Age To Hit $100 K in Savings

[Tommy_Dolitte]

I'm trying to benchmark my performance to date? Any one have any info or internet sites that offer this type of comparison?

"If I can just figure out a way to make $150/day on the internet...."

TD

 

[daystar]

Here's an article that shows levels of networth at different ages:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/10/pf/millionaire/net_worth_stackup/index.htm

I'm 25, and I've accumulated around $15,000 of net worth on my own. The other $150,000 came over 20 or so years from rich grandma.

 

[Tommy_Dolitte]

Thanks for the info. I wish they included the standard deviations for the data.

Looking at the data makes you wonder how the Joneses REALLY are doing.

Thanks again!
TD

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

For what its worth...

These "net worth" calcs are many and all over the place.

What I've determined from reading a lot of them, discarding the obviously bogus and bad data, and connecting the dots...

- Most people have zero or negative "real" net worth
- Most peoples reported assets are home equity and cars
- Most positive equity is overstated
- Most debt is understated
- Few people under 55 have much, if anything, set aside for retirement
- Yet most people surveyed expect to enjoy a similar lifestyle after retirement that they experience during their working lives

In other words...if you're under 55 and you've started or are well on your way to putting together a realistic and reasonable retirement stash, you're way ahead of the crowd.

If may be worthwhile to consider installing some molten lead and hot boiling oil dispensers for the front of your house for when the people who didnt put anything away discover they have no money, cant eat air, and have their homes taken away when they cant afford to pay their triple mortgages out of the social security that isnt there anymore when they retire...

 

[Jarhead*]

For what its worth...



If may be worthwhile to consider installing some molten lead and hot boiling oil dispensers for the front of your house for when the people who didnt put anything away discover they have no money, cant eat air, and have their homes taken away when they cant afford to pay their triple mortgages out of the social security that isnt there anymore when they retire...

Don't be suprised if I show up at your doorstep with adoption papers in hand if that happens to me
Will also bring a couple cases of revolution, so your "previous dad" doesn't feel totally left out

 

[soupcxan]

Deleted.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Don't be suprised if I show up at your doorstep with adoption papers in hand if that happens to me
Will also bring a couple cases of revolution, so your "previous dad" doesn't feel totally left out

Aww..you remembered!

 

[wabmester]

There were some ego-boosting affluence stats in the article.   There are on the order of 100M households in the US, so according to the little table in the article, here's how you rank.

Net Worth excluding primary residence:

>$500K:  top 10%
>$1M: top 6%
>$5M: top 0.5%

 

[retire@40]

There were some ego-boosting affluence stats in the article.   There are on the order of 100M households in the US, so according to the little table in the article, here's how you rank.

Net Worth excluding primary residence:

>$500K:  top 10%
>$1M: top 6%
>$5M: top 0.5%

The CNN site has a breakdown of household by networth in piegraph form in the "what are you worth" calculator.

Their breakdown is:

30.6% Under $25K
19.2% $25K - $99K
21.6% $100K - $249K
17.2% $250K - $499K
8.7% $500K - $999K
2.7% $1 mil and up

 

[farmerEd]

There were some ego-boosting affluence stats in the article.   There are on the order of 100M households in the US, so according to the little table in the article, here's how you rank.

Net Worth excluding primary residence:

>$500K:  top 10%
>$1M: top 6%
>$5M: top 0.5%

Thats a confusing way to do it, imo...why exclude residence? Does someone with $500K in the bank plus a $500K mortgage on a $600K house better off than someone with $600K in the bank w/no house?

If they are exluding the residence, are they excluding the mortgage on the residence?

 

[Austin_Explorer]

Does someone with $500K in the bank plus a $500K mortgage on a $600K house better off than someone with $600K in the bank w/no house?

Yes, if they lose their job. :-/

 

[retire@40]

Thats a confusing way to do it, imo...why exclude residence? Does someone with $500K in the bank plus a $500K mortgage on a $600K house better off than someone with $600K in the bank w/no house?

If they are exluding the residence, are they excluding the mortgage on the residence?

From an accounting definition of net worth, there is no difference.  But there is a cash flow difference in that the $100K net worth in your home is not throwing off cash to you (unless you sell it or do a reverse mortgage), but the $100K in the bank is generating interest income to you.

Of course there is the cash outflow side of this equation too that says if you don't own a home you might be spending more in rent as compared to the increase (or decrease) in value to your home less the cost of maintaining your home.

The key is to look at NET cash inflow and outflow.

 

[Jane]

I reached 100K in savings when I was 28 before I purchased my condo (excluding my car - which is really not worth much). At that time I have been working full time for about 4 years but I was still living in a cheap student-housing like accomodation in an effort to pay off some student loan (not much) and save for a condo. I cashed half of my savings for my condo downpayment.

35 was supposed to be a sweet spot for me (I am 30) with a maxed out RRSP/defined contribution pension and paid-off condo but now that I am about to get married and probably having kid(s), all bets are off - not that I am complaining, I heard many times on this board that getting married and having kid(s), though expensive, is worth every cent

Back to the numbers, one thing that crossed my mind is that I would like to see the total savings as percentage as household income (instead of just dollar numbers). Because having a 100K savings when you are earning 100K annually is not as impressive as having a 40K savings when you are earning only 20K per year. It's really relative. It's hard to provide an objective benchmark when you don't know important stuff like: earning, cost of living in specific areas and such.

Jane

 

[retire@40]

Jane,

If I understand you correctly, the chart of net worth by income is in that cnn article.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/10/pf/millionaire/net_worth_stackup/index.htm

 

[Jane]

Ah yes, thanks. This will teach me to click on all links before responding next time.

Jane

 

[wabmester]

I reached 100K in savings when I was 28

Jane, I was really impressed for a second. Then I realized that you're talking about Canadian dollars

 

[Cut-Throat]

I reached 100K in savings when I was 28

Jane,

I am still impressed, even though it may have been in Canada Dollars! - Maybe more so, if you don't have to pay for health care!

- I was in debt big time when I was 30 and vowed to climb out the hole.

 

[Jane]

Well Cdn$ is gaining on US$. What is it now? .82 or something? Yeah I don't have to pay for health care which was a big bonus and my employer provided 5% match for my pension contribution. I also have good (though not great) starting salary. I was not heavily invested in small cap technology stocks which wiped out savings for some of my peers.

But the most important thing was where and how I lived. I lived in a student's housing area where everything was pretty cheap. My share of rent for example was only $300! Food was $25/week and utilities was around $40 for every 2 months. The only thing that was different between me and the students was I had better clothes  

Looking back now I am not sure how I can live like that anymore. I am now getting pretty used to my comfy condo in "grown-up" area where rent for my size of condo is about $1000 and up, and grocery can easily cost you around $300 for 2 (and this is if you are careful). Needless to say, eventhough I make more now, % wise I am not saving as much as before. But I am okay with that since I am enjoying my life as it is.

Jane

 

[Calgary_Girl]

Jane:

Where do you live? I'm in Calgary.

 

[Jane]

I live in Oakville, Ontario.

Jane

 

[azanon]

My wife and I passed 100K in net worth (about 65K in retirement savings) about the beginning of this year; our average age is 32. We're building faster than that suggests though because we're late out of the gate since we both have graduate degrees, thus causing delays getting us into the work force. My grad degree is paying for itself though cause i'm pretty sure it is a main reason i outcompeted others for the GS-12 job i have now.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

It seems like graduate school is a necessary evil these days, delaying one's ability to save money for FIRE from early-20s going forward. At the same time, certain graduate degrees can lead to increased pay, sometimes double that of the average college graduate, making it a worthwhile investment of 2-3 years post-undergrad. Any delay in saving money for FIRE is quickly made up, along with the gains associated with time in the market. Yet the key is determining which graduate degrees are worthwhile invesments, and which ones aren't.

I'd like to think that the average couple can hit $100k by 32, assuming both had 5-7 years of working to save money. As a single guy, I hit that mark at 30, and tripled it by 34. If and when I get married to my longtime girlfriend (who I already call my "better half" since she's in the financial planning industry ) I'm sure that between the two of us we'll have $500k. At that point in time, we may scale back our aggressive savings in order to afford a few luxuries (possibly including kids), and allow the money already saved to just sit in the market and grow.

 

[Tommy_Dolitte]

How'd you triple by 34? I'm 28 and should cross the $100 K mark by March 2005.... :-/

Nice job btw....good luck on your "other half" 8)

TD

 

[azanon]

That's excellent guys. I benefited from a rather nice sum of money from a life insurance policy to explain at lot of how i am where i am. If you guys are at that figure with no outliers like me, you're doing great.

Granted, i would have a whole lot more had i not decided to dump it in aggressive growth funds in the late 90s. I lived and learned. Or did I (i'm still in aggressive growth)?

 

[Jay Gatsby]

How'd you triple by 34?    I'm 28 and should cross the $100 K mark by March 2005....  :-/

Nice job btw....good luck on your "other half"   8)

TD  

I don't know exactly, other than by aggressively saving 40% of my gross pay, which has increased reasonably well in the past 4 years. Another factor might be the fact that I met my girlfriend in 2001, which may explain everything. She did get me back on track in terms of figuring out which companies I should DCA into, and which losers I should dump, having tried and failed at investing on my own through e*trade.

If I didn't live in a luxury apartment complex throwing my money away on rent, I could probably have had $500k including home equity by now if I had bought a house in 2000 or 2001. Were that the case, I would have planned on FIRE by age 40 or so with $1MM or so in total assets. I wouldn't have stopped working, of course, but I would have most definitely scaled back my work in favor of activities I've sacrificed for my career.

Overall, I don't think I'm doing too bad, and will probably be on track to hit FIRE by 45 or so. Then again, I've toyed with starting my own company in order to accelerate things (and get some nice tax breaks).

By the way, nice work on being able to hit $100k at age 28 or so. 8) That's 2 years faster than me, and if the market cooperates, I don't see why you can't hit $200k+ by age 34.