Confused...Starting to get my ducks in a row

[flyfishnevada]

Congrats Seattle. My two cents: see if you can live on $140,000 per year (4% of 3.5M).If you think you can do it, then go ahead. Agree with all of the previous posts about the difficulty of earning 5% in munis. My guess is you are going to wind up doing something that generates income after you leave this job. 48 is very young to sit back on the porch in your rocker.

If you can't live on $140,000 a year, send it to me and I'll give it a try.

And it's never to young to sit on your porch and watch the world go by. I'm on my way out right now. Even if you do wind up engaging in some income generating activity, it will be because you want to. Some people don't call that retirement, but it is FI and it's a nice problem to have.

 

[pb4uski]

Oh, stuff it. This guy is on the wrong forum.

Rude.

 

[obgyn65]

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Midpack]

Oh, stuff it. This guy is on the wrong forum.

Rude.

The principles of FI and early retirement are pretty universal whether you retire with $450K or $4.5M and commensurate spending, so I couldn't figure out what "wrong forum" meant. I'm sure we have active members retired and not who fall above and below that range...

 

[pb4uski]

The principles of FI and early retirement are pretty universal whether you retire with $450K or $4.5M and commensurate spending, so I couldn't figure out what "wrong forum" meant. I'm sure we have active members retired and not who fall above and below that range...

+1 There is no need to be jealous of others success. Let's be happy for them.

 

[LOL!]

I just wanted to write that it looks like Seattle's portfolio is not set up to be particular tax-efficient and they are paying much more in income taxes than they need to be. For example, the 401(k) could be all bonds and some of the bonds in taxable could be tax-efficient stock index funds.

If Seattle hasn't been over to the bogleheads site for advice, I would suggest they go over there for awhile and see if those folks can be helpful.
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_Started

 

[grasshopper]

Blue sky's in Seattle, you must have been there Sept 3, 2003 after 2 PM.

 

[packrat44]

Blue sky's in Seattle, you must have been there Sept 3, 2003 after 2 PM.

Last year Summer fell on a weekend in Seattle and more people were able to enjoy the occasion.

 

[Brat]

If we didn't have a moist maritime climate west of the Cascade Mountains both Oregon and Washington would be... overwhelmed.

 

[Seattle]

I just wanted to write that it looks like Seattle's portfolio is not set up to be particular tax-efficient and they are paying much more in income taxes than they need to be. For example, the 401(k) could be all bonds and some of the bonds in taxable could be tax-efficient stock index funds.

If Seattle hasn't been over to the bogleheads site for advice, I would suggest they go over there for awhile and see if those folks can be helpful.
Getting Started - Bogleheads

The reason my 401K is 100% in stocks is because of the long term aspect of the 401K. I wont be accessing it until I am at least 65 years old so I thought that stocks over the long term posed the best investment strategy for growth. Thats 17 years for me.

But, I will absolutely look at your recommendations to move my 401K to bonds and figure it out. I see the sense in it.

Just know that when I wrote my original post, my portfolio was not set up to retire in the next year or two. It was a longer term investment strategy. But I fully realize that I am going to have to make alot of changes to my entire investment strategy once I make the decision to hang it up.

Also, got a laugh out of alot of the responses about me "sitting in my rocking chair at 48"...Once I retire early, I will stay very active...I would actually look forward to doing alot of charity work as well as the possibility of teaching. Consulting is an option but that may require travel and once I hang it up, I honestly dont want to see an airport, or the inside of a hotel room again unless it is on Maui on vacation

Thanks again to all who have responded and helped. I greatly appreciate the help. I have worked my entire life to get to where I am at today and I have learned a very important lesson about getting what you ask for and there is absolutely a cost for added responsibility. I see alot of ambition in the younger people coming up in my industry and I try to help them see what it is really about. I love what I do, but unfortunately the cost to health, family and life is more then I personally want to take on...

 

[Milton]

Group: Does this thread tell you-all something about Seattle?

What are you trying to say?

 

[LeavingOhio]

You want to ER on only $6MM? You might want to wait until you've built your nest egg up to $10MM. That's pretty much considered the minimum around here.

Are you serious? I'm new here, so maybe this is just a joke. If a person has $6 million dollars, they can take 4% of that a year and have a salary of $240,000. If a person (even a couple) can't retire early on that, then they've got some splainin' to do. I always assume a person doesn't retire unless they are debt free including owning their home outright (if they want to sell a paid for house and put that money in a fund that will then handle rent until death, then ok).

If you're retiring REALLY early like before age 50, then taking just 2% of that for a while would give you $120,000 a year and allow your money to significantly grow still over time. Only but in the most expensive areas of the country would it it tough to live on $120,000 assuming you had a paid for home and no debt whatsoever.

 

[pb4uski]

Leaving, I suspect that 2B was being snarky. Lots of that around here - you'll get used to it.

 

[2B]

Leaving, I suspect that 2B was being snarky. Lots of that around here - you'll get used to it.

I was definitely being snarky. I find it amazing someone making $500K is as clueless as portrayed in their post. This is also significantly outside our typical "Hi, I am..." type posts. My initial thought (and possibly Ed's) is that this guy is possibly trolling. However, I haven't seen any signs to indicate this so I am probably wrong on this point.

If a true post, the OP needs to get a solid handle on his lifestyle costs and learn about asset allocation. He may actually be one of the few people I would actually recommend that they should see a fee only financial adviser. Before he does this, he needs to read William Bernstein's The Investor's Manifesto and understand where his expenses are. If he truly can't see how he can get by on "only" $240K/yr, he definitely needs to work until he dies.

 

[2B]

Are you serious? I'm new here, so maybe this is just a joke. If a person has $6 million dollars, they can take 4% of that a year and have a salary of $240,000. If a person (even a couple) can't retire early on that, then they've got some splainin' to do. I always assume a person doesn't retire unless they are debt free including owning their home outright (if they want to sell a paid for house and put that money in a fund that will then handle rent until death, then ok).

If you're retiring REALLY early like before age 50, then taking just 2% of that for a while would give you $120,000 a year and allow your money to significantly grow still over time. Only but in the most expensive areas of the country would it it tough to live on $120,000 assuming you had a paid for home and no debt whatsoever.

Yes grasshopper, you get it. Even with your low number of posts, you qualify as a forum expert. Unfortunately, the moderators reguarly rain on my parade so I doubt my recommendation will speed your "promotion" up the forum heirarchy.

You will find those that disagree with the need to have a paid for house. I personally have a 3.875% 30 yr mortgage but I also have a small pension that will cover the payments until my death. Since both are non-COLA'd, I decided that was a better use of my limited non-tax deferred cash and it certainly isn't worth tapping my IRA earlier than planned.

 

[pb4uski]

.....My initial thought (and possibly Ed's) is that this guy is possibly trolling. However, I haven't seen any signs to indicate this so I am probably wrong on this point.....

You may be right. Or it might be someone who has been focused on career and less on personal finances, has achieved success and is now looking ahead and trying to learn and address personal finances.

If he is a troll, what could he possibly be trolling for? Good advice?

 

[REWahoo]

Unfortunately, the moderators reguarly rain on my parade so I doubt my recommendation will speed your "promotion" up the forum heirarchy.

But...but...you're such a supportive, positive, upbeat poster! I can't imagine why the mods would do such a thing.

 

[2B]

You may be right. Or it might be someone who has been focused on career and less on personal finances, has achieved success and is now looking ahead and trying to learn and address personal finances.

If he is a troll, what could he possibly be trolling for? Good advice?

If "single" I would have been more convinced he was trolling. "Rich guy in Seattle unattached" may have been intended as a lure. The other option would be the great "investment" he has made where he can make $500K/yr. In any case, nothing like that has arisen so my original suspicions do not appear correct.

This guy is no dummy. He needs to focus on the recommended reading list and educate himself. He's in a fabulous financial position; but like all of us, he can really screw things up if he goes off half-cocked.

 

[grasshopper]

Yes grasshopper, you get it. Even with your low number of posts, you qualify as a forum expert. Unfortunately, the moderators reguarly rain on my parade so I doubt my recommendation will speed your "promotion" up the forum heirarchy.

Hey leave me out of this

 

[pb4uski]

Perhaps you should change your screen name to Grasshopper (upper case "G") to avoid confucius around here.

 

[REWahoo]

Umm, you forgot about the other few million that were NOT annuitized and grew larger in the interim due to the annuity cashflow paying most of the bills...

Then why subject the annuitized $1M to guaranteed declining purchasing power when it could snuggle up to the other millions and participate in that same growth?

 

[2B]

Then why subject the annuitized $1M to guaranteed declining purchasing power when it could snuggle up to the other millions and participate in that same growth?

The topics we never achieve "consensus" include:

• SPIA to be or not to be?
• LTC Insurance will really be there
• "perfect" asset allocation
• reduced spending as we age (Bernicke)
• others?

I think this thread has wandered off to oblivion. Can someone bring up Nazis or make a political comment?

 

[REWahoo]

The topics we never achieve "consensus" include:

• SPIA to be or not to be?
• LTC Insurance will really be there
• "perfect" asset allocation
• reduced spending as we age (Bernicke)
• others?

How dare you leave out paying off the mtg early....

 

[jclarksnakes]

How dare you leave out paying off the mtg early....

No mortgage here for over a decade. And yet I still read and even occasionally participate in threads about paying off the mortgage.

 

[Gumby]

Well, I say the toilet paper goes over, not under.