Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
And Fidelity says....
Old 09-13-2012, 08:07 AM   #1
Full time employment: Posting here.
SumDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 799
And Fidelity says....

(personally, I think this is low, but I'll let y'all chime in too)

Quote:
Retirees need 8 times salary, study finds

Retirement savers need to set aside roughly eight times their annual salary in order to live comfortably if they retire at age 67, Fidelity Investments said in a report Wednesday.

The Boston firm is the nationís largest manager of 401(k) retirement assets and is in the business of persuading people to save more. It offered a plan for arriving at the eight times figure, suggesting that workers should save an amount equal to a yearís pay by age 35. If they have three times their annual salary at 45, and five times at age 55, they would be on track.

Retirement savers need to set aside roughly eight times annual salary to live comfortably - Business - The Boston Globe
__________________

__________________
SumDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-13-2012, 08:42 AM   #2
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 728
Everybody has a theory but no one has a sure think. We could predict the future if we knew it would repeat the past. Who would have believed that CD rates, and used by so many retirees would be only paying around 1% if you're lucky. And, maybe Fidelity wants to sell you an annuity to guarantee a rate of return......then you have to pay high sales fees and forget about leaving anything to your kids.

To me, my main concern is worry.....and, I worry about my health, long term care when I get old, living longer than 25 years, helping my kids IF they have a true emergency.....and all of that plays on my mind and 4 to 8 years income saved isn't enough.

I have an account with Fidelity....and a bigger account with Vanguard. Why? their rates are cheaper.....it's not that their service is better. but, to each their own and if Fidelity to talk the non savers into saving 4 to 8 years income, I'm glad their doing it. But, everyone should be doing it anyways. I know....I'm preaching to the choir.....and I have kids I have to preach to as well. I've saved mine, I'm OK and I still worry just a little .........it's in the genes

Everyone......have a great day!
__________________

__________________
jerome len is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 09:01 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
David1961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,074
Personally, I think the amount should be based on your annual expenses, not your annual salary.
__________________
David1961 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 09:10 AM   #4
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 442
Who would want to wait until 67 to retire?
__________________
dmpi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 10:09 AM   #5
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 586
I am interested in the number of years of income needed for earlier retirement.
__________________
devans0 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 10:17 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmpi View Post
Who would want to wait until 67 to retire?
Those who like living above their means? Those who love their job?
TJ
__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 10:21 AM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by devans0 View Post
I am interested in the number of years of income needed for earlier retirement.
The problem is first you have to define what is ER. 62? 52? 42?

The only rule of thumb that I found somewhat useful is the 4% rule.
TJ
__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 10:24 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by David1961 View Post
Personally, I think the amount should be based on your annual expenses, not your annual salary.
It's all about what you spend more than what you make. These articles always miss that. I don't think my take home was more than about 60% of what salary was, after Feds, SS, medicare, state taxes, 401k deduction etc. and I lived on about 50% of that. If you spend everything you make then you have a problem.
__________________
rbmrtn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 10:35 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmrtn View Post
It's all about what you spend more than what you make. These articles always miss that. I don't think my take home was more than about 60% of what salary was, after Feds, SS, medicare, state taxes, 401k deduction etc. and I lived on about 50% of that. If you spend everything you make then you have a problem.
Its a rule of thumb, it assumes spending is proportional to your salary, probably accurate for most people in the 50k-500K range. Note, ER forum readers are not normal. No offense
They probably assume you spend 50% of your salary, will continue spending 50% after retire and will retire full SS age. After all these assumptions, 8X salary is probably a fairly good estimate.
TJ
__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 11:20 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbmrtn View Post
It's all about what you spend more than what you make. These articles always miss that. I don't think my take home was more than about 60% of what salary was, after Feds, SS, medicare, state taxes, 401k deduction etc. and I lived on about 50% of that. If you spend everything you make then you have a problem.
Using a percent of salary would have meant zilch to me. After working full-time for 16 years, I reduced my weekly hours worked by nearly 50% in 2001 and by 40% of the previous amount in 2007. So tell me, which salary would have been appropriate to use in such a calculation?

It is all about expenses. not about salary/income.
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012, 11:23 PM   #11
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 388
8 times salary?? Retirement requirement estimates based on salary levels seem completely idiotic to me. That would mean the more you make the less likely you can retire. How could that possibly be true?
__________________
Khufu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2012, 04:00 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,412
because money is like water and usually seeks its own level.

the more you earn generally the higher your expenses and the more you need to maintain that lifestyle.
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2012, 05:49 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,433
Like everybody here I don't see much relationship between salary and cost of living. However the great majority of people out there don't have the same viewpoint. The spend what you make and beyond mentality makes retirement savings a moot point.
Last year my DW ER'd and our income fell by 40%. We did not notice it in our standard of living at all because like those on this forum we LBYM.
__________________
Retired in 2016. Living off dividends / interest and a mini pension. Freedom.
foxfirev5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2012, 08:11 AM   #14
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: a suburb somewhere
Posts: 54
I'm pretty sure Fidelity knows that these calculations should be based on expenses and not income. But most people don't know what their annual expenses are. Everybody knows what their income is.

I have no idea what our expenses are. I have never tracked expenses. I just know if the balance in our checking account is going up or down. It mostly goes up.
__________________
flotsamandjetsam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2012, 08:47 AM   #15
Recycles dryer sheets
WestLake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 239
Say you make $50K, so you'll need $400K. No thanks!
__________________
WestLake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2012, 09:42 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by flotsamandjetsam View Post
I'm pretty sure Fidelity knows that these calculations should be based on expenses and not income. But most people don't know what their annual expenses are. Everybody knows what their income is.

I have no idea what our expenses are. I have never tracked expenses. I just know if the balance in our checking account is going up or down. It mostly goes up.
Fidelity surely knows about expenses, as that is a major part of their Retirement Income Planning software in the website.
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2012, 10:36 AM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,056
When I was 35, I think my retirement portfolio was about 5x my salary. Now, at the age of 42, it's about 11x my salary. So, hopefully I'm on course!

But, I agree with others in that I think that having 8x your salary saved up by age 67 is a bit low. Unless you have really low expenses. I guess social security will help somewhat, though. If I work until 67, my SS benefit would cover about 35% of my current salary.
__________________
Andre1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2012, 11:00 AM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmpi View Post
Who would want to wait until 67 to retire?
+1
__________________
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 12:39 AM   #19
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by flotsamandjetsam View Post
I'm pretty sure Fidelity knows that these calculations should be based on expenses and not income. But most people don't know what their annual expenses are. Everybody knows what their income is.
Or Fidelity is engaged in scare-mongering to manipulate clients to invest more in risky assets such as the products they sell.
__________________
Khufu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2012, 10:29 AM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,103
I've generally only known my salary +/- a few thousand a year. Really. However, since I was in late forties tracked expenses in Quicken and could dial up expense in a second. Salary was 30-40% more than expense, filling up a 457 and 401k. All I cared about was what did it take to retire in income. I'm well over that now, so no worries. If it matters, when I pretty much pulled the plug, assets were ~13x income and have a cola'd pension that is ~ 1/2 last salary. It's all about living below means. Now I have to figure out how to spend or use it for max enjoyment. It actually is difficult to reverse the flow when a buck actually has a value to you. I probably could have left earlier, but it would have crimped the pension substantially.
__________________

__________________
H2ODude is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:26 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.