What was your retirement savings at 50, 55, 60

[jollystomper]

Age 50: 8.2 times expected annual retirement expenses.
Age 55: 15 times expected annual retirement expenses.

This is relatively low to others. However, at retirement I will be getting a pension that will cover 2/3rds of expected annual expenses, giving me a SWR of just over 2% to cover the balance. Of course, that assumes the market stays at least where it is now, so I'm not taking it for granted.

Taking SS at age 62 would cover another 20% of annual expenses. Taking SS at my "full retirement age" (almost 67) would cover about 30% of annual expenses.

 

[BigNick]

Thanks. I understand that.
But here's my perspective. People who earn $1M and spend $2M would have 0 savings and have a negative net worth. So, most likely, savers who have $1 million at 50 are pretty frugal with their spending. My wife and I are frugal.

Not necessarily. Someone who make $300K a year and saves $50K will have $1 million after 20 years, but they will have been spending $250K/year all that time. So everything is relative.

Now, it's true that everyone *can* survive on, say, $20K/year if they have to - that is, you can get enough nutrition, and a roof over your head, and some heat - so, objectively, $1 million ought to be enough for anybody. But the point is that the FIRE decision is a trade-off between time (for yourself) and money (so you can do what you want in that time). If your retirement plans call for a lot of yacht-based travel, that $1 million might not be a great amount. If your hobbies are chess and reading, you're more likely to be set.

 

[ziggy29]

When I got whacked by Megacorp earlier this year at 47, we had about 20x expected living expenses socked away, about 3/4 of it in retirement accounts. So far we're doing pretty well and there's been no need to tap them or dig into savings much at all. and I know we can still do "better" on living expenses if we felt the need.

 

[Major Tom]

I've already shared my basic financial info in other posts, so don't mind doing it here. My initial reticence was based on the fact that I didn't have any sense of whether the OP was serious in intent; a "legit" poster, so to speak. I see now that you are, cyber888.

I was laid off at the age of 45 and began living off my portfolio 2 years later at the age of 47. At that time, I had about 36 x annual expenses saved up. I am now 49 and, thanks to the market, that multiple has since grown to a little over 40. I have a source of minor part-time income, which has kept my withdrawals to 1/40 of the starting portfolio value (the value when I began withdrawals 2.5 years ago).

However, although I'm comfortable and content, I'd really like to spend a bit more money so am hoping that in a few years, the closer proximity of early SS combined with (hopefully) a little more portfolio growth will give me the confidence to increase withdrawals a bit. I just did a quick sum to estimate how much would be in my portfolio had I not ER'ed and, although it would have been nice to have that higher NW, it sure has been great not having to look for a job

 

[cyber888]

That's great Major. 40x looks nice and comfy till you take SS at 62.

I've already shared my basic financial info in other posts, so don't mind doing it here. My initial reticence was based on the fact that I didn't have any sense of whether the OP was serious in intent; a "legit" poster, so to speak. I see now that you are, cyber888.

I was laid off at the age of 45 and began living off my portfolio 2 years later at the age of 47. At that time, I had about 36 x annual expenses saved up. I am now 49 and, thanks to the market, that multiple has since grown to a little over 40. I have a source of minor part-time income, which has kept my withdrawals to 1/40 of the starting portfolio value (the value when I began withdrawals 2.5 years ago).

However, although I'm comfortable and content, I'd really like to spend a bit more money so am hoping that in a few years, the closer proximity of early SS combined with (hopefully) a little more portfolio growth will give me the confidence to increase withdrawals a bit. I just did a quick sum to estimate how much would be in my portfolio had I not ER'ed and, although it would have been nice to have that higher NW, it sure has been great not having to look for a job

 

[cyber888]

Sorry to hear that. But glad you got 20x savings, which can bridge you to getting SS at 62. I itemize my expenses to the last cent, so I'm sure you know where to cut the things you can live without. Good look

When I got whacked by Megacorp earlier this year at 47, we had about 20x expected living expenses socked away, about 3/4 of it in retirement accounts. So far we're doing pretty well and there's been no need to tap them or dig into savings much at all. and I know we can still do "better" on living expenses if we felt the need.

 

[Major Tom]

That's great Major. 40x looks nice and comfy till you take SS at 62.

Please - call me Tom

 

[cyber888]

Hi Nick. Yeah, but if you do the math, $50K is actually 16.7% savings out of $300K, which means that someone is saving decently. I've often hear people saving 15% of income towards retirement. But of course, if I had that kind of income, I'd be saving 70% of it.

Not necessarily. Someone who make $300K a year and saves $50K will have $1 million after 20 years, but they will have been spending $250K/year all that time. So everything is relative.

Now, it's true that everyone *can* survive on, say, $20K/year if they have to - that is, you can get enough nutrition, and a roof over your head, and some heat - so, objectively, $1 million ought to be enough for anybody. But the point is that the FIRE decision is a trade-off between time (for yourself) and money (so you can do what you want in that time). If your retirement plans call for a lot of yacht-based travel, that $1 million might not be a great amount. If your hobbies are chess and reading, you're more likely to be set.

 

[REWahoo]

Sorry to hear that. But glad you got 20x savings, which can bridge you to getting SS at 62. I itemize my expenses to the last cent, so I'm sure you know where to cut the things you can live without. Good look

Before you get too concerned about Zig's situation, please note that he's a 'kept man'. His wife is employed full time - or maybe I should say "all the time".

 

[scrabbler1]

My signature line briefly describes how I am living. My income, however, is a function of the number of shares in each mutual fund I own, especially those in the big bond fund, and the monthly (or quarterly, sometimes) dividends per share paid out by those funds. The price of those shares, leading to my net worth, does not play a role in that. So even though the ratio of my net worth to annual expenses has grown from about 35:1 to about 55:1 since I ERed in late 2008, my annual dividend income has been fairly flat because the decline in dividends per share in the bond funds has been roughly offset by the increase in shares I own through reinvestment of excess dividends (and cap gain distributions).

 

[NanoSour]

I'm not quite 50, but I saved $760K and just retired with $38K annual expenses.

No more savings, so zero at 55 and 60.

Welcome and it seems you're doing quite well on the savings end.

Don't be put off by this thread. Your initial question is a little bit nosy given you offered nothing about your particular situation. This is by far the best online forum with so much to offer to those interested in all things finance.

 

[ziggy29]

Before you get too concerned about Zig's situation, please note that he's a 'kept man'. His wife is employed full time - or maybe I should say "all the time".

Yes, as long as DW and her congregation don't piss each other off, we're pretty secure. (I should note that for much of the first 20 years of our marriage, she was a "kept woman" so now it's my turn! )

 

[REWahoo]

(I should note that for much of the first 20 years of our marriage, she was a "kept woman" so now it's my turn! )

No need to qualify your exalted status. I'm in awe of any guy who can swing a deal to have their DW employed while they retire early!

 

[RE2Boys]

Isn't this a forum where people ask questions? I am new here and you are telling me I'm nosy? Of course there is a purpose to such question. People ask these question to benchmark themselves if they have saved enough.
And YES - how much you save at 50, 55, 60 is big retirement issue at large. So I disagree with you on all counts. If you don't have anything useful to say to a new user, then please don't.

This is a forum where we discuss and learn from each other about the challenges to achieving financial independence. It's not a database where you query and expect an automatic response. I think you've got that from the several pages of postings since your first.

We all like to share our stories on the journey to FI, some ER once attaining FI, some continue to work in some capacity.

Me, retired in 2000 at age 50 with a 3 and 1 year old, hence my handle. Have a COLA'd pension so savings were supplemental. Calculated at the time that a withdrawal rate of 4% plus pension kept our living standard constant. So we had enough!! Actually, since I did not wish to give the boys a sense of entitlement, have not significantly increased the living standard since 2000. Before ER, I was saving about 30% of my salary. What really helped at the time of RE was that the house was paid off, so no mortgage payment to worry about. And so the boys know something of working life, I even work 3 months of the year (with overtime) and have fun in the dog days of winter (do income tax returns)

Expenses will definitely go up in next 8 years with kids getting driver's licenses and college coming up, but our modest living standard over the past 13 years means the resources are there to handle these expenses. Net worth up 140% and greatest withdrawal rate was 2% one year when we remodeled the house.

It's not about the absolute dollar amount, it's about having enough to maintain your desired living standard without worry. Each persons living standard, level of frugality, other sources of income other than from investments, is a unique combination of circumstances determining FI or "enough" so that decisions are made for other reasons than strictly earnings.

 

[gozer]

Mine are:

Age 20 - negative net worth (started saving/investing fairly aggressively at 22 and increased every year)

Age 30 - 10 times annual spend (by mid thirties had increased save rate to 50% of gross salary for retirement)

Age 40 - 28 times annual spend (continued 50%, didn't want to do more)

Age 48 (today) - 45+ times annual spend (started to dramatically reduce savings rate from 50%, 3 weeks ago when spouse retired)

We have pensions that kick in 6 years that pay half of our annual spend. Next year my spend rate will fall between 1.8% and 2.2% of my market invested assets. (funds, cash) When our pensions kick in, that spend range will drop significantly. The low spend rate allows me to be comfortable with maintaining a higher stocks to bonds ratio going forward. My wife and I both made significantly more than we expected to which allowed us to live quite comfortably while saving significant amounts of money.

 

[HFWR]

(I should note that for much of the first 20 years of our marriage, she was a "kept woman" so now it's my turn! )

To be a kept woman?

 

[Keim]

To be a kept woman?

That expensive surgery could torpedo the retirement plan.

 

[Mulligan]

This is a forum where we discuss and learn from each other about the challenges to achieving financial independence. It's not a database where you query and expect an automatic response. I think you've got that from the several pages of postings since your first.

We all like to share our stories on the journey to FI, some ER once attaining FI, some continue to work in some capacity.

Me, retired in 2000 at age 50 with a 3 and 1 year old, hence my handle. Have a COLA'd pension so savings were supplemental. Calculated at the time that a withdrawal rate of 4% plus pension kept our living standard constant. So we had enough!! Actually, since I did not wish to give the boys a sense of entitlement, have not significantly increased the living standard since 2000. Before ER, I was saving about 30% of my salary. What really helped at the time of RE was that the house was paid off, so no mortgage payment to worry about. And so the boys know something of working life, I even work 3 months of the year (with overtime) and have fun in the dog days of winter (do income tax returns)

Expenses will definitely go up in next 8 years with kids getting driver's licenses and college coming up, but our modest living standard over the past 13 years means the resources are there to handle these expenses. Net worth up 140% and greatest withdrawal rate was 2% one year when we remodeled the house.

It's not about the absolute dollar amount, it's about having enough to maintain your desired living standard without worry. Each persons living standard, level of frugality, other sources of income other than from investments, is a unique combination of circumstances determining FI or "enough" so that decisions are made for other reasons than strictly earnings.

RE2, I have to agree with you especially your last paragraph. When I retired 3 years ago, my investment portfolio was one whole year in expenses. But with a semi COLA pension that exceeds my monthly expenses by close to $2k a month, retiring has been simple. Well take that back, staying on this forum too much around retirement created a self induced paranoia that caused me to work PT for the last 3 years until I finally pulled it altogether this spring. Oh well, at least I have built up almost 5X in yearly expenses. I do a better job of saving in retirement than I did working.

 

[bbbob57]

the basic rule of thumb is that you can live comfortable on 4% of your invested assets (that would exclude home, etc...). This would also include the present-value of annuities.

Obviously, the mix (pre-tax versus post-tax) also matters. So if you are like me, and spend $100,000 pre-tax per year, then your retirement number would be $2.5 million ($100,000 divided by .04). I had $1.1 - $1.3 million at age 50; and $1.9 million at age 55. I retired at age 53, and decided that I could earn my way through retirement (some part-time work and more aggressive investing).

But again, it all depends on what you feel comfortable with (I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country and have no intention of moving; I also have a small mortgage to pay off).

 

[obgyn65]

I agree with this. The OP may use the google function at the top of this screen to help answer his/her question.

People aren't being intentionally combative. They are simply trying to tell you that benchmarking against others solely on a number is close to useless information.

 

[cyber888]

It may be useless to you, but not to me. Everyone's different and you don't seem to understand my point of view. "I'm benchmarking savings, not expenses". Sure, I understand the relationship of expenses vs savings. I understand that if you need $30K a year to survive, you need $900K (or 30X expenses) to survive for 30 years. That's the point of view most of you are coming from. I understand your point of view. But you don't seem to understand mine. I've been to a lot of forum that think people are stupid for asking questions and that their questions are pointless. I'm a Professor with a PhD degree and every day my students ask me some questions which I initially think is pointless, but it is not. They see things from an entirely different perspective. I have also been a Consultant and I see things that VP and Directors don't because they've been too long inside their company - they all think inside the box. They don't have fresh minds. You guys only see what you've been discussing in this forum for so long, that when someone new from the outside comes in - you don't see outside the box. So I will leave it at that. All I can say is that expenses is NOT a concern for me at all - but savings is. Now I will leave it to your imagination why I'm saying that. If you can figure it out, great for you. If you still insist it is pointless, you're still thinking inside your box.

I agree with this. The OP may use the google function at the top of this screen to help answer his/her question.

 

[Major Tom]

I understand your point of view. But you don't seem to understand mine.

No, I don't think I do, though I am trying. One thing I have noticed about many truly intelligent and educated people is that they usually express themselves in simple, clear language. If you are indeed a professor with a PhD, could you explain clearly why absolute numbers of amounts saved at the various ages you specified, are far more important to you than the same figures expressed as a multiple of the amount of annual withdrawal required in retirement? I think that's preferable to leaving it to our imagination. If there's a simple reason (which there must be) why not tell us?

 

[Major Tom]

Oh, you know what - don't worry about it. I remember now that you did attempt to explain why, and I thought your logic was flawed. Well, thanks for the mildly entertaining thread anyway.

 

[aim-high]

You may be under the impression that everyone here retired early because of LBYM and saving/ investing. Some have, some sold businesses, some with great pensions, some with a few lucky breaks or windfalls, etc.

Some LBYM so they could invest in businesses where they caught a few lucky breaks and sold at a windfall.

 

[aim-high]

Not quite 50 . . .

Currently have 15x (lavish) to 30x (sustenance) anticipated annual retirement expenses saved.

I did it through LBYM, working in start-up companies where I caught a break or and some highly concentrated investments. This year I finally looked up and found my risk tolerance has dropped considerably. Gee, I'm not 25 any longer.

The goal in the next 6-12 months is to divest from my highly concentrated position into a low cost portfolio of index funds with a 65/35 mix.

----

Cyber, you'll learn to really value the collective wisdom from this board. It's a Harvard education in personal finance and world-class counselors for free.