Page 1 of 2

Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:02 pm
by GandK
OK, so Bankrate.com isn't quite the wild. But still... was pleasantly surprised when I saw him crop up in a feature highlighting different people who had retired early "without a fortune."
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirem ... px#slide=1
Congratulations, Jacob!


Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:45 pm
by JohnnyH
Cool, thanks GnK!

That 400 [x monthlies] number keeps popping up... Both Jacob and Syd (anyone know her blog?) seemed to follow that and/or the 3% drawdown rule... I am curious how Gary was able to retire with only 84x monthly expenses saved. Must have had some incredible investment returns/luck. Retire on $350k with 50k annual expenses? Yikes.
I remember the first time I read the 400 number many years ago, I calc'd mine and I think I was around 60. Was running numbers on how much a new small house of mine will reduce my expenses when I move in... 396 x monthlies, I couldn't believe it. :D


Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:03 pm
by George the original one
> Retire on $350k with 50k annual expenses? Yikes.
14% withdrawl rate. Possibly because he and his wife only had to cover 13 years until SS kicked in? Maybe his wife continued working? If he had rental income and/or a rental property that could be sold, then it wouldn't be so tough.


Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:23 pm
by chenda
Gary's profile does'nt add up, even with SS he is still getting a ~ 10% return (more if his income is taxable?)Though the $350k figure was 17 years ago so perhaps it grew in real terms somehow...


Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:09 pm
by jennypenny
I agree Chenda, unless he bought 30yr CDs in the late 80s. He must be invested in real estate or a business.
Very cool Jacob. Nice photo. You could be the next James Bond...

http://tinyurl.com/nextjamesbond


Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:57 am
by jacob
That article was written a LOOONG time ago.
Note that Gary's 350k was 17 years ago whereas the 50k number is present ... rule of thumb says that with inflation, money doubles every two decades, so that's 700k today. Also, that 350k would have seen a lot of the 1990s meaning it's probably quite a bit higher today.


Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:03 am
by dot_com_vet
That is great, I think I remember reading part of it before I discovered this site. (Never made the connection.)


Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:01 pm
by GandK
If it was written a long time ago I'm extremely amused, since Fox News ran it yesterday also:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-fin ... -possible/


Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:16 pm
by JohnnyH
@Jacob; yes, that makes sense.

They must have made some huge lifestyle changes because it says they spent 80k/yr before retiring... But if we double $350k and half 50k (current expenditures) they had roughly 336 x monthly expenditures. Which seems very doable, especially since they were close to SS.
@GandK: Damn, I was really hoping comments would have been enabled over on fox... There would have been some irate ones!


Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:35 pm
by livinlite
I think ya'll are missing that the $50K is split into $17K from social-security and $33K from investments. Still a pretty high number, but a little more tenable.


Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:37 pm
by mikeBOS
I know. Those blustering comment sections, where it appears people's heads are exploding, are half the fun.


Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:54 am
by jacob
Well, that kinda depends. When I'm on the receiving end of the splatter from people's heads exploding, it's not that fun.


Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:49 pm
by Spartan_Warrior
Just read the exact same story now on Yahoo Finance. So if you're looking for those blustering comments...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/early-ret ... rtune.html
(I can totally relate to your position Jacob--this shit would get really, really old fast--but I'm not you, and I can't help but find humor in all the outrageous, predictably stupid assumptions like this one: "It's a sure thing that the guy who's food is $100 is eating unhealthy processed junk." ROFL... so off the mark it's hilarious. Processed junk is MORE expensive than eating healthy. But they know so little about eating healthy that this is the only way they can think--pay a lot for processed, pre-prepared "healthy" food, or pay moderately less for processed, pre-prepared "junk" food. Cooking from inexpensive staples doesn't even occur to them. Talk about Plato's Cave.)


Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:59 pm
by secretwealth
I LOVE this reply to a comment that Jacob's wife will leave him:
"or sooner....She'll leave him for a guy with a job."
I wonder how they'd react if they knew Jacob is now working for a hedge fund. Oh, this is too funny!


Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:26 pm
by BPA
I love this thread!
And, of course, all women want is a man with a job! <eyeroll>
Off to read the comments.


Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:34 pm
by BPA
lol I love this comment: " When he gets older and not in as good physical shape or health, he will have deep regrets but no one will feel sorry for him." That's priceless coming from someone whose online name is Ilovepastrami.
Iloveirony!


Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 am
by jacob
If I ever needed an argument whether humanity is worth saving or whether it's better to go the way of the dinosaurs, the yahoo comments provide the argument against.


Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:04 am
by secretwealth
What emotional response should we make to these ridiculous responses? Really, it is a great demonstration of how a lot of people are too fixed on their own small world to see alternatives, whether that is by training or temperament. The comments about Jacob eating cheap processed food are particularly illuminating, as Spartan Warrior pointed out.
Honestly, I feel pity. These people simply do not realize how the entire culture around them is determining their behavior by convincing them through advertising, propaganda, and fear mongering that there is only a very, very limited set of options available to them.


Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:16 am
by jacob
I've reached a point [of personal abuse tolerance] where I prefer to outsource "saving the world", if that.


Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:33 am
by BPA
It's funny how they don't see their archaic "you should work hard all of the time because it was what I was taught and do" philosophy says more about their inability to open their minds than about the character of those who think working hard might not be the be all and end all.
It does inspire in me a desire to respond, "Neener neener neener! Your taxes pay for the library books I read!" or simply, "Suckers!"