Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
dorno

What's your age and the value of your 401k?

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

Yes, it was 7% after 2 years of employment (years 3-9 with no employer contribution for first 2 years).  The minimum amount you have to contribute to your 403(b) to get the employer contribution is 5%.  So, using your example, if base is $100K, you have to contribute $5K to your retirement account and employer puts in $10K.  I can still max out at $19K/year and they still put in $10K.

And if salary is $200K, they are contributing $20K as long as you put in $10K into your 403(b). 

I don't know how that compares to most others, though.  It's not really a "match" but labeled as employer contribution.

Its ridiculous and 99.9999% of people cant get that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 60 and feel I need 1 million + Social Security (over 40 years earning what a Software Engineer earns) and medicare to be comfortable.  Am I wrong?

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NutterButter said:

Some companies dont suck and will give you the full match regardless how you spread out your contributions.

Yeah, it’s called a “true-up” contribution and quite a few plans, particularly large ones, offer them. That way you don’t have to contribute each pay period to get the full benefit of the company match. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

Yes, it was 7% after 2 years of employment (years 3-9 with no employer contribution for first 2 years).  The minimum amount you have to contribute to your 403(b) to get the employer contribution is 5%.  So, using your example, if base is $100K, you have to contribute $5K to your retirement account and employer puts in $10K.  I can still max out at $19K/year and they still put in $10K.

And if salary is $200K, they are contributing $20K as long as you put in $10K into your 403(b). 

I don't know how that compares to most others, though.  It's not really a "match" but labeled as employer contribution.

Yeah, that’s slightly different than a company match, they phrase it that way for a reason 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

Yes, it was 7% after 2 years of employment (years 3-9 with no employer contribution for first 2 years).  The minimum amount you have to contribute to your 403(b) to get the employer contribution is 5%.  So, using your example, if base is $100K, you have to contribute $5K to your retirement account and employer puts in $10K.  I can still max out at $19K/year and they still put in $10K.

And if salary is $200K, they are contributing $20K as long as you put in $10K into your 403(b). 

I don't know how that compares to most others, though.  It's not really a "match" but labeled as employer contribution.

It blows away most publicly traded companies.  3% to 5% match is most common for companies that match.  I believe most 401ks don’t match at all.  Employee 5% and Employer 10% is common at colleges and universities.  I worked with one University that contributed 16% and the employee did not need contribute at all.  That’s the highest I’ve seen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I'm 60 and feel I need 1 million + Social Security (over 40 years earning what a System Engineer earns) and medicare to be comfortable.  Am I wrong?

If you're good with $35K - $38K/year plus your SS and little to no emergency funds.  

But clearly a lot of people survive on a lot less.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Binky The Doormat said:

If you're good with $35K - $38K/year plus your SS and little to no emergency funds.  

But clearly a lot of people survive on a lot less.  

I think we can do better than that with what I described. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I think we can do better than that with what I described. 

Just quoting the typical safe level of draw downs.  Go to Firecalc and play with the level of safety with which you are comfortable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Binky The Doormat said:

Just quoting the typical safe level of draw downs.  Go to Firecalc and play with the level of safety with which you are comfortable.  

All I know is that a million plus SS  and medicare isn't safe.  Those who think less is safe.....well, we are all different and our standard of living is different.  What I do know is that my mother-in-law had 500k and has outlived her money and is in a nursing home, not assisted living.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

I'm 60 and feel I need 1 million + Social Security (over 40 years earning what a System Engineer earns) and medicare to be comfortable.  Am I wrong?

Binky is right, unless you have other income. Use the 3.5-4% rule. I don't know what your SS will be, but I'd sure want more than $1 million plus SS, in 20 years. 

We're fairly frugal people and plan to have $3M plus around $80k in pensions by the time we fully retire. Maybe that's more than we really need, but I'm good with that..

7 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

All I know is that a million plus SS  and medicare isn't safe.  Those who think less is safe.....well, we are all different and our standard of living is different.  What I do know is that my mother-in-law had 500k and has outlived her money and is in a nursing home, not assisted living.

Right. It's only "safe" if you have other income. And/or no debt including mortgage. 

Edited by -OZ-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

I'm 60 and feel I need 1 million + Social Security (over 40 years earning what a Software Engineer earns) and medicare to be comfortable.  Am I wrong?

Depends where you live

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Depends where you live

Exactly

 

If you live in Otis's neighborhood you are 10% of the way there 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, -OZ- said:

Binky is right, unless you have other income. Use the 3.5-4% rule. I don't know what your SS will be, but I'd sure want more than $1 million plus SS, in 20 years. 

We're fairly frugal people and plan to have $3M plus around $80k in pensions by the time we fully retire. Maybe that's more than we really need, but I'm good with that..

Right. It's only "safe" if you have other income. And/or no debt including mortgage. 

The more I look into it, the more I think the 4% rule is too conservative and leads people to think they need much more in retirement than they might need. Of course, as we say throughout this whole thread, it really depends on what your goals are. But, the 4% rule is based on the assumption that if you withdraw at 4% and can earn 4% then your balance will never go away. I see a couple interesting assumptions built into that.

1) Someone might enter retirement with $1,000,000 with no great need to still have a $1,000,000 balance when they die. If we assume 4% annual returns, a 4% withdraw does indeed last forever, with decreasing purchasing power over time. But, a 4.5% withdraw will last about 56 years, which is more than enough time. 5% lasts 42 years; 5.5% is 33 years; 6% is 28 years. If someone is ok with not having $1,000,000 left over when they die, they can easily withdraw more.

2) The second assumption is only earning 4%/year. I get wanting to be conservative and safe in these situations, but that still seems low to me. If someone is planning on 30 years of retirement, a portion of their balance should still be in stocks. Looking at the history of some TSP funds, I could put $500,000 in L Income, $250,000 in F, and $250,000 in C, withdraw 6% and have a balance of $2,000,000 after 30 years (using historical averages for those funds). Or the smart thing to do would probably be to reallocate some of those C fund gains every so often into F and L Income to be a little safer. At a 6% withdraw, the L Income balance would last about 25 years, F would be indefinite, and C would gain. At some point, people should be safe, but if one is expecting another 30 years of life and spending, I think you still need to be a little aggressive there.

 

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dgreen said:

The more I look into it, the more I think the 4% rule is too conservative and leads people to think they need much more in retirement than they might need. Of course, as we say throughout this whole thread, it really depends on what your goals are. But, the 4% rule is based on the assumption that if you withdraw at 4% and can earn 4% then your balance will never go away. I see a couple interesting assumptions built into that.

1) Someone might enter retirement with $1,000,000 with no great need to still have a $1,000,000 balance when they die. If we assume 4% annual returns, a 4% withdraw does indeed last forever, with decreasing purchasing power over time. But, a 4.5% withdraw will last about 56 years, which is more than enough time. 5% lasts 42 years; 5.5% is 33 years; 6% is 28 years. If someone is ok with not having $1,000,000 left over when they die, they can easily withdraw more.

2) The second assumption is only earning 4%/year. I get wanting to be conservative and safe in these situations, but that still seems low to me. If someone is planning on 30 years of retirement, a portion of their balance should still be in stocks. Looking at the history of some TSP funds, I could put $500,000 in L Income, $250,000 in F, and $250,000 in C, withdraw 6% and have a balance of $2,000,000 after 30 years (using historical averages for those funds). Or the smart thing to do would probably be to reallocate some of those C fund gains every so often into F and L Income to be a little safer. At a 6% withdraw, the L Income balance would last about 25 years, F would be indefinite, and C would gain. At some point, people should be safe, but if one is expecting another 30 years of life and spending, I think you still need to be a little aggressive there.

 

The 4% rule isn't designed to last forever. It's a back tested rule over 30 years. Rates are lower now then they were for the vast majority of those periods. So many people are starting to suggest using 3-3.5% instead of 4%

You're overlooking (or minimizing the risk of) the possibility of a downturn after retirement, when you're no longer contributing. 

I'd rather leave my kids and grandkids in good shape financially than risk our not being able to pay for my wife's long term care after I die (pensions go with me). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dgreen - please go to Firecalc.  

Also - someone posted an even better, more detailed model site that I don't feel like looking for ...but Firecalc is a GREAT start.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Depends where you live

Depends how you live. Ramen noodles or filet mignon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Binky The Doormat said:

@dgreen - please go to Firecalc.  

Also - someone posted an even better, more detailed model site that I don't feel like looking for ...but Firecalc is a GREAT start.  

I love firecalc, but it's a bit crazy. Apparently if I live to 100, we'll have between our current portfolio and $63 million. I'm not sure just how helpful that is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -OZ- said:

I love firecalc, but it's a bit crazy. Apparently if I live to 100, we'll have between our current portfolio and $63 million. I'm not sure just how helpful that is.

I'm talking about understanding the multiple scenario simulations (someone here said they weren't actual Monte Carlo simulations) and the ability to better understand the levels of risk you have based on how much you have, how aggressively you invest it, and how much you withdraw each year.  

Yeah, the first time my wife and I saw the "hockey stick" amount at age 100 ...we chuckled.  Nice example of compound interest.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, -OZ- said:

The 4% rule isn't designed to last forever. It's a back tested rule over 30 years. Rates are lower now then they were for the vast majority of those periods. So many people are starting to suggest using 3-3.5% instead of 4%

You're overlooking (or minimizing the risk of) the possibility of a downturn after retirement, when you're no longer contributing. 

I'd rather leave my kids and grandkids in good shape financially than risk our not being able to pay for my wife's long term care after I die (pensions go with me). 

Hmm, I thought I read somewhere that the 4% rule was based on the idea that you reasonably get 4% returns. Anyway, with a 4% withdraw, you only need about 1.25% returns per year to last 30 years. A 2% annual return lasts 35 years. Those seem like low expectations for returns.

I'll admit I might minimize the risk of some huge downturn that devastates a portfolio during retirement. It's probably easy for me to minimize it when I have a decent pension and have lived through some good years. But, it's also not like I'm suggesting being aggressive with 100% of a portfolio. And, hopefully I don't come off as arguing that people should plan for great annual returns during retirement. It's generally best to plan for lower amounts and then be pleased when things are better. My assumption, though, is that in the end a person can do more than 4%, invest a decent portion of their portfolio in stocks and not run out after 30 years.

And I'm like you that I'd like to leave my kids and grandkids something nice. But, that's not everyone. Some people would be perfectly ok with spending every dollar they have before dining. Those people can almost certainly do more than 4%.

Long story short, I just don't think @JohnnyU should be overly concerned about "only" having a $1,000,000. It really just all depends on how much he plans to spend and how much he cares to have left over after X number of years. Tons and tons of people will live through retirement with much, much less. If I had $1,000,000 and SS and was really ready to just not work any more, I would easily make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people consistently overlook the possibility of ramen noodles with filet mignon?

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, pecorino said:

Depends how you live. Ramen noodles or filet mignon?

Depends on who you want to live with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NutterButter said:

Depends on who you want to live with

If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Depends where you live

Depends wholly on his expenses and what he'll be able to supplement with SS.  For the vast majority of the population at 60, assuming big bills (house) are behind them, 1M + a good SS check coming at 65+ is a pretty comfortable place to be.  

 

2 hours ago, dgreen said:

2) The second assumption is only earning 4%/year. I get wanting to be conservative and safe in these situations, but that still seems low to me. If someone is planning on 30 years of retirement, a portion of their balance should still be in stocks. Looking at the history of some TSP funds, I could put $500,000 in L Income, $250,000 in F, and $250,000 in C, withdraw 6% and have a balance of $2,000,000 after 30 years (using historical averages for those funds). Or the smart thing to do would probably be to reallocate some of those C fund gains every so often into F and L Income to be a little safer. At a 6% withdraw, the L Income balance would last about 25 years, F would be indefinite, and C would gain. At some point, people should be safe, but if one is expecting another 30 years of life and spending, I think you still need to be a little aggressive there.

As Oz noted your ability to withdraw over the long term is dominated by sequence of return risks.  This is what a 2000 retiree balance looks like with 4%+ inflation withdrawals.  Pretty scary, particularly after 2009 when the market has really done well and that profile has flatlined. 

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sand said:

Depends wholly on his expenses and what he'll be able to supplement with SS.  For the vast majority of the population at 60, assuming big bills (house) are behind them, 1M + a good SS check coming at 65+ is a pretty comfortable place to be.  

 

As Oz noted your ability to withdraw over the long term is dominated by sequence of return risks.  This is what a 2000 retiree balance looks like with 4%+ inflation withdrawals.  Pretty scary, particularly after 2009 when the market has really done well and that profile has flatlined. 

I was going to post that time period would have been the worst to retire at but then I thought about all the kick ### returns they got in the 80s and 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sand said:

As Oz noted your ability to withdraw over the long term is dominated by sequence of return risks.  This is what a 2000 retiree balance looks like with 4%+ inflation withdrawals.  Pretty scary, particularly after 2009 when the market has really done well and that profile has flatlined. 

I can see that being scary for those people, but I see this as somewhat positive for us. Those who retired just before a big downturn are still on track to make it 30 years. That seems encouraging to me. I mean, these people in the chart are 18 years into retirement...so maybe around 78 years old. I feel like they have "enough". Old people don't spend a bunch.

What size worst case scenario are people trying to guard against? The size of another dot com crash? Great Depression?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 1:39 PM, joey said:

just in terms of 401k investment from my paycheck and annual limits, I always hit the max, but I adjust my annual investment % such that I max out as close to the end of the year as possible (as opposed to putting in a larger % that will have me hit the limit earlier in the year). My reasoning is: dolllar cost averaging.

Do folks generally agree with this approach?

I knock it out first 4-6 months (pending income).

Then I invest in a personal account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 9:26 AM, Tom Hagen said:

There are technically 2 limits.  The employee deferral limit of $19,000 and the overall plan limit of $56,000.  Both are increased by $6,000 for employees over 50.  Pre-tax contributions are limited to $19,000.  Total contributions from all sources (including employer match or profit sharing) are limited to $56,000.  Some plans allow after tax employee contributions as long as all employee + employer contributions  don't exceed the overall $56,000 limit.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/2019-irs-401k-contribution-limits.aspx

 

Thank you.  Please check my math for 2020.

I contribute 19500.  Match is 9750.  Profit share Bonus 15000 into 401k.  $44250 total.

$56000 - $44250 = $11750 that I can contribute post tax, then following the aforementioned steps, roll over to Roth?

eta - I am both happy and pissed to learn this right now. :thumbup::rant:

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dgreen said:

I can see that being scary for those people, but I see this as somewhat positive for us. Those who retired just before a big downturn are still on track to make it 30 years. That seems encouraging to me. I mean, these people in the chart are 18 years into retirement...so maybe around 78 years old. I feel like they have "enough". Old people don't spend a bunch.

What size worst case scenario are people trying to guard against? The size of another dot com crash? Great Depression?

The nikkei crash of 1990 is my personal favorite

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you guys that happen to live in areas with higher wages and cost of living have it made.

You pay more for everything, but that is offset by higher earnings.  Higher earnings means a much greater ability to max out 401Ks, HSAs, Roths.......and maybe even the biggest perk is your company match on the 401k/403b which is going to be much higher because it is based on a percentage of your earnings.

So when all is said and done and you hit your 50s you probably have a paid off 600k house which is probably the same quality as my 150k house, you were able to max out more retirement vehicles, and you have an extra large lump sum because you have 30 years of a higher company match.

I could have the exact same job as some of you but because of where you live, your net worth is going to be near double mine even if we invested the exact same way.  

Bottom line, when you retire, just move to a lower cost of living area and live like a king.  🤑

Edited by ghostguy123
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostguy123 said:

Some of you guys that happen to live in areas with higher wages and cost of living have it made.

You pay more for everything, but that is offset by higher earnings.  Higher earnings means a much greater ability to max out 401Ks, HSAs, Roths.......and maybe even the biggest perk is your company match on the 401k/403b which is going to be much higher because it is based on a percentage of your earnings.

So when all is said and done and you hit your 50s you probably have a 500k house which is probably the same quality as my 150k house, you were able to max out more retirement vehicles, and you have an extra large lump sum because you have 30 years of a higher company match.

I could have the exact same job as some of you but because of where you live, your net worth is going to be near double mine even if we invested the exact same way.  

Bottom line, just move to a lower cost of living area and live like a king.  🤑

Provided your wage is adjusted accordingly, yeah, its a good deal.    It gives you a lot of options in retirement.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the match talk made me go look mine up. Pretty sure they aren’t calculating it right and didn’t all of last year. Worth checking out if you are lazy like me and just assumed it was right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Juxtatarot said:

I was going to post that time period would have been the worst to retire at but then I thought about all the kick ### returns they got in the 80s and 90s.

Yeah, that's kind of the thing though. If you get huge gains and retire after barely making your FI number, that's a risk. 

I won't predict a similar crash but the rise since 2009 is similar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, NutterButter said:

Provided your wage is adjusted accordingly, yeah, its a good deal.    It gives you a lot of options in retirement.   

The guys with 500k+ houses ask around, how much do registered nurses with a bachelor's degree with 15 years experience make in your area (only ask about the nurses who work inpatient for the major hospital systems in the area).

Comparatively, my house is a 2000 square foot bi-level on a half acre.  2 car attached garage.  4 bedroom 2 full bath, central air.  Probably worth 150k here.

 

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just doing a quick search the average RN salary in Ohio is 65k, while in California it is 102k.

That salary discrepancy probably provides no difference in standard of living for your working life(except better weather), but in the end the difference in net worth would be incredibly significant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matuski said:

Thank you.  Please check my math for 2020.

I contribute 19500.  Match is 9750.  Profit share Bonus 15000 into 401k.  $44250 total.

$56000 - $44250 = $11750 that I can contribute post tax, then following the aforementioned steps, roll over to Roth?

eta - I am both happy and pissed to learn this right now. :thumbup::rant:

Your math is right but the Annual Total Contribution increased to $57,000 for 2020. So $12,750.  Most likely you won’t be able to roll over into a Roth until you separate from your employer.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 8:33 PM, JohnnyU said:

I'm 60 and feel I need 1 million + Social Security (over 40 years earning what a Software Engineer earns) and medicare to be comfortable.  Am I wrong?

:hifive:   This is about what I've been targeting.  I'm now 64, but I plan on working (univ professor) for another five years since it's not a bad gig.  That means I won't need to touch SS until I have to, which allows for the extra 8% growth per year.  Also, each year I work is replacing a current year's earnings for one of my early annual earnings, which also pushes up the SS number.  With it clear, now, that I'll keep working for a while, and with the incredible investment growth in 2019, I'm in good shape.  House has been paid off for a while, so that helps, too.

Something I never see or hear about is the additional benefit that, in retirement, two things that will help: (1) I won't have the 10% coming out that has fed into the retirement account, and (2) when I retire and switch to Medicare, I won't be paying health premium through my employer (though I expect to pay some Medicare supplements).  But the effect of these two factors is that my gross monthly income in retirement won't need to be as high as my current gross pay to achieve the same net amount.

As others discuss, I anticipate a 3 or 4% draw per year upon retirement. Even if my conservative returns are just 2%, the investment pot will last a really long time.  Between this pot and healthy whole life insurance policies, my kids will find something to be happy about when I croak. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Some of you guys that happen to live in areas with higher wages and cost of living have it made.

You pay more for everything, but that is offset by higher earnings.  Higher earnings means a much greater ability to max out 401Ks, HSAs, Roths.......and maybe even the biggest perk is your company match on the 401k/403b which is going to be much higher because it is based on a percentage of your earnings.

So when all is said and done and you hit your 50s you probably have a paid off 600k house which is probably the same quality as my 150k house, you were able to max out more retirement vehicles, and you have an extra large lump sum because you have 30 years of a higher company match.

I could have the exact same job as some of you but because of where you live, your net worth is going to be near double mine even if we invested the exact same way.  

Bottom line, when you retire, just move to a lower cost of living area and live like a king.  🤑

you can buy more cheap rentals than they can and have way more passive income and wealth in the long run.  You are too young to have 100% paid rentals.  Leave 40% equity in one and put 30% down on two more and let those renters pay the entire mortgage balance.  Rinse and repeat every 5-7 years with the equity until you get 20+ units.  Then 1031 them all into a 50+ unit place.  Retire with $10k/month

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lion to myself said:

Your math is right but the Annual Total Contribution increased to $57,000 for 2020. So $12,750.  Most likely you won’t be able to roll over into a Roth until you separate from your employer.  

Good point about the 2020 increase and the math looks correct to me. Some plans allow in-service rollovers but not all. It seems like @matuski indicated his does. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:

you can buy more cheap rentals than they can and have way more passive income and wealth in the long run.  You are too young to have 100% paid rentals.  Leave 40% equity in one and put 30% down on two more and let those renters pay the entire mortgage balance.  Rinse and repeat every 5-7 years with the equity until you get 20+ units.  Then 1031 them all into a 50+ unit place.  Retire with $10k/month

Rinse and repeat every 5-7 years?  I will be dead before I get to 20 rentals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ghostguy123 said:

Rinse and repeat every 5-7 years?  I will be dead before I get to 20 rentals.

ghostguy143 then.    I thought you were young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:

ghostguy143 then.    I thought you were young.

I am 39. I have 2 rentals.

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

I am 39. I have 2 rentals.

I had 1 rental at age 39.  53 rentals now.  You can do this if you want to. And very safely.

Edited by Getzlaf15
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:

you can buy more cheap rentals than they can and have way more passive income and wealth in the long run.  You are too young to have 100% paid rentals.  Leave 40% equity in one and put 30% down on two more and let those renters pay the entire mortgage balance.  Rinse and repeat every 5-7 years with the equity until you get 20+ units.  Then 1031 them all into a 50+ unit place.  Retire with $10k/month

Sound like a friend of mine, he had about 25 rentals and sold 3 off recently.  He's made his money doing real estate for commercial development in Pasadena, but he's always had a knack for the rentals.  I'm just at 4 now, got a 5th coming online later this year.  My friend and I are considering going in partnership for a commercial property in the near future.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Sound like a friend of mine, he had about 25 rentals and sold 3 off recently.  He's made his money doing real estate for commercial development in Pasadena, but he's always had a knack for the rentals.  I'm just at 4 now, got a 5th coming online later this year.  My friend and I are considering going in partnership for a commercial property in the near future.

You are friends with @timschochet?

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Come to think of it they could know each other.  

We might but probably not. I haven’t done a lot of stuff in Pasadena. 25 rentals is pretty nice. I specialize in shopping centers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

We might but probably not. I haven’t done a lot of stuff in Pasadena. 25 rentals is pretty nice. I specialize in shopping centers. 

Cool, may not have met him then.  He does do a lot of deals where commercial development is coming in, you'd probably have heard of the partnership he works with.  He's put in a lot of work, moved out there back in late 1999 maybe 2000 I think it was.  The best money he's made is the guys who are the large players just letting him buy in for what is to them small stakes or giving him slivers of deals for his work.  He's really done well at it.  Of course real estate in that area the past 20 years has been insane.  I remember when he bought his house out there, he moved with the company we both worked for at the time.  He had what we called differential to adjust for his move.  That house skyrocketed in value though.  What's insane is he needed more space but his lot was so valuable it made more sense to level his house except for one wall and basically rebuild it with an upstairs. 

He actually is one of the most successful people I know well, if not the most successful.  Yet he runs in daily business with these guys making 8 and 9 figure deals so he feels like he's not super well off.  I tell him all the time, you are comparing yourself to the very top end of the very top end market in the country.

Edited by Shula-holic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Rinse and repeat every 5-7 years?  I will be dead before I get to 20 rentals.

See, its you guys in the low cost of living areas that have it made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

The guys with 500k+ houses ask around, how much do registered nurses with a bachelor's degree with 15 years experience make in your area (only ask about the nurses who work inpatient for the major hospital systems in the area).

Comparatively, my house is a 2000 square foot bi-level on a half acre.  2 car attached garage.  4 bedroom 2 full bath, central air.  Probably worth 150k here.

 

Nurses in HI earn roughly $80-90K. Don’t know how that changes with degree and experience.
 

My house is smaller than yours on a lot less than 10000 square feet, but worth about $900K (bought it for 600).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read this thread, I feel so insecure. Then I realize you guys are all old and that I have time to get monster balances too. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.