Merrill Lynch study says you need $738.4K on average to retire

[Souschef]

This was an interesting article about how much you need. YMMV
The average cost of retirement Is $738,400: Will you have enough?

 

[NW-Bound]

I read the article, and did not see anywhere what retirement age that average budget applies to. Maybe 65? One needs to read the original Merrill Lynch study to see, I guess.

Note that it says that's the cost of retirement, and presumably some of that is supplied by SS or pension. Again, one needs to find the original study.

And then, further down, I saw that this present author wrote this:

"For example, let's say you're 30 years old and plan to retire at age 70. That gives you 40 years to save, and you can reasonably assume your investments will enjoy a 7% rate of return per year."​

What the heck? Retire at 70? Quite a few would be already dead before reaching that age.

 

[Chuckanut]

Did the article mention that one can accumulate the needed funds faster using low-cost no-load funds? Just asking...

 

[brucethebroker]

The financial talking heads just can't get past wanting to find the holy grail of retirement planning: the magic number.

It always comes down to YMMV, but they seem to need the number. Midwest vs. Coastal living? Same number. Paid off home vs. mortgage free? Same number. Big spenders vs. frugal savers? Same number. Receiving SS vs. not receiving SS? Same number. Living in an RV vs. living in the kids basement vs. living in an upscale home? Same number. Geeeze!

 

[braumeister]

Here's a link to the study:
https://mlaem.fs.ml.com/content/dam/ML/Articles/pdf/ML_Finance-Study-Report_2017.pdf

Not very useful IMHO, especially for those here.

 

[travelover]

Now that this pithy question has been answered, how long is a piece of string?

 

[Clone]

Now that this pithy question has been answered, how long is a piece of string?

I though Howie Long was a football commentator.

 

[Nemo2]

I though Howie Long was a football commentator.

Or the long lost brother of a former Louisiana governor.

 

[CaptTom]

If the headline is correct about who funded the study, then one would have to take the whole thing with a grain of salt.

Or, preferably, ignore it.

I like the way the author casually mentions waiting until 70. And, presumably, turning your nest egg over to an "adviser" who makes commissions on buying annuity products with it.

I think I'll find something to read that's a better use of my time. Maybe the warning labels on a power tool or something.

 

[LARS]

Like to have the five minutes back I spent skimming that ML study.

 

[Lakewood90712]

It's actually $1.2 Million. The difference goes to M.L. for fees and expenses while you are building that $738.4 k retirement nest egg.

 

[mickeyd]

Like other surveys sponsored by investment companies, the piece looks like a marketing plug.

 

[97guns]

You don't need a million bucks to retire, you need income, I retired on a net worth of $280k. I did inherit another 200k after I retired, my current investment of $380k nets me $65k a year

 

[Nemo2]

my current investment of $380k nets me $65k a year

Did Bernie Madoff tell you how he manages that?

 

[Rustic23]

Easy, my IRA $400,000 nets me $130,000. Oh, I left out Wife's IRA, and SS, and several pensions. But hey, it only a study.

 

[Blue Collar Guy]

guess 99 % will never retire if they listen to this

if large swatches of the population read this they will be a rash of suicides, how do they reasonably publish such an article

 

[Scuba]

The financial talking heads just can't get past wanting to find the holy grail of retirement planning: the magic number.

It always comes down to YMMV, but they seem to need the number. Midwest vs. Coastal living? Same number. Paid off home vs. mortgage free? Same number. Big spenders vs. frugal savers? Same number. Receiving SS vs. not receiving SS? Same number. Living in an RV vs. living in the kids basement vs. living in an upscale home? Same number. Geeeze!

+1

 

[Al in Ohio]

Retiring early obviously requires more unless there's a pension. Twice that much is a nice start.

 

[Badger]

I only needed to read the title to know it wasn't worth my time to read the article for 2 reasons. 1. There is no magic number for everyone. 2. It came from ML.

Cheers!

 

[joeea]

Merrill Lynch study says you need $738.4K on average to retire

I don't intend to be average.

 

[Nemo2]

I don't intend to be average.

Me either......average is waay beyond my reach.

 

[joeea]

Me either......average is waay beyond my reach.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[UnrealizedPotential]

You don't need a million bucks to retire, you need income, I retired on a net worth of $280k. I did inherit another 200k after I retired, my current investment of $380k nets me $65k a year

To get 65k out of 380k one would have to take a lot of risk. How is that sustainable over the long term? One year like 2008 and what would your 380k be down to? My guess would be your 380k would be dust and so would your 65K. I smell a troll.

 

[Chuckanut]

Me either......average is waay beyond my reach.

That could be low T. You might want to see your doctor.

Or take up Yoga.

IMHO, there are better sources of retirement info than ML. Not that they are bad, I just think that there are better, less biased sources.

OTOH, a good annuity is better than taking all sorts of medicines to sleep well at night.

 

[Nemo2]

That could be low T. You might want to see your doctor.

Or take up Yoga.

IMHO, there are better sources of retirement info than ML. Not that they are bad, I just think that there are better, less biased sources.

OTOH, a good annuity is better than taking all sorts of medicines to sleep well at night.

Thus far I've managed 28 1/3 years of 'below average' retirement.....and....we even manage to get out of the house...once in a while.