try to state on the straight and narrow in regards to grammar and language to avoid scrutiny.

oh shit son. I concede! After looking at a couple usage notes, including this one http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enormity , maybe the word is even particularly appropriate where you used it, because $10m is wildly beyond the norm in some immoderate, non-wholesome sense.

[CCCA]

just checked my retirement spreadsheet and I'll get a pension of $160,000 if I retire when I'm 65, instead of ~20 years earlier, as I'm planning.  If my wife and I both work until 65, our NW at 65 (not including housing equity) will be around $15 million.  Once retired, our networth would continue to grow so that at 90 years old, it would be north of $50 million.  This is assuming a conservative 4% nominal ROR after retirement.   

[forummm]

If we both kept working and saving at this rate, it would probably be about $40 million in today's dollars. Which would probably grow to ~$200-$300 million in today's dollars by the time we both died. Which is a crazy lot of money. With inflation, it could be around $1 billion nominal by the time we both died.

If we kept working and spending at this rate we wouldn't even need to touch the gigantic stache at normal retirement age because of SS.

Those numbers seem especially large given that we are still years away from just a single million!

[Scandium]

Wow. I know there are some crazy high savings rates here, but the incomes must be very high too, with so many people who say they will have $30-40 million. You have to save $100,000 every year for 40 years to get about 40 million, and that's before inflation. So saving six figures your whole career? Yikes.

[SailAway]

Crikey. I plan on us retiring at ages 53 and 50 with 2 pensions and $600k+ in retirement accounts (hey, we got a late start, mmkay?) If we went another 10 years.... 1.7 million and larger pensions. But honestly our bodies can't hold out that long doing this. There's a reason firefighters only live 5 years past retirement. Eff that.

[Kepler]

Anybody else ever peek at this figure and marvel at its enormity?

Sorry to be a giant dildo, but this is a common misuse of the word "enormity."  Enormity means evil or wickedness, not enormousness.  :)

There's some contention over this (as a fellow pedant/thread derailer...):

http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2012/11/20/the-enormity-of-a-usage-problem/

[forummm]

Wow. I know there are some crazy high savings rates here, but the incomes must be very high too, with so many people who say they will have $30-40 million. You have to save $100,000 every year for 40 years to get about 40 million, and that's before inflation. So saving six figures your whole career? Yikes.

MMM and MrsMM were making about $200k total when they quit at 30. If they maxed their retirement accounts and spent the ~$24k they are spending now, that's easily over $100k (probably more like $130k or more after taxes. And they were early in their careers at age 30. With income increases as their careers advanced, they could easily have been saving $200k or more for 40 years. And investments grow a lot when compounded over 60-70 years (not even touching them at retirement age due to Social Security).

[Random]

Sorry to be a giant dildo, but this is a common misuse of the word "enormity."  Enormity means evil or wickedness, not enormousness.  :)

I kind of feel like you're "sorry not sorry." Nevertheless:

"Usage
Enormity traditionally means ‘the extreme scale or seriousness of something bad or morally wrong,’ as in ‘they were struggling to deal with the enormity of the crime’. Today, however, a more neutral sense as a synonym for hugeness or immensity, as in ‘he soon discovered the enormity of the task’, is common. Some people regard this use as wrong, arguing that enormity in its original sense meant ‘an extreme wickedness’ and should therefore continue to be used only of contexts in which a negative moral judgment is implied. Nevertheless, the sense of ‘great size’ is now broadly accepted in standard English, although it generally relates to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement."

From the Oxford Dictionary site: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/enormity

Thanks MustachianAccountant.  Merriam-Webster also concurs with my usage:  "great size, the quality or state of being huge, a quality of momentous importance or impact."

KittyFooFoo, I actually questioned and looked it up before my post.  My sister teaches middle school English, I try to state on the straight and narrow in regards to grammar and language to avoid scrutiny.

This could have turned into the usual internet name-calling bout.  I am impressed by the enormity of the comity.

[Scandium]

Wow. I know there are some crazy high savings rates here, but the incomes must be very high too, with so many people who say they will have $30-40 million. You have to save $100,000 every year for 40 years to get about 40 million, and that's before inflation. So saving six figures your whole career? Yikes.

MMM and MrsMM were making about $200k total when they quit at 30. If they maxed their retirement accounts and spent the ~$24k they are spending now, that's easily over $100k (probably more like $130k or more after taxes. And they were early in their careers at age 30. With income increases as their careers advanced, they could easily have been saving $200k or more for 40 years. And investments grow a lot when compounded over 60-70 years (not even touching them at retirement age due to Social Security).

yes, I know it's totally possible. Just make $130k after taxes and live on $30k. And many here obviously do. Still surprised seeing the numbers, and something I aspire to I guess. We're in our early 30s and "only" make 3/4 what they did; clearly slacking! With HCOLA and a mortgage equal to the MMM total spending we haven't been able to save as much either (#complainypants..). Might say I'm impressed by the enormity of the achievement..

[Exflyboy]

Well I'm 53.5 years old.. Taking our current stash at 7% till 65 is ONLY $3.37M..

I feel relatively poor compared to some of the numbers above!...:)

Of course we won't make "even" that cus I am FIRED already... Kinda.

[MarciaB]

How do you figure this out?

I like the calculators at www.bankrate.com  There are lots of them (mortgage calculators, savings ones, etc.).

[Giro]

yes, I know it's totally possible. Just make $130k after taxes and live on $30k. And many here obviously do. Still surprised seeing the numbers, and something I aspire to I guess. We're in our early 30s and "only" make 3/4 what they did; clearly slacking! With HCOLA and a mortgage equal to the MMM total spending we haven't been able to save as much either (#complainypants..). Might say I'm impressed by the enormity of the achievement..

Well, if you are married, you only need to invest $50k each per year.  So, max out 401K at $18k...employer throws in a few thousand as a match, save a few thousand and $5500 each in your ROTH.  You are right there. 

[RFAAOATB]

Boggles my mind.  What in the world would I do that much money?  Better retire early to avoid that problem!!

Do I have to spell it out for everyone?
1.)  Send your kids/grandkids to Phillips Exeter.  $48,000/year
2.)  Send your kids/grandkids to Harvard.  $44,000/year
3.)  Send your kids to Law School  $57,000/year
That's about $550,000 per kid plus expenses.  Now we really open the purse strings.

4.)  Fund your kids/grandkids Congressional run.  $2,000,000-$42,000,000

Now you have something worthwhile to spend all that money on.  Get your bloodline to the political class.  Much better than retiring early.

[mozar]

Alright, I'll play. 3.8m if I retire in 30 years. That's not worth waiting for.