Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

$700k to $1.1m in 10 years is about 4.6% annualized...that doesn’t seem that crazy.


sort by: page size:

Assuming 27 years of 10% compounding is quite the leap.

$75k income, increasing at 1% a year, saving 15% each year, investing at 7% average returns over a 40 year career would give you $101k in retirement.

That doesn’t seem unreasonable.


Last time I crunched the numbers, $1M will provide security but probably not indefinitely sustainable income. If you manage 6-7% in the stock market, that's $60-70k/year, but 6-7% is the decade-over-decade average. Any one given year can be 1% (or even negative).

$10M on the other hand provides solidly middle-class income even in years of terrible market performance.


Ten years is short. Thirty years at 6% gives you $200k, for instance.

$1,500 invested yearly, at 7% interest, generates ~60k in 20 years. So even at your inflated income estimates, this is definitely worth thinking about.

I agree about the 10% return being unrealistic, but I don't think $10,000 per year is right either. His spreadsheet shows $474,000 after 20 years. A 4% withdrawal rate on that is $18,960, which is still not exactly lavish, but more than enough to live on where I come from. Especially if your house is paid for, your healthcare is covered and your car doesn't break down very often. That's actually pretty close to my annual expenditure, and I rent, have to pay for health insurance, and my car breaks down all the damn time.

17% is an amazing annual return, not just ‘okayish’

$100,000 would be worth $2.3 million in 20 years and $11.1 million in 30.


How'd you do your math? 50k every year @ 8% would result in 317k and 782k in 5 and 10 years respectively.

it's not that absurd when you consider opportunity costs. even if your actual expenses are only 10k/yr, at a 7% avg rate of return, after 17 years you're down 170k plus ~140k in lost interest. at 20k/yr you hit 340k plus ~280k in lost interest.

I agree that 10-15% is a little optimistic, but even with a more realistic 4-7% you'd still have $300,000-500,000 at the end of 30 years, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Take out $10k every few years....

And if they're making a 7% rate of return for 27 years, how's the person who already had $10 million in wealth and earning 7% per year ($700k per year in wealth appreciation alone from year 1) changing during those 27 years?

If you put these 700k in Vanguard, you could get ~3.21% per year forever. That works out to 22k$/year. Perhaps it's below poverty line in US, but for some countries that could be upper part of middle-class income.

sure but if you keep spending moderate, it may grow to $2.5M-$3M, as it would probably already be around $2M in those 10 years. Instead of $8M at 60, perhaps you've spent along the way and only end up with $3M at 60?

The golden rule is to spend no more than 4% of your assets per year, so it's quite doable.

$1m US gives a 5% roi over 10 years. That's $50k, not exactly a comfortable life for most people.

$10m, sure, you should be able to net $200k while still topping up your fund to cope with inflation, so you'd be well off.


A 10% raise per year over 3 decades means 17x your original salary, earning you $1.7m annually by 50. Probably not something you can reliably plan for. That's why it's important to keep consumption in check.

$10k gets you $32 a month, roughly. And that's not even an especially safe rate of return - true fixed income would be closer to 4% before inflation, i.e. 2.5% after inflation.

I was curious how much of the $1.1M was just inflation, since $184k is a total of amounts invested over fifty years. I get $322k in 2019 dollars.
next

Legal | privacy