Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
Thankfully I learned from my dad completely ****ing his retirement so I've been relatively responsible and have a pretty decent amount in my 401k. For those of you much smarter than I, am I on track to be in a decent place come retirement age if I just let it be in a passive fund or should I be more aggressive and invest myself?
32 years old.
Current balance in 401k bit over 100k.
Current contributions are roughly 9%, matched by employer, averages out to about 250 per week.
I ran the numbers in a simple manner, assuming a $250 per week contribution that increases by the long-term inflation rate of 2.9 percent each year. Then I took your starting balance and assumed a 9 percent return, which is the long-term average if you're 100 percent into stocks.
With those assumptions, you'd end up with about 14 times your salary at the age of 65, which is good but less than optimum. To get it up to 20 times your salary, you'd need to up your contribution to $405 per week. I'm using a ratio of 20 because you'll also probably get Social Security, which will help.
A 9 percent return seems a bit aggressive to me if you're always keeping a little cash or other things, so you might need to go a little higher on the contributions.
Oh, and you're contributing 9 percent, but do you get any matching? That would make a big difference.
Edit: I see now that you already mentioned matching. Is that a 100% match? So you're contributing about $125 per week? Hang on. Let me rerun.
If the $250 per week is a 100% match, that would put you at 28 times your salary at Age 65, which would be great. [Reply]
My current contributions are 9% of 40 hours, which is roughly 126 per week. We don't actually have matching contributions, our employer puts in roughly 10% of our gross per week regardless of what you contribute. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
My current contributions are 9% of 40 hours, which is roughly 126 per week. We don't actually have matching contributions, our employer puts in roughly 10% of our gross per week regardless of what you contribute.
Ah, okay. I think that matches (roughly) my edit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
My current contributions are 9% of 40 hours, which is roughly 126 per week. We don't actually have matching contributions, our employer puts in roughly 10% of our gross per week regardless of what you contribute.
Just some general ballpark numbers people use to measure retirement savings by age. I strive to be at the top numbers for each age bracket.
Investor's Age Savings Benchmarks
30 0.5x of salary saved today
35 1x to 1.5x salary saved today
40 1.5x to 2.5x salary saved today
45 2.5x to 4x salary saved today
50 3.5x to 6x salary saved today
55 4.5x to 8x salary saved today
60 6x to 11x salary saved today
65 7.5x to 13.5x salary saved today
I always recommend people try saving between 10-15% of your income to get these numbers. You obviously have to live too but this becomes easier as you earn more through age, as long as your raises don't turn into lifestyle creep. Every raise you get requires a bump in your contribution of at least 1%.
Kudos to you thinking about it at your age. That's how you make sure you aren't working until you die. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
Rainman isn't kidding about the variance in those calculators. One give me 600,000 and the other gave me 6,000,000 at 67. What the fuck :-)
Use this one and put in 6-8% growth. I use 6% and try to hit my total marker that I want by age 60. If I get 8-10%, I'll be more loaded than I'd know what to do with for my lifestyle (I'm pretty simple).
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
My current contributions are 9% of 40 hours, which is roughly 126 per week. We don't actually have matching contributions, our employer puts in roughly 10% of our gross per week regardless of what you contribute.
10% is fucking insane! That's going to make you rich and could be a huge retention thing for you to consider is staying with your company.
I get a whopping 1% working for a small company. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sassy Squatch:
Yeah, they pretty much had to bump up the contribution to 10% in lieu of giving us pensions to match the legacy employees.
Niiiiice.
Probably still cheaper for them but that’s a damn fine return.
Mine is a safe harbor qualified plan which means I have to offer better programs to make sure I’m not abusing my employees so I can contribute to it.
My match is 100% of the first 3% 50% of the next 2 so the employee has to contribute 5 to get 4.
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
They're saying this last data breach got the Social Security number of EVERY American. And it's already been leaked on the Dark web. They tried to sell it for 3.5 Million but it got leaked instead the way I understood it.
I'm freezing my credit tomorrow. Couldn't find the link Lewdog posted awhile back so came up with this one.
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
They're saying this last data breach got the Social Security number of EVERY American. And it's already been leaked on the Dark web. They tried to sell it for 3.5 Million but it got leaked instead the way I understood it.
I'm freezing my credit tomorrow. Couldn't find the link Lewdog posted awhile back so came up with this one.
According to a post from a cybersecurity expert on X, formerly Twitter, USDoD claims to be selling the 2.9 billion records for citizens of the U.S., U.K. and Canada on the dark web for $3.5 million.
Since the information was posted for sale in April, others have released different copies of the data, according to the cybersecurity and technology news site Bleeping Computer.
A hacker known as "Fenice" leaked the most complete version of the data for free on a forum in August, Bleeping Computer reported.
