Are you Retirement Rich if you've saved $465k?

[Cassius King]

I'd adapt and find a way. Everyone of us lives to or under what our portfolio value is.

 

[Lorenzo]

I'd adapt and find a way. Everyone of us lives to or under what our portfolio value is.

Most of us would, but perhaps not all could. I haven't been a member here very long, but I saw a couple of mentions of stories of people (former/inactive members?) having to un-retire and go back to work. I guess sometimes there are miscalculations and it just can't be done. The OP asked how long we believe we could remain retired on that amount.

 

[SloHan]

465k in retirement savings is a good amount saved. More money than many will have saved. For me not enough to early retire. Would probably have continued working till age 65 and Medicare /SS. What would that lifestyle be like hmmm… more than enuff, but mindful of expenses.

 

[Fermion]

Most of us would, but perhaps not all could. I haven't been a member here very long, but I saw a couple of mentions of stories of people (former/inactive members?) having to un-retire and go back to work. I guess sometimes there are miscalculations and it just can't be done. The OP asked how long we believe we could remain retired on that amount.

Really? I have not seen very many mentions of having to go back to work on here. My impression is that in this market everyone is growing their portfolio far beyond what they expected.

 

[jazz4cash]

Really? I have not seen very many mentions of having to go back to work on here. My impression is that in this market everyone is growing their portfolio far beyond what they expected.

Same here. The most I recall is vague 3rd party anecdotes. You almost never hear casino goers talk about losses and it's unlikely a member here would announce their dilemma. I do recall some tongue-in-cheek comments from members saying they "failed" but it was not due to lack of assets.

 

[akck]

I believe that was around our number when I retired, but we had pensions and social security which now covers our expenses except for some travel.

 

[junkanoo]

If you're 75, with no debt and a paid off house, yes
if you're 70, probably
if you're 65, maybe...
if you're 60, it will be tight, real tight, and better have SS on the upper end
if you're 55, start interviewing to be a greeter in 5 years.

Which reminds me ... I'm late for work.

 

[GravitySucks]

Rich? No.

But with OPs clarification on it being Me, now that I’m full retirement age and could apply for my SS I could live a good life at that level. It would fund my regular spending plus a few weeks away during the winter. Visits to family and friends. A decent car or two before I die.

How long? Guess till I die.

I certainly wouldn’t have retired early on that unless forced to due to health issues.

 

[Lorenzo]

Really? I have not seen very many mentions of having to go back to work on here. My impression is that in this market everyone is growing their portfolio far beyond what they expected.

Same here. The most I recall is vague 3rd party anecdotes. You almost never hear casino goers talk about losses and it's unlikely a member here would announce their dilemma. I do recall some tongue-in-cheek comments from members saying they "failed" but it was not due to lack of assets.

I was just balking at the "everyone of us" in the post I was replying to. Not everyone successfully retires for the rest of their lives on what they believed they could at the time they made the decision, but the ones who miscalculated and felt they had to go back to work are likely very few in number. In the couple of years I have been on the forum I recall seeing one or two references to such a person, and indeed they may have been hearsay anecdotes. I do believe I recall the story being that the person was a member of this forum. (The context of the discussion, if I recall, was that the (few) people who miscalculated don't tend to participate here anymore--which is a shame because their insights could be helpful to others trying to avoid similar miscalculations, but I digress.) And it was not in "this market" but most likely an effect of the 2008 financial crisis.

 

[bada bing]

I retired 6 years ago at age 61. Somewhat late by Early Retirement Standards. I've spent about $500K from portfolio in the last 6 years as well as brought in $200K from contracting hobby projects. So I couldn't have made it the last 6 years on $465K from when I retired and earlier would have been even worse..

But now I'm 67 and on Medicare. My deferred SS and pension have increased with delayed earnings credits. I only need to bridge another 2.5 years at most, to age 70 and SS + pension will cover it. So from today, I could live my lifestyle on a $465K portfolio. Tight, but do-able.

Actually, the worst case scenario in my plan at retirement was $1M was the minimum portfolio balance drawdown that would trigger lifestyle pullback and/or a j*b. Part of the reason it's that high is for the contingency of LTC or a CCRC. You're not going to fund retirement plus those stretch contingencies on $465K

It's useful to remember that recent market performance is better than a longer term view. We are on one of those higher performing squiggly lines on a FIREcalc outcome graph, at least so far. If you were confident that the performance would continue, then a $465K retirement plan would be a piece of cake.

 

[Just_Steve]

I have never seen 465k in my life. That being said between my pension and SS I get just under 100k a year after fed taxes, no state taxes on pension or SS. Wife will retire in June and collect 1 small pension and 1 baby pension, she might take SS in march. I retired at 55. I may not be rich but I want for nothing. Life is good.

 

[G-Money]

I have never seen 465k in my life. That being said between my pension and SS I get just under 100k a year after fed taxes, no state taxes on pension or SS. Wife will retire in June and collect 1 small pension and 1 baby pension, she might take SS in march. I retired at 55. I may not be rich but I want for nothing. Life is good.

I should have clarified that $465k is the only means of retirement income in addition to SS. People with pensions are going to have a different view because they see $465k as a nest egg on top of having a usually pretty good percentage of pre-retirement income still coming in monthly via pension, sometimes 2x if they also have a spouse on a pension.

The scenario in the original post is someone has amassed $465k in a federally-matched IRA over a lifetime of working/saving and investing and it's time to retire--or is it? I was/am generally curious how folks think they could make that work, at what age, and how long do they think it would last in their situation.

In your situation, if $100k annual income is the benchmark, what you receive now, you'd likely run a $465k IRA dry fairly quickly. If you retired at 55, you could possibly be looking at returning to work in your 60's. Or do you think that assessment is incorrect?

 

[RetiredHappy]

I should have clarified that $465k is the only means of retirement income in addition to SS. People with pensions are going to have a different view because they see $465k as a nest egg on top of having a usually pretty good percentage of pre-retirement income still coming in monthly via pension, sometimes 2x if they also have a spouse on a pension.

The scenario in the original post is someone has amassed $465k in a federally-matched IRA over a lifetime of working/saving and investing and it's time to retire--or is it? I was/am generally curious how folks think they could make that work, at what age, and how long do they think it would last in their situation.

In your situation, if $100k annual income is the benchmark, what you receive now, you'd likely run a $465k IRA dry fairly quickly. If you retired at 55, you could possibly be looking at returning to work in your 60's. Or do you think that assessment is incorrect?

The other question is then related to age and whether it pertains to single or couple. If the couple retires at 70 and brings in $100K in SS, the $465K will continue to grow.

 

[CO-guy]

"Are you Retirement Rich if you've saved $465k?"

No. Not even close. Could you survive on $465k in savings? Sure, depending on where in the US or world you're living.

 

[marko]

I think I'd have to take my dream of a private jet off the table.

 

[Lawrencewendall]

FIRECalc looked at the 136 possible 20 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $465,000 and spending $120,000 each year thereafter.

Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 136 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $112,870 to $2,106,282, with an average at the end of $772,004. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)

For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 20 years. FIRECalc found that 0 cycles failed, for a success rate of 100.0%.

 

[bada bing]

"Are you Retirement Rich if you've saved $465k?"

No. Not even close. Could you survive on $465k in savings? Sure, depending on where in the US or world you're living.

$465K plus at least $1K/month in SS will get a nice lifestyle for a single in several foreign countries. You could live on the beach in Philippines, in the city in Thailand or in the mountains in Panama. The reason for >$1K in SS is that qualifies for a long term retirement visa in several ex-pat friendly countries. I personally really like the mountains in Panama, Costa Rica and Columbia and would consider going there for a few years even without financial incentives to move. DGF isn't on board with long term out of the country though.

 

[TickTock]

I should have clarified that $465k is the only means of retirement income in addition to SS.

I researched the original parameters. Younger workers (assume 27) w*rking 40 years (so SS FRA at retirement) and making the full Saver's Match of $1k/yr - so MFJ MAGI of <=$41k (this will be adjusted yearly for inflation). $465k discounted at 3% inflation for 40 years is a real $143k, doubled for a couple. FRA for that income level might be around $1k /month per person.

Yearly income: $24k plus .04 * 286 = $11.4k for a yearly total of $35.4k.

Doesn't seem rich to me. But I think it would maintain their standard of living in retirement.

 

[Al18]

I don’t believe those Firecalc results - makes no sense with annual $120K withdrawals.

 

[bada bing]

FIRECalc looked at the 136 possible 20 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $465,000 and spending $120,000 each year thereafter.

Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 136 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $112,870 to $2,106,282, with an average at the end of $772,004. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)

For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 20 years. FIRECalc found that 0 cycles failed, for a success rate of 100.0%.

You've added or dropped a zero in your Firecalc inputs. Every instance fails with the portfolio plus $50K of SS for a $120K/year budget. A 0% success rate.

 

[Gallaher]

Retire on $465k and SS?
No, not a chance. I would find it easier to go make $200K a year and postpone retirement until I could spend at least $100K a year.
Just my thoughts

 

[NW-Bound]

Really? I have not seen very many mentions of having to go back to work on here. My impression is that in this market everyone is growing their portfolio far beyond what they expected.

This was back in the Great Recession, i.e. the 2008-2009 time frame. I just joined this forum back then. We were talking a lot about the Great Depression with the soup lines, and then the Dust Bowl, etc...

 

[GenXguy]

The OP is asking two completely different questions.

1) Are you Retirement Rich if you've saved $465k?

This in a vacuum is definitely not rich. No mention of having any other retirement income. So, that implies that's an early retiree couple trying to squeeze by with only that for maybe 40 years, with no SS, no pension, and no free medicare part A because you haven't worked 40 quarters. How can anyone even ask if that's retirement rich??

2) If you have $465k saved, when do you think you could retire, for how long, and what would your lifestyle look like?

Based on the above, living with just that, probably would never retire until I couldn't work, especially if a couple with high expenses, and that $465,000 is all the couple has to live on.

It seems like the poll questions keep getting worse. lol

 

[Lawrencewendall]

Forgot that I left in my own data in the other tabs. Disregard.

 

[Al18]

I used the rich, broke or dead calculator at Rich, Broke or Dead? Post-Retirement FIRE Calculator: Visualizing Early Retirement Success and Longevity Risk - Engaging Data and using a retirement age of 65, $120K of annual spending, average SS benefit, $465K of assets and 70% stock/28% bond/2% cash. There is an 88.9% chance you’ll be broke by 70 and 11.1% you’ll be dead.