Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by siberianbear 4086 days ago
This subject has been researched in great detail. There's lots of great information all over the Internet. I recommend these two blogs if you want to learn more:

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/

The TL;DR is this: you need to be able to live off about 3.5% of your portfolio for one year. That will allow you to avoid depleting your principal over a very long term, and also give yourself an inflation-adjusted raise every year so you maintain your spending power. Often people quote a “4%” rule, but I think it’s meant for people that retire at a more “normal” time in their lives. The extra 0.5% actually makes a big difference in the probability that your portfolio can fail.

So, if you have a million dollars, you need to live off $35K a year.

If you’re willing to really change your lifestyle, you can retire off $500K, which would give you $17K a year. It doesn’t sound like much in Silicon Valley, but that will put you in the top tier of income in a place like the Philippines.

I don’t want to post my own net worth because it might come across as chest-beating. I’ve been living in a few places that are a lot cheaper than the United States, so my expenses are low. Over the last three years I’ve been averaging living off slightly less than 2% of my net worth annually. So, I’m REALLY safe by the “3.5% rule”. My net worth is higher than when I retired.

I’m enjoying my life. Every day is a clean slate. There is nowhere that I have to be at two o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon. I can read or take a walk, go to the gym, or tinker with some computer language. I like this life. I sure hope I did all the math right, because if I have to back to a cubicle in Silicon Valley it’s going to be REALLY painful for me. No amount of free sushi by your employer is enough to compensate you for your lack of freedom.

2 comments

That sounds fantastic, I'd love to read a more in depth blog post about this!
The reference blog post from Mr Money Mustache is: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim...

Essentially, your income in retirement should not be dictated by your current income, but by your current level of expenses. If you can save a multiple of your current annual expenses, and that multiple is high enough to account for real-terms investment gains, you're financially independent: you don't need to work any more.

The number generally used is 25x, which corresponds to real-terms gains of 4% per year on your savings.

@wsstrange:

The S&P 500 is 50% above its 2008 peak on May 8, 2008.[1] That's a 5% annual compounded return ((210/140)^(1/7)). And that's using the 2008 peak: if I use the lowest price from 2008 (in December), your return would have been 8.8% annually. Inflation (at least in USD) has been benign during this period, so probably there has been a real 4% return during that period. I don't know how you concluded that you didn't get a 4% real return during this period.

If you look at the stock market over any short-term (<15 years) it will be quite volatile. Over very long periods it is more regular. If you're investing in the stock market, you must take a very long time horizon.

If you really want to understand this topic in more details and whether your portfolio is likely to fail over some period of time, I encourage you to play with FireCalc [2].

[1] http://tinyurl.com/poz7trc [2] http://www.firecalc.com/

It's a great read. The one thing that concerns me is the assumption that your investments will earn 5% after inflation.

That has been very difficult (at least for me) since 2008.

Might I ask what places you would recommend?