Long Term Investing & Retirement: The second best time is now

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Long Term Investing & Retirement: The second best time is now

«‹›1210 »

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

I would love to retire early because working sucks tremendous balls. Though I would still like to make money fir entertainment and stuff. Hm.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 20:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 08:51

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

Pollyanna posted:

I would love to retire early because working sucks tremendous balls. Though I would still like to make money fir entertainment and stuff. Hm.

Striking this balance between effective savings and hashtag living your best life is difficult. It's not a financial decision, and none of us can make it for you. That said, if you're maxing out your 401k and IRA, you're probably going to be fine to retire at the standard age. If you can save that much easily and have room to save more, you can choose to accelerate up to your level of comfort. If you have to back off later, the fact that you saved as much as possible earlier rather than later gives you an advantage.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 20:54

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Part of my deal is: I live in the SF bay area, which is a very high cost of living area. We'd like to leave, and I could do so while keeping my software job, but our aging parents live here and so we've decided to stay here so we can spend time with them. My mom has parkinsons and my wife's mom is single and dealing with chronic depression. Her dad and stepmom are older and her dad has afib and has undergone multiple ablasions.

So for now, our ability to save is somewhat curtailed, and if we had to retire here we're probably under-saving for it. Although I'd finish paying off my house at age 67 on our current mortgage, and between our parents they own three homes in the bay area of which we'd get half (her) or a third (me) in inheritance, plus their remaining cash. This all throws a lot of uncertainty into the mix. From a financial point of view if they all kicked off, we could sell all the properties including our own, move to a lower cost of living area, and immediately retire, especially if we both did part-time work in retirement (my wife is an artist and arts administrator, I could do contract tech writing jobs.)

On the other hand, hopefully they all live a really long time and spend the rest of their retirement money, and ideally property values in the bay area need to drop dramatically; while that could have a huge impact on my personal wealth in my 60s and 70s, I'd rather see the bay area become a viable place for people of modest means to live in. Supposing property values plateau and our folks stick around, I'm likely working till my mid to late 60s and then at that point likely needing to leave the bay area regardless, even if it means dragging our parents somewhere affordable or whatever.

The good part of all this is that my wife and I are pretty flexible. I could live comfortably on a third of our current income if we moved to a low cost of living area. I'd rather retire wealthy than poor, who wouldn't? But I already have some minor health issues and seeing my mom become unable to travel practically the day she retired has reinforced in me the value of spending my money to travel and do things I want to do now, rather than planning to do all that when I retire. So we take a certain amount of risk in terms of our rate of savings and uncertainty about the future...

... and I like to balance that risk in part by being somewhat conservative with my portfolio. I want to be more sure that I have the money I've got when I retire, and I'll give up one or two percent annual returns to get that.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 21:03

seiferguy: Jun 9, 2005; FLAWED
INTUITION; Toilet Rascal

Alright I'm finally in a spot to start seriously saving, both for retirement as well as for a large expense (ideally a house). I finally got off my rear end and rolled over my previous employer's 401k into my current, and should have that posted next week. Here's the current plan:

401k: my employer matches 4% if I do 6%. I have 8% going in there now.
Roth: I had a Roth I rolled over from my previous company, it didnt have much in it but I wanted to start by adding 7% (so with the 8% plus this I'm at 15%, pre and post tax).
High yield: I created a HYS at 1.7%, put in a large deposit and plan to basically do a monthly transfer of my checking to that for all leftover money not for bills. Ideally I'd have a house fund over time as this is relatively liquid.

I plan to change my allocations once my transfer goes through to 70/20/10 or so.

Am I missing something or any tweaks I should at for this plan?

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:26

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

seiferguy posted:

Alright I'm finally in a spot to start seriously saving, both for retirement as well as for a large expense (ideally a house). I finally got off my rear end and rolled over my previous employer's 401k into my current, and should have that posted next week. Here's the current plan:

401k: my employer matches 4% if I do 6%. I have 8% going in there now.
Roth: I had a Roth I rolled over from my previous company, it didnt have much in it but I wanted to start by adding 7% (so with the 8% plus this I'm at 15%, pre and post tax).
High yield: I created a HYS at 1.7%, put in a large deposit and plan to basically do a monthly transfer of my checking to that for all leftover money not for bills. Ideally I'd have a house fund over time as this is relatively liquid.

I plan to change my allocations once my transfer goes through to 70/20/10 or so.

Am I missing something or any tweaks I should at for this plan?

This looks good! A good next step would be to write a budget so you can find out what you can adjust to save even more money. How old are you and when are you interested in retiring?

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:29

Sock The Great: Oct 1, 2006; It's Lonely At The Top. But It's Comforting To Look Down Upon Everyone At The Bottom; Grimey Drawer

seiferguy posted:

Alright I'm finally in a spot to start seriously saving, both for retirement as well as for a large expense (ideally a house). I finally got off my rear end and rolled over my previous employer's 401k into my current, and should have that posted next week. Here's the current plan:

401k: my employer matches 4% if I do 6%. I have 8% going in there now.
Roth: I had a Roth I rolled over from my previous company, it didnt have much in it but I wanted to start by adding 7% (so with the 8% plus this I'm at 15%, pre and post tax).
High yield: I created a HYS at 1.7%, put in a large deposit and plan to basically do a monthly transfer of my checking to that for all leftover money not for bills. Ideally I'd have a house fund over time as this is relatively liquid.

I plan to change my allocations once my transfer goes through to 70/20/10 or so.

Am I missing something or any tweaks I should at for this plan?

Looks good, but I would never roll an old 401k into another 401k. You should instead toll this into either a Roth IRA (you'd need to pay the taxes) or a Traditional IRA (no taxes). The investment options in an IRA (i.e the entire stock / bond / REIT etc. market) are almost certainly better than whatever overpriced mutual funds you have access to in your 401k.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:29

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

Sock The Great posted:

Looks good, but I would never roll an old 401k into another 401k. You should instead toll this into either a Roth IRA (you'd need to pay the taxes) or a Traditional IRA (no taxes). The investment options in an IRA (i.e the entire stock / bond / REIT etc. market) are almost certainly better than whatever overpriced mutual funds you have access to in your 401k.

This is not a better choice. Filling your Trad IRA will prevent you from doing the backdoor Roth later. Doing the Roth conversion now costs tax money you need to have available from another source - you cannot withhold part of the converted amount to cover taxes. If you convert $10k from 401k to Roth IRA, you may need to have $2,200+ on hand to cover the tax liability.

401k -> 401k is perfectly acceptable. Not everybody's choices are garbage.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:35

Motronic: Nov 6, 2009

Sock The Great posted:

Looks good, but I would never roll an old 401k into another 401k. You should instead toll this into either a Roth IRA (you'd need to pay the taxes) or a Traditional IRA (no taxes). The investment options in an IRA (i.e the entire stock / bond / REIT etc. market) are almost certainly better than whatever overpriced mutual funds you have access to in your 401k.

This depends a lot on how much you make/if you need to backdoor roth. As well as how good or bad your current plan is and of course how much you've got in the old one ("just pay the taxes" to roll it to roth isn't always going to be feasible or the correct move).

Sometimes moving it to your new 401(k) just makes sense. It did for me.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:35

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Yup I'm never gonna make enough to take advantage of backdoor roth; on the other hand, my current 401(k) has extremely good options (fidelity funds at-cost with no markup on the ERs) so if I leave this job I wouldn't need to roll over my 401(k), and the 401(k) at my previous employer is Vanguard, again vanguard funds with no markup, so I've never felt the need to roll that over either, so today I don't have a trad IRA. (I also like having a mix of Roth IRA and regular 401(k) to hedge my bets as to my tax rates in retirement.)

The decision about whether to roll over and where to put it requires details, it's not a blanket never/always.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:42

seiferguy: Jun 9, 2005; FLAWED
INTUITION; Toilet Rascal

Hoodwinker posted:

This looks good! A good next step would be to write a budget so you can find out what you can adjust to save even more money. How old are you and when are you interested in retiring?

I'm almost 33, probably looking to retire in the 60-65 range (my parents got lucky and retired at 62, so I'd love to hit that too). I'm moving in with my girlfriend so I'll be saving even more in terms of expenses.

Sock The Great posted:

Looks good, but I would never roll an old 401k into another 401k. You should instead toll this into either a Roth IRA (you'd need to pay the taxes) or a Traditional IRA (no taxes). The investment options in an IRA (i.e the entire stock / bond / REIT etc. market) are almost certainly better than whatever overpriced mutual funds you have access to in your 401k.

Well poop, I already submitted it. My currently company uses fidelity, but I'm hoping to quit my job real soon as soon as I can find a better one!

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:43

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

seiferguy posted:

Well poop, I already submitted it. My currently company uses fidelity, but I'm hoping to quit my job real soon as soon as I can find a better one!

Don't sweat it. Fidelity is usually decent, and if you leave you can roll that over into an IRA, or a retirement plan at your future employer, depending on which offers the best options.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:44

dexter6: Sep 22, 2003

More allocation chat:

I plan on FIRE (or at least the FI part) by age 50, which is 15 years from now for me. So I have my allocations set based on the Vanguard 2035 ( https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/target-retirement/#/mini/holdings/0305 ):

45.3% US Stocks
29.5% International Stocks
17.8% US Bonds
7.4% International Bonds

Am I the most conservative goon here?

Edit: The cool part is that if I just bought the Vanguard 2035 I�d have an ER of .14% but because I buy the components, my ER is .06% :agesilaus:

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:48

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

looks like you're about 25% bonds which is about where I'm at too, although I'm not including my home equity in that number and I think you aren't either (do you own a home?)

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:51

dexter6: Sep 22, 2003

Leperflesh posted:

looks like you're about 25% bonds which is about where I'm at too, although I'm not including my home equity in that number and I think you aren't either (do you own a home?)

I�m not because I don�t own. Or carry debt.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:53

GoGoGadgetChris: Mar 18, 2010; i powder a
granite monument
in a soundless flash

showering the grass
with molten drops of
its gold inlay

sending smoking
chips of stone
skipping into the fog

dexter6 posted:

More allocation chat:

I plan on FIRE (or at least the FI part) by age 50, which is 15 years from now for me. So I have my allocations set based on the Vanguard 2035 ( https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/target-retirement/#/mini/holdings/0305 ):

45.3% US Stocks
29.5% International Stocks
17.8% US Bonds
7.4% International Bonds

Am I the most conservative goon here?

Edit: The cool part is that if I just bought the Vanguard 2035 I�d have an ER of .14% but because I buy the components, my ER is .06%

Early retirement is a tricky one because you can make three cases for your asset allocation

- AA based on retiring soon (more bonds, fewer equities)

- AA based on needing rapid growth (fewer bonds, more equities)

- AA based on needing it to last a long time (fewer bonds, more equities)

I go with fewer bonds and more equities since 2/3 arguments seem to favor it. But I don't know that it's the objectively correct choice!

# ? Feb 21, 2020 22:55

Motronic: Nov 6, 2009

GoGoGadgetChris posted:

Early retirement is a tricky one because you can make three cases for your asset allocation

- AA based on retiring soon (more bonds, fewer equities)

- AA based on needing rapid growth (fewer bonds, more equities)

- AA based on needing it to last a long time (fewer bonds, more equities)

I go with fewer bonds and more equities since 2/3 arguments seem to favor it. But I don't know that it's the objectively correct choice!

I struggle with this too because it's not like I want to retire, I just want to not have to work they way I am anymore - or at least have the option to not do that. I've got two kids that I'd like to be able to pay for their college (first one will start in a year and a half) and of course there are a lot of unknown costs there until you at least know WHAT school they are going to. I also worry about "retiring" back to consulting and what healthcare will cost for a family of 4, so I'm thinking of taking a more local "easy" full time job even if I get to the point where I feel comfortable at least for the next several years.

There are no perfect answers to these things, so I focus on doing the most important part that there are no questions about : keep saving as much as possible.

# ? Feb 21, 2020 23:51

moana: Jun 18, 2005; one of the more intellectual satire communities on the web

GoGoGadgetChris posted:

Early retirement is a tricky one because you can make three cases for your asset allocation

A dynamic asset allocation is better than any static allocation, most people should use some sort of bond tent glidepath: https://earlyretirementnow.com/2017/09/13/the-ultimate-guide-to-safe-withdrawal-rates-part-19-equity-glidepaths/

Most target date funds use a decent glidepath pre retirement. For early retirees with a longer horizon, be sure to raise your equity allocation quickly in the first few years after you retire.

# ? Feb 22, 2020 15:03

Nam Taf: Jun 25, 2005; I am Fat Man, hear me roar!

More allocation chat.

I�m in Australia and am 34, so my allocation will be different to many of you.

Superannuation:
50% Aus shares - tracks the ASX200 (think S&P 500)
50% international shares - tracks the MSCI world market index

Personal long-term holdings:
35% A200 - ASX200
50% IWLD - MSCI world market index
15% VAE - FTSE Asia ex. Japan

Some notes:
1) I have a strong Aus home bias because we have a magical tax system called dividend imputation. The tl;dr is that I get a tax credit for all Aus dividend payments as long as I live here. It means Aus companies pay out more dividends than US ones (who instead prefer stock buybacks). It essentially provides me with inflated returns, hence the outsized holding.

2) I can�t touch superannuation until I�m 60, even if I move overseas, as long as I remain an Aus citizen. Because it�s managed by an Aus company, they receive the above-mentioned franking credits and contribute them towards the investment returns, so a heavy Aus bias makes sense here even if I leave Australia because all money in it is stuck here for 25+ years.

3) MSCI world index is the great equaliser. Some people here choose to just go in S&P500 as the international exposure but I like the rest-of-world exposure too (especially with your current market insanity). It�s about 65% US anyway simply by sheer market sizes.

4) VAE was my yolo bet. I wanted some emerging market exposure. I could�ve also chosen VGE for global emerging markets, but basically bet that Korea > South American + African markets. If I change my mind I�ll just buy into VGE within that 15% allocation.

5) No defensive assets like bonds. I�m 34, I don�t need these yet. I�ll buy into them specifically as I get older (probably starting around 45 or 50, depending on when I feel I�ll retire) and thus adjust my allocation with new inflows. I�ll also look to rebalance the super with some around then too, but it doesn�t cost me to swap between investment classes within super.

Nam Taf fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Feb 23, 2020

# ? Feb 23, 2020 04:23

uvar: Jul 25, 2011; Avoid breathing
radioactive dust.; College Slice

Who are you with for your super?

# ? Feb 23, 2020 07:01

Nam Taf: Jun 25, 2005; I am Fat Man, hear me roar!

QSuper. 0.24% total fees for each of those categories. I could probably chase cheaper fees, but a) I get a bonus 3% from my employer if I salary sacrifice 5% of my own in (meaning 17.5% total super) and I�m not sure if I�d lose that with another provider, and b) I�m lazy.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 07:41

asur: Dec 28, 2012

dexter6 posted:

More allocation chat:

I plan on FIRE (or at least the FI part) by age 50, which is 15 years from now for me. So I have my allocations set based on the Vanguard 2035 ( https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/target-retirement/#/mini/holdings/0305 ):

45.3% US Stocks
29.5% International Stocks
17.8% US Bonds
7.4% International Bonds

Am I the most conservative goon here?

Edit: The cool part is that if I just bought the Vanguard 2035 I�d have an ER of .14% but because I buy the components, my ER is .06%

This is insanely conservative for FI. The target date funds assume a shorter timeline and that the principle is withdrawn over time. Neither of which should be true I'm the FI scenario.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 09:12

moana: Jun 18, 2005; one of the more intellectual satire communities on the web

asur posted:

This is insanely conservative for FI. The target date funds assume a shorter timeline and that the principle is withdrawn over time. Neither of which should be true I'm the FI scenario.

75/25 is insanely conservative?

# ? Feb 23, 2020 17:52

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

moana posted:

75/25 is insanely conservative?

It is when people treat 90/10 to be conservative.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 17:53

WithoutTheFezOn: Aug 28, 2005; Oh no

moana posted:

75/25 is insanely conservative?

For a 35 year old, I�d guess most people in this thread would say yes.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 17:53

dexter6: Sep 22, 2003

WithoutTheFezOn posted:

For a 35 year old, I�d guess most people in this thread would say yes.

Well I plan to be financially independent in as early as 10 years. So I don�t want all my money to be gone.

GoGoGadgetChris posted:

Early retirement is a tricky one because you can make three cases for your asset allocation

- AA based on retiring soon (more bonds, fewer equities)

- AA based on needing rapid growth (fewer bonds, more equities)

- AA based on needing it to last a long time (fewer bonds, more equities)

I go with fewer bonds and more equities since 2/3 arguments seem to favor it. But I don't know that it's the objectively correct choice!

I guess that�s the struggle.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 18:01

moana: Jun 18, 2005; one of the more intellectual satire communities on the web

To be clear, even a 70/30 portfolio only lags a completely 100% stock portfolio by 1%. (9.1 vs 10.1 according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations).

This past bull run has people going crazy for equities. For reference, I'm 80/20 at 35 years old and have been semiretired for a few years. FI doesn't mean you need to be crazy aggressive.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 18:03

WithoutTheFezOn: Aug 28, 2005; Oh no

dexter6 posted:

Well I plan to be financially independent in as early as 10 years. So I don�t want all my money to be gone.

Oh I understand and I don�t think it�s bad, I was trying to say that most posters here seem more aggressive than that.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 18:31

Ralith: Jan 12, 2011; I see a ship in the harbor
I can and shall obey
But if it wasn't for your misfortune
I'd be a heavenly person today

moana posted:

To be clear, even a 70/30 portfolio only lags a completely 100% stock portfolio by 1%. (9.1 vs 10.1 according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations).

This past bull run has people going crazy for equities. For reference, I'm 80/20 at 35 years old and have been semiretired for a few years. FI doesn't mean you need to be crazy aggressive.

With long term compounding, 1% adds up dramatically, though: e.g. you'd have 34% more after 30 years.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 19:50

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Wouldn't FI/RE require you to save up over like, a couple decades? Is there like a clear dollar amount where you can call yourself FI?

# ? Feb 23, 2020 19:54

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

Pollyanna posted:

Wouldn't FI/RE require you to save up over like, a couple decades? Is there like a clear dollar amount where you can call yourself FI?

25x annual expenses. If you spend $40k a year, you need ~$1m to FI.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 20:02

Space Gopher: Jul 31, 2006; BLITHERING IDIOT AND HARDCORE DURIAN APOLOGIST. LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS SHIT DON'T STINK EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW IT DOES BECAUSE I'M SUPER CULTURED.

Pollyanna posted:

Wouldn't FI/RE require you to save up over like, a couple decades? Is there like a clear dollar amount where you can call yourself FI?

It requires either a relatively high-paying job and substantial time spent on savings, or some kind of major windfall that you deliberately put towards long-term investments instead of yachts and first class vacations. moana got in on the early stages of an Amazon "romance novel" gravy train, so she was able to save up the necessary money very quickly. Most of the rest of us don't have a smut empire, so owning enough of the means of production that we get to make a living solely off others' labor is coming more slowly.

The exact dollar amount you need depends on a lot of assumptions about your future living expenses, safe withdrawal rates (which are in turn impacted by expected returns and inflation), your risk tolerance, and income in retirement. If you own your home, want to live in a low CoL area without a ton of vacations or toys, have skills that let you work remotely as some kind of contractor for a few low-impact hours a week, and will keep up professional contacts so you can go back to work if you need to, you might be able to retire on well under a million bucks. I know of a couple of burnt-out software workers who are doing this around 30 as a "temporary retirement" - taking time off and living off of savings with the expectation that they'll go back to work in a few years. If you are still paying a mortgage in a major city, want to travel in retirement, and don't want to ever work again, you're going to need a lot more.

Hoodwinker's numbers rely on a 4% annual withdrawal rate. That's historically been pretty safe, but these days, who knows? There are a lot of systemic risks floating around, from climate change, to bad financial practices, to Boomers demanding more public funding to cover their failure to save for retirement, that could seriously hurt the economy. There's also continuing potential for tons of growth. It just comes back to what kind of assumptions and risks you're willing to tolerate.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 20:23

asur: Dec 28, 2012

moana posted:

75/25 is insanely conservative?

Yes? The person has 15 years of work remaining and then 35+ years of retirement. Choosing a fund that assumes 15-20 years of retirement in 2035 is conservative. If they've done the math and are happy with the chance of FIRE in 15 years and they're chances of success after then great, but it sounded like they picked it because it's the target date retirement fund that matches up with their retirement date without considering that the use case is drastically different.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 20:43

GoGoGadgetChris: Mar 18, 2010; i powder a
granite monument
in a soundless flash

showering the grass
with molten drops of
its gold inlay

sending smoking
chips of stone
skipping into the fog

moana posted:

This past bull run has people going crazy for equities.

Truer words were never spoken! President Bernie (or the threat thereof) is going to reestablish some formerly conventional wisdom surrounding asset allocations

"I have a high tolerance for risk" has been redefined as "I'm willing to accept higher returns each year!!"

# ? Feb 23, 2020 20:48

Kylaer: Aug 4, 2007; I'm SURE walking around in a respirator at all times in an (even more) OPEN BIDENing society is definitely not a recipe for disaster and anyone that's not cool with getting harassed by CHUDs are cave dwellers. I've got good brain!

The Fed dropping interest rates to such a degree has also done weird things to the bond market, as I understand it, so today's bond market is difficult to compare to prior ones.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 21:11

GoGoGadgetChris: Mar 18, 2010; i powder a
granite monument
in a soundless flash

showering the grass
with molten drops of
its gold inlay

sending smoking
chips of stone
skipping into the fog

This time... It's different?

# ? Feb 23, 2020 21:13

Kylaer: Aug 4, 2007; I'm SURE walking around in a respirator at all times in an (even more) OPEN BIDENing society is definitely not a recipe for disaster and anyone that's not cool with getting harassed by CHUDs are cave dwellers. I've got good brain!

"It's never different this time" is in direct opposition to the equally frequently used "nobody knows nothin'."

# ? Feb 23, 2020 21:16

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

GoGoGadgetChris posted:

"I have a high tolerance for risk" has been redefined as "I'm willing to accept higher returns each year!!"

It's going to be a fun time if/when this thing bursts. Super linear stock price growth like this is crazy town. If you're in visual range of retirement in any form (whether that is the FIRE nuts or the "I'm X age and ready to be done") holding a multi-year hedge is probably a good idea. One of these days I should probably get the needle off the peg on a bond allocation, for now I pretend it's my house equity.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 21:50

Residency Evil: Jul 28, 2003; 4/5 godo... Schumi

I get the feeling that most people with the drive to become financially independent wouldn�t be happy on 40k/year, but I�m just projecting my own values here.

# ? Feb 23, 2020 21:59

GoGoGadgetChris: Mar 18, 2010; i powder a
granite monument
in a soundless flash

showering the grass
with molten drops of
its gold inlay

sending smoking
chips of stone
skipping into the fog

They have a whole thing on that! Fat FI and Lean FI, I think?

And of course a major tenet of FIRE is that you're still making money, if you choose, so your financial independence comes from "I COULD survive on 40k a year" even if you're actually earning and spending 69k

# ? Feb 23, 2020 22:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 08:51

dexter6: Sep 22, 2003

asur posted:

Yes? The person has 15 years of work remaining and then 35+ years of retirement. Choosing a fund that assumes 15-20 years of retirement in 2035 is conservative. If they've done the math and are happy with the chance of FIRE in 15 years and they're chances of success after then great, but it sounded like they picked it because it's the target date retirement fund that matches up with their retirement date without considering that the use case is drastically different.

Yes, I picked that fund because thats when I plan to be FI. But I�m not actually interested in the fund, I just use those allocations.

When/if I actually stop working (which may not actually be in 2035) I�ll pick an appropriate allocation, then.

But this is all based on targets, and my target is 2035 so I allocate that way. If I actually stop working in 2035 I will make sure my allocations reflect that. If I�m still contributing in 2035, I will make sure my allocations represent that.

🤷🏻‍♂️

# ? Feb 23, 2020 22:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Long Term Investing & Retirement: The second best time is now

«‹›1210 »