Age range when you hit your first Million?

[blue_green_sparks]

I remember the exact day as it was the day before my 50th birthday. I was bummed because it dropped below the next week, and I did not grab a screen shot. Exclude real estate, please.

[wenchsenior]

1 month prior to my 50th birthday.

We'd gotten started saving quite late, though...we didn't start saving until I was almost 30, so just about 20 years exactly to go from negative net worth to a million (in cash, I mean...we hit a million net worth earlier). Would have happened about 5 years sooner if we weren't supporting a parent.

[YttriumNitrate]

Back when I was in my early 20s, and receiving my first regular paycheck, I did some rough calculations in Excel and figured I would reach my first million at 42 and my second million at 48. I was a few years early for the first million, and we'll see about the second.

[Tasse]

We're about 75% of the way to the first million, and we're 30, so I feel pretty confident we'll get there before the decade is out. But I am technically voting on the chickens before they hatch.

[blue_green_sparks]

WOW! Congrats to all the young millionaires. Financial know-how and diligence really goes a long way. How nice to have some peace of mind while still so young!

[uniwelder]

Just over into the second category at myself 41 years and wife 39.  I am including the equity of 3 rental homes, but not our primary.

[GilesMM]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

[uniwelder]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Are you talking about the people on this forum or the people you encounter in life/work? 

As a broad statement of the US population, I don’t think that’s true at all. Even among the “savers”, you’re talking about the 1%. When the typical person (me?) thinks about how most people live paycheck to paycheck, being a “saver” means 10% of your income and having a nest egg when ready to retire at 70.  A million dollars by age 40 usually boggles the mind.

[2sk22]

Nominal or inflation-adjusted? If inflation-adjusted, it would have been in our 40s.

[vand]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Maybe on ultra high net worth MMM... but not in the real world, not by a long shot.

[GilesMM]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Are you talking about the people on this forum or the people you encounter in life/work? 

As a broad statement of the US population, I don’t think that’s true at all. Even among the “savers”, you’re talking about the 1%. When the typical person (me?) thinks about how most people live paycheck to paycheck, being a “saver” means 10% of your income and having a nest egg when ready to retire at 70.  A million dollars by age 40 usually boggles the mind.

Obviously savers, like on this forum.  This poll would not be of the US population. Most have no savings!

[rantk81]

a million bucks ain't what it used to be ;-)

[blue_green_sparks]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Are you talking about the people on this forum or the people you encounter in life/work? 

As a broad statement of the US population, I don’t think that’s true at all. Even among the “savers”, you’re talking about the 1%. When the typical person (me?) thinks about how most people live paycheck to paycheck, being a “saver” means 10% of your income and having a nest egg when ready to retire at 70.  A million dollars by age 40 usually boggles the mind.

Agreed, and averages are skewed by groups such as us MMs. The median tells us where people really sit in the US. Strip away home equity and the median NW barely breaks $100K when folks are in their 60s. That is not a lot of income potential. The continuation of Social Security is very important.

Age         Median NW    Excluding Home Equity
<35     :   $22,000   $11,500
35 – 44:   $97,740   $41,400
45 – 54:   $166,600   $63,020
55 – 64:   $230,900   $88,100
65 – 69:   $285,100   $106,00
70 – 74:   $326,700   $118,000
65+     :    $300,000   $94,050
75+     :    $292,800   $77,750

src: https://wallethacks.com/average-net-worth-by-age-americans/

[reeshau]

A slightly different take on this from a WSJ article on the Survey of Consumer Finances.  But it reminded me a lot of the format of this poll.

[uniwelder]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Are you talking about the people on this forum or the people you encounter in life/work? 

As a broad statement of the US population, I don’t think that’s true at all. Even among the “savers”, you’re talking about the 1%. When the typical person (me?) thinks about how most people live paycheck to paycheck, being a “saver” means 10% of your income and having a nest egg when ready to retire at 70.  A million dollars by age 40 usually boggles the mind.

Obviously savers, like on this forum.  This poll would not be of the US population. Most have no savings!

Your use of the word 'savers' is confusing because its being used in a way that requires lots of expendable income, which is being saved instead of spent.  There are plenty of people in the US that save what they can, but since they don't have high income jobs,  could never get to 1 million at such an early age. 

[Morning Glory]

A slightly different take on this from a WSJ article on the Survey of Consumer Finances.  But it reminded me a lot of the format of this poll.

I don't have wsj access but it would be interesting to see this broken down by income as well as age. Not sure whether average career income or peak income would be a better measure but we have plenty of folks on here who made it to a million without ever making a household income >100k, and i feel safe to assume we are a very small fraction of the millionaires listed on wsj.

Even more impressive are those who never reached one million because they felt like they already had enough and didn't need more to be happy.

[Nutty]

Very interesting.  I had a high stress, low pay, demanding job while supporting a family and didn't understand how the neighbors were getting all the toys.  I quit that job and got a 25% increase in base plus bonus, better 401k matching rate, company profit sharing, better medical and shorter (normal) hours.  I still feel sheepish for staying there so long.  This new job improved my savings rate and paid for colleges for the kids.  We would not be here if I'd stayed at the old work place.

So I finally crossed the $1mm mark a couple years ago in my early 50's with most of the 401K in the new company's account.  Finally FI and on track to RE a little before 62.  Target is $2mm but $1.5mm will work if the health stays.  TBH, we could make this work but health insurance is nice to have at this age and daughter #1 is in grad school and struggling (again?  still?).  Wish us luck!

[G-String]

Is this $1 million in cash, or net worth? 

[Nutty]

Is this $1 million in cash, or net worth?

I'm reading it as net worth excluding real estate. 

[clarkfan1979]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Are you talking about the people on this forum or the people you encounter in life/work? 

As a broad statement of the US population, I don’t think that’s true at all. Even among the “savers”, you’re talking about the 1%. When the typical person (me?) thinks about how most people live paycheck to paycheck, being a “saver” means 10% of your income and having a nest egg when ready to retire at 70.  A million dollars by age 40 usually boggles the mind.

Obviously savers, like on this forum.  This poll would not be of the US population. Most have no savings!

The average age when a household crosses the 1 million mark in the United States is 49 years old. This has been the result of 3 popular data sets collected by Millionaire Next Door, Dave Ramsey group and Money Guy Show. All of these data sets were collected pre-pandemic. I think it's likely for the average age to go down a little post-pandemic. 

Edit: These data sets consider net worth to be total assets minus total liabilities, which includes real estate (primary and rental real estate). 

[VanillaGorilla]

I hit $1M in investments at 35, when I was single. Approximately 6% of the population matches that, according to this calculator:

https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator/

The WSJ article above is hardly surprising, given that they include real estate equity. Most of my friends would qualify simply based on retirement savings and real estate in this area. $1M in invested assets is a higher bar, but also not uncommon in high income areas. The above link shows that 10% of all 40 year old households have that much, which is a sizable fraction of the population.

Of course, my guess would be that most of the folks in that bracket spend far more than 4% of that. ;)

[neo von retorch]

You can compare net worth, or you can compare just investments.

You can't include real estate but ignore a mortgage, or vice versa. It makes no sense.

Having a $600K house, $400K in retirement, but a $540K mortgage leaves your net worth at $460K, not  $1 million.

[GuitarStv]

Million in the bank was in my 40s . . . I had fully paid off my house years before that so including real estate I'd guess mid 30s.

[Loren Ver]

Retired at 36, well before we hit 1 million.  We then hit the one million mark later before I turned 40 even though we were pulling all our living expenses out of our investments (including a mortgage and student loans as liabilities). 

We barely made it over the 100k mark combined the last few years while working, so not ridiculously high income earners. 

Loren

[Turtle]

Combined with my late spouse, it was probably in my upper 40s, but I don't know exactly because we didn't really look at each other's 401k amounts besides agreeing that we'd both put in at least 6%.

Solo without the inherited 401k was this year.

[StarBright]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Are you talking about the people on this forum or the people you encounter in life/work? 

As a broad statement of the US population, I don’t think that’s true at all. Even among the “savers”, you’re talking about the 1%. When the typical person (me?) thinks about how most people live paycheck to paycheck, being a “saver” means 10% of your income and having a nest egg when ready to retire at 70.  A million dollars by age 40 usually boggles the mind.

Obviously savers, like on this forum.  This poll would not be of the US population. Most have no savings!

That seems suspect? I mean, I know I am low income compared to many on this forum, but I've been saving since I was 13, putting money in a Roth since I was 18.  I'm 41 and our household is still only 80% of the way there. In our best years we saved 50% of our income (but we were pretty low income). In our worst years, 2 medical emergencies plus two babies in daycare, we actively drew down our savings to pay medical bills.

We make more now, but have two kids so we save less.

[snowracerh]

About 140k away for me and my wife. Just turned 37. We also have two recreation properties (30 acres and 40 acres) that will be paid for this year. 500k house with a 2% mortgage and 130k left on principal. No other debt

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

[iris lily]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Are you talking about the people on this forum or the people you encounter in life/work? 

As a broad statement of the US population, I don’t think that’s true at all. Even among the “savers”, you’re talking about the 1%. When the typical person (me?) thinks about how most people live paycheck to paycheck, being a “saver” means 10% of your income and having a nest egg when ready to retire at 70.  A million dollars by age 40 usually boggles the mind.

Obviously savers, like on this forum.  This poll would not be of the US population. Most have no savings!

The average age when a household crosses the 1 million mark in the United States is 49 years old. This has been the result of 3 popular data sets collected by Millionaire Next Door, Dave Ramsey group and Money Guy Show. All of these data sets were collected pre-pandemic. I think it's likely for the average age to go down a little post-pandemic. 

Edit: These data sets consider net worth to be total assets minus total liabilities, which includes real estate (primary and rental real estate).

Wow, really! That is funny because we were 49 years old when crossing the $million mark.

[scantee]

For most savers it is around age 35-40.

Are you talking about the people on this forum or the people you encounter in life/work? 

As a broad statement of the US population, I don’t think that’s true at all. Even among the “savers”, you’re talking about the 1%. When the typical person (me?) thinks about how most people live paycheck to paycheck, being a “saver” means 10% of your income and having a nest egg when ready to retire at 70.  A million dollars by age 40 usually boggles the mind.

Obviously savers, like on this forum.  This poll would not be of the US population. Most have no savings!

The average age when a household crosses the 1 million mark in the United States is 49 years old. This has been the result of 3 popular data sets collected by Millionaire Next Door, Dave Ramsey group and Money Guy Show. All of these data sets were collected pre-pandemic. I think it's likely for the average age to go down a little post-pandemic. 

Edit: These data sets consider net worth to be total assets minus total liabilities, which includes real estate (primary and rental real estate).

This does not pass the smell test. Is this sample limited to households that ever get to a million in NW? Most households in the US never make it even close to a $1MM net worth. Net worth usually peaks when people are in their late 50’s or early 60’s, so when they have saved the longest but before they start withdrawing for retirement. I assume that is the age when most households reach millionaire status as well.

[neo von retorch]

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-become-millionaire-401k-savings-2017-11

In fact, a Fidelity Investments report cited by the New York Times found that the typical "401(k) millionaire" was an American with a six-figure income — $287,700 for women and $354,600 for men.

On average, women hit the milestone at age 58.5, while the average man became a millionaire at age 59.3. That's several years before the full retirement age of 67, but depending on how much money you plan to spend annually in retirement, $1 million may just be the tip of the iceberg.

[GilesMM]

Is this $1 million in cash, or net worth?

Cash???  Like hundred dollar bills in a suitcase?

[uniwelder]

Is this $1 million in cash, or net worth?

Cash???  Like hundred dollar bills in a suitcase?

I prefer to hide them beneath the wallpaper, under the floorboards, and under the attic insulation.

[GuitarStv]

Is this $1 million in cash, or net worth?

Cash???  Like hundred dollar bills in a suitcase?

I prefer to hide them beneath the wallpaper, under the floorboards, and under the attic insulation.

I like to stuff our pillows with them.  You'll never sleep better than on a couple mil.

[curious_george]

Is this $1 million in cash, or net worth?

Cash???  Like hundred dollar bills in a suitcase?

I prefer to hide them beneath the wallpaper, under the floorboards, and under the attic insulation.

I like to stuff our pillows with them.  You'll never sleep better than on a couple mil.

I assume you crumple the bills up before stuffing them in the pillow, right??

One time I bought a house and had to carry the money across state lines in a paper bag right before closing (long story) and the money bag was not soft at all.

[Dicey]

What are you counting in the portfolio? $1M in TNW happened way before $1M in equities for me.

[Morning Glory]

Is this $1 million in cash, or net worth?

Cash???  Like hundred dollar bills in a suitcase?

I prefer to hide them beneath the wallpaper, under the floorboards, and under the attic insulation.

I like to stuff our pillows with them.  You'll never sleep better than on a couple mil.

I assume you crumple the bills up before stuffing them in the pillow, right??

One time I bought a house and had to carry the money across state lines in a paper bag right before closing (long story) and the money bag was not soft at all.

I'd be more concerned about an allergen-proof pillowcase, to contain all the cocaine residue and germs from body parts that touch money.  Otherwise you could end up with insomnia or worse.

Wait a minute,  paper bags are supposed to be good enough to make covid masks reusable,  so they should be fine for containing E.  coli from butt crack dollars.

[spartana]

You need a category for people never will reach a million in investible assets but could FIRE anyways. Like early MMM amongst others.

[roomtempmayo]

A slightly different take on this from a WSJ article on the Survey of Consumer Finances.  But it reminded me a lot of the format of this poll.

I just read the article this morning (interesting data, BTW), and their final conclusion that wealth growth is becoming more widely spread seems to rely on making no effort to distinguish home equity from other sorts of wealth.

If the upper middle class are becoming "millionaires" because they now have $600k in equity in a primary house they'll never leave, that doesn't do much for them.  I certainly wouldn't characterize that phenomenon as a spreading of the wealth.

[Dicey]

A slightly different take on this from a WSJ article on the Survey of Consumer Finances.  But it reminded me a lot of the format of this poll.

I just read the article this morning (interesting data, BTW), and their final conclusion that wealth growth is becoming more widely spread seems to rely on making no effort to distinguish home equity from other sorts of wealth.

If the upper middle class are becoming "millionaires" because they now have $600k in equity in a primary house they'll never leave, that doesn't do much for them.  I certainly wouldn't characterize that phenomenon as a spreading of the wealth.

I totally agree, but what about equity in rental properties, for example?

[mcneally]

You need a category for people never will reach a million in investible assets but could FIRE anyways. Like early MMM amongst others.

When MMM quit, he had $600k + paid off residence + paid off rental in MCOL, which would be over $1mm NW, and that was like 15 years ago so you'd have to adjust for inflation. I quit my job last summer with under $1mm, but I plan to do part-time or seasonal work for a while (maybe even until traditional retirement age - I'm 37), I will get a small pension @ 62, and will likely inherit a few hundred thousand someday. Also my numbers are for one person who doesn't want kids.

Many, maybe even most people can comfortably FIR with under $1mm, if you don't count SS as an asset.

[roomtempmayo]

A slightly different take on this from a WSJ article on the Survey of Consumer Finances.  But it reminded me a lot of the format of this poll.

I just read the article this morning (interesting data, BTW), and their final conclusion that wealth growth is becoming more widely spread seems to rely on making no effort to distinguish home equity from other sorts of wealth.

If the upper middle class are becoming "millionaires" because they now have $600k in equity in a primary house they'll never leave, that doesn't do much for them.  I certainly wouldn't characterize that phenomenon as a spreading of the wealth.

I totally agree, but what about equity in rental properties, for example?

I'd count equity in rentals, no problem.  You can always sell them.

The problem with counting a primary residence as an asset is that you have to live somewhere.   To take it to an extreme, you can imagine a person with nothing inheriting a $1M apartment in NYC with maintenance fees of $3k/mo to live in.  Would anyone reasonably say that person is a millionaire?

[GuitarStv]

Is this $1 million in cash, or net worth?

Cash???  Like hundred dollar bills in a suitcase?

I prefer to hide them beneath the wallpaper, under the floorboards, and under the attic insulation.

I like to stuff our pillows with them.  You'll never sleep better than on a couple mil.

I assume you crumple the bills up before stuffing them in the pillow, right??

One time I bought a house and had to carry the money across state lines in a paper bag right before closing (long story) and the money bag was not soft at all.

I'd be more concerned about an allergen-proof pillowcase, to contain all the cocaine residue and germs from body parts that touch money.  Otherwise you could end up with insomnia or worse.

Wait a minute,  paper bags are supposed to be good enough to make covid masks reusable,  so they should be fine for containing E.  coli from butt crack dollars.

Butt crack e. coli is an integral part of good sleep.

[Dicey]

A slightly different take on this from a WSJ article on the Survey of Consumer Finances.  But it reminded me a lot of the format of this poll.

I just read the article this morning (interesting data, BTW), and their final conclusion that wealth growth is becoming more widely spread seems to rely on making no effort to distinguish home equity from other sorts of wealth.

If the upper middle class are becoming "millionaires" because they now have $600k in equity in a primary house they'll never leave, that doesn't do much for them.  I certainly wouldn't characterize that phenomenon as a spreading of the wealth.

I totally agree, but what about equity in rental properties, for example?

I'd count equity in rentals, no problem.  You can always sell them.

The problem with counting a primary residence as an asset is that you have to live somewhere.   To take it to an extreme, you can imagine a person with nothing inheriting a $1M apartment in NYC with maintenance fees of $3k/mo.  Would anyone reasonably say that person is a millionaire?

Or someone in CA who paid almost $1M in cash a decade or so ago. Property taxes are now $13K/year, and insurance provider has pulled out of the state, so insurance cost is sure to escalate. Who cares if the house is now worth nearly $2M? $13k is what I made at my first "career" job. Maybe that just means I'm old.

[Morning Glory]

A slightly different take on this from a WSJ article on the Survey of Consumer Finances.  But it reminded me a lot of the format of this poll.

I just read the article this morning (interesting data, BTW), and their final conclusion that wealth growth is becoming more widely spread seems to rely on making no effort to distinguish home equity from other sorts of wealth.

If the upper middle class are becoming "millionaires" because they now have $600k in equity in a primary house they'll never leave, that doesn't do much for them.  I certainly wouldn't characterize that phenomenon as a spreading of the wealth.

I totally agree, but what about equity in rental properties, for example?

I'd count equity in rentals, no problem.  You can always sell them.

The problem with counting a primary residence as an asset is that you have to live somewhere.   To take it to an extreme, you can imagine a person with nothing inheriting a $1M apartment in NYC with maintenance fees of $3k/mo to live in.  Would anyone reasonably say that person is a millionaire?

A primary home is an asset in that it generates imputed rent, so that you don't otherwise need 25x the rent in index funds to retire. Whether a 600k house is a good investment or not really depends on how much it would cost to rent a similar place.

[spartana]

You need a category for people never will reach a million in investible assets but could FIRE anyways. Like early MMM amongst others.

When MMM quit, he had $600k + paid off residence + paid off rental in MCOL, which would be over $1mm NW, and that was like 15 years ago so you'd have to adjust for inflation. I quit my job last summer with under $1mm, but I plan to do part-time or seasonal work for a while (maybe even until traditional retirement age - I'm 37), I will get a small pension @ 62, and will likely inherit a few hundred thousand someday. Also my numbers are for one person who doesn't want kids.

Many, maybe even most people can comfortably FIR with under $1mm, if you don't count SS as an asset.

But the OP said "not including real estate" and I think that would leave out a lot of the total NW millionaires and they would just be hundred-thousandaires. I had less money assets but big home equity when I Fired but still not in the million dollar total NW club.

[mistymoney]

Retired at 36, well before we hit 1 million.  We then hit the one million mark later before I turned 40 even though we were pulling all our living expenses out of our investments (including a mortgage and student loans as liabilities). 

We barely made it over the 100k mark combined the last few years while working, so not ridiculously high income earners. 

Loren

that's pretty cool!

[mastrr]

Currently ~$150k away from 1MM in my mid 30's.  I'm targeting hitting it January 2025 and thinking it should be doable if the market does decently.

[Dicey]

You need a category for people never will reach a million in investible assets but could FIRE anyways. Like early MMM amongst others.

When MMM quit, he had $600k + paid off residence + paid off rental in MCOL, which would be over $1mm NW, and that was like 15 years ago so you'd have to adjust for inflation. I quit my job last summer with under $1mm, but I plan to do part-time or seasonal work for a while (maybe even until traditional retirement age - I'm 37), I will get a small pension @ 62, and will likely inherit a few hundred thousand someday. Also my numbers are for one person who doesn't want kids.

Many, maybe even most people can comfortably FIR with under $1mm, if you don't count SS as an asset.

But the OP said "not including real estate" and I think that would leave out a lot of the total NW millionaires and they would just be hundred-thousandaires. I had less money assets but big home equity when I Fired but still not in the million dollar total NW club.

I checked, and didn't see any specific instructions. Honestly, I'm a fat, lazy FIRE'd person, and I don't really care. I was just trying to vote, for the greater good and all that. Carry on.

[GilesMM]

You need a category for people never will reach a million in investible assets but could FIRE anyways. Like early MMM amongst others.

When MMM quit, he had $600k + paid off residence + paid off rental in MCOL, which would be over $1mm NW, and that was like 15 years ago so you'd have to adjust for inflation. I quit my job last summer with under $1mm, but I plan to do part-time or seasonal work for a while (maybe even until traditional retirement age - I'm 37), I will get a small pension @ 62, and will likely inherit a few hundred thousand someday. Also my numbers are for one person who doesn't want kids.

Many, maybe even most people can comfortably FIR with under $1mm, if you don't count SS as an asset.

MMM went dark on his finances after he started pulling in hundreds of thousands per year off his web site. The one he worked on nearly full time. While "retired".  So he would have had a million at some point, split the pot, then rebuilt it.

[spartana]

You need a category for people never will reach a million in investible assets but could FIRE anyways. Like early MMM amongst others.

When MMM quit, he had $600k + paid off residence + paid off rental in MCOL, which would be over $1mm NW, and that was like 15 years ago so you'd have to adjust for inflation. I quit my job last summer with under $1mm, but I plan to do part-time or seasonal work for a while (maybe even until traditional retirement age - I'm 37), I will get a small pension @ 62, and will likely inherit a few hundred thousand someday. Also my numbers are for one person who doesn't want kids.

Many, maybe even most people can comfortably FIR with under $1mm, if you don't count SS as an asset.

But the OP said "not including real estate" and I think that would leave out a lot of the total NW millionaires and they would just be hundred-thousandaires. I had less money assets but big home equity when I Fired but still not in the million dollar total NW club.

I checked, and didn't see any specific instructions. Honestly, I'm a fat, lazy FIRE'd person, and I don't really care. I was just trying to vote, for the greater good and all that. Carry on.

I think it was in the last sentence of the OP. I didn't vote because I've never had a million, and I never will even counting home equity,  but retired young on much less anyway.