On 2007-10-29, Sgt.Sausage <nobody[at]nowhere.com> wrote:
- quote -

Also, you can consider partial retirement instead of full retirement.
Such as running some easy, fun, low profit business a few hours a
day. Does not have to be fancy, for example it could be consulting in
your area of expertise.

i

"PeterL" <po.ning[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193331924.091650.97760[at]k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

- quote -


At 26, I didn't want to work when I was 26.
Today -- at 38, I don't want to work when I'm 38.

The odds are in favor of the answer being: At 45, I
won't want to work at 45.

My original goal was 40. I'm there today at 38. I
don't have to work another day in my life and I
wouldn't have to change my lifestyle one bit to
continue for the rest of my life (assuming, of
course, no worldwide economic/financial melt-down,
in which case we're all doomed, no matter how
careful and redundant our planning and preparation).

Unfortunately, as the original goal of 40 is
quickly sneaking up on me, we've (wife and I) pushed
it back to 45 in the last couple of years.

Why?

It all boils down to this question: How much
money is "enough".

For me, no matter the situation, no matter how
much I've got right now, the answer always seems
to be "... just a little bit more than we've got
right now."

We kinda stepped back and said "OK, we've got
enough to live on in perpetuity right now, but
lets give it another 5 years _just_in_case_).

It's quite likely that I'll retire at 45 and before
my 46th b-day I'll be knee-deep in something else
just 'cause I won't know what to do with myself
all darned day. It's probably more likely that
I'll turn 45 and we'll still be thinking " ... just
a little bit more than we've got right now ..."

On Oct 29, 9:50 am, "learnf...[at]gmail.com" <learnf...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

I'm not sure what you mean by inflation in the great depression. The
great depression was a time of deflation, not inflation. For example,
the CPI was 17.1 in January, 1929, dropped to a low of 12.6 in 1933,
and was not back up to 17.1 until 1943, well into World War II.

What characterized the great depression was a shortage of money.
Debtors frequently were wiped out when they could not repay it. On the
other hand, people who had money (creditors) often did very well.

This would suggest that people should plan to be debt-free before they
retire. Speaking from experience, having some investments and no debt
gives a good sense of security.

Dave

On Oct 26, 12:24 pm, "Elle" <honda.lion...[at]nospam.earthlink.netwrote:
- quote -

I totally agree that inflation is a big risk. And like you said in
booming overheated markets inflations can be very high too. But having
said that, one has to have some strategy of investing for long term.
If inflation goes like it did during great depression then no ones is
safe. However one cannot and should not stop planning for retirement.
Just my $3.00, taking inflation into account.... ....


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you are responding. "Trim" means that except for a FEW lines to add context, the previous post is deleted.

rick++ wrote:
- quote -

One key point is that a "successful" business is not necessarily a
"millionaire" business or the "quickest way to financial independence".
After all, how many successful small business owners basically make
about the same as a comparable salaried job (i.e. one that requires huge
amounts of overtime, stress, etc)? A lot, I suspect. But they receive
the non-monetary benefits of being their own boss, etc, which is worth
a lot to some people.

-Mark Bole

<learnfpga[at]gmail.com> wrote
- quote -

Just saying: I am a U.S. citizen, along with I bet the
majority of regular posters here. All are well-versed in the
merits of diversity, but this is typically with overwhelming
attention to the historical behavior of U.S. markets and
U.S. mutual fund companies, U.S. brokerages, etc. I hesitate
to comment on those who are citizens of other countries and
investing from a locale within those countries. U.S. markets
are more mature, but also they are, it seems to me, fairly
reliably regulated. Can we say the same about, for one,
Indian markets or companies that invest on behalf of
individuals from within India? Inflation can go rampant in
countries lacking "maturity." As recently as the 1980s, for
example, Israel saw inflation rates in excess of 100% a
year. The first time Israel inflation fell to the single
digits since 1970 was in the mid-1990s. Inflation is a
significant consideration for those investing for the long
term in the U.S. Just the uncertainty of inflation by itself
is enough to give me pause when making suggestions to
someone in another country.

rick++ wrote:

- quote -

I may have selective memory, but I thought the anecdotes in MND leaned
toward frugality, that a couple making $100K living on $80K will retire
happily, while the $250K doctor may very well spend his money on the
high life, and find he's 60 with no savings, only debt.
Disclaimer - I did read "fooled by randomness" and acknowledge the
survivorship bias in its stories. Not having access to double blind
studies, but being a believer in Elle's sources stating success starting
a new business is "Highly Unlikely," I'll stick with my spreadsheets and
my own experience. I'd hazard to say that the easy days of India based
start ups are waning as I've read stories of these companies
subcontracting American workers.
JOE

PeterL <po.ning[at]gmail.com> writes:
- quote -

I can't speak for the OP, but I'd translate "do not want to work
after 45" as shorthand for "want financial independence when I'm
45 so that whatever I'm doing, making money doesn't have to be
a priority". Whether that means he wants to surf or it means
he wants to volunteer or he wants to find a second career,
perhaps in a less lucrative field, there's no reason *not* to
aspire to financial independence. Who doesn't? The real
question is whether he can manage to save enough during the
next 19 years without having to sacrifice too much of his
current quality of life along the way.

26 - or earlier - is *exactly* when one wants to start planning
and working hard on it if one wants to achieve that before
traditional "retirement" age.

That all said, with the Rupee at about 40/USD, if he's actually
putting that much away each month - about $575/mo - and it
grows at a cost-of-living/inflation-adjusted rate of, say, 7%
per year (reasonably conservative, though not quite so when
considering that it's after-inflation), he'll have the equivalent
of some $300,000 (in inflation-adjusted money) after 20 yrs.
Who knows how that'll work out in India in 20 years, but it'd
make for a pretty rough "retirement" here in he US. If we
assume that at that point he starts taking 4% annual distributions,
that nest egg throws off about $1000/mo (again, - in inflation
adjusted current purchasing power).

On the other hand, if, at 46, he's saved that much and never
puts in another cent - suppose he downshifts to some other
job which pays just enough for him to get by but not enough
for him to keep cranking away the savings - perhaps a part-time
job or something - by the time he's 66, that nest egg will
continue to grow to some 1.2 million dollars equivalent -
very likely enough to fund a decent retirement - after having
spent that second 20 years of his working life *not* having
to worry about saving for retirement anymore and perhaps doing
something he likes a lot more than what he does now.

Anyway, this is all just quick and dirty speculation - we
obviously know nowhere near enough to do more than that. But
it's kind of fun to play with the numbers, anyway.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

On Oct 25, 5:06 am, Vishi Ideas First <vishwas_inve...[at]yahoo.co.inwrote:
- quote -

Looks like you are not in US but in India. The rules are little
different there. One thing is common though that you have to start
saving early and let the compounding work.

Indian market is booming and so typical index funds returns pale in
front of mutual fund returns. So in Indian market it is better to
invest in actively managed funds and if you can spend time then in
individual stocks too. There are lot of inefficiencies in the market
and the money managers can tap to get extremely good returns unlike in
US where its a very hard thing to do, this being a more mature market.
Returns of 30% per year not uncommon for the past few years.

Word of caution though, the market is extremely volatile and so you
might want to keep a larger portion in safer investments such as bonds
and FD's (CD's in US). Also beware of crooks as there are lot ofget
rich quick type money managers out there. Preferably do it yourself.
Read read read a lot and Good luck

On Oct 25, 2:06 am, Vishi Ideas First <vishwas_inve...[at]yahoo.co.inwrote:
- quote -

Let's assume you want a $50,000 lifestyle starting at age 45 and
you'll retire for 40 years. Assume cost of living inflation to be
3%. Assume you send your last dollar to the electric company and die.

If you get a 12% return on your money you need $800,000 the day you
retire.
If you get a 9% return on your money you'll need $1,075,000.
If you get a 5% return on your money you'll need $1,750,000.

This is the back of the envelope calculation.

Spreadsheets are wondeful!

Good Luck to You!

On Oct 25, 2:06 am, Vishi Ideas First <vishwas_inve...[at]yahoo.co.inwrote:
- quote -


At 26 how would you what will happen when you are 45? And why do you
think you will not want to work after 45?

"rick++" <rick303[at]hotmail.com> wrote
- quote -

But the careful reader will note that this begs the
question, "How likely is it that I can come up with a
business that is successful?"

Studies indicate, "Highly unlikley."

This is not to completely discourage smart, enterprising
individuals. But I think too many try the "start your own
business" route because of mild, psychological delusion; a
belief that it's fairly easy to get rich quick, because
such-and-such did it. They fail to recognize how many other
such-and-suches tried and failed, big-time.

Quickest way to financial independence is inventing a successful
business according the Millionaire Next Door book.
Otherwise you couldsave and invest on quarter of your salary for
twenty yers to save the 15-20 times your salary you need
for financial indpendence. May be difficult if you try to raise a
family
at the same time. thats why people allow longer time to save.

Vishi Ideas First wrote:
- quote -

Since you offer no details such as current income or required income at
retirement, you will not receive anything specific enough to really
guide you, just attempts to understand more.

Since you are outside the US, we might not have an understanding how any
government retirement accounts work for you. Here, Social Security can
cover some portion of retirement needs, depending on income and years
worked. At 45, one is too far from drawing on that benefit to work it in
to any equation.

In general, the advice to save 10% of one's salary, and having some
match from one's employer, along with an 8%/yr return, will offer a
decent retirement at age 62 or so. To me, this is a starting point,
since it targets a final withdrawal rate that replaces 80% of final
income, and makes assumptions for each variable that cannot be known
(e.g. the rate of return, annual salary increase and inflation both set
to 3%, etc.)
I offer this spreadsheet, both online and downloadable at
http://www.joetaxpayer.com/retirement.html
linked at the bottom of the article. Again, it's just a start. To cut
one's working years in half would require a much higher savings rate, or
a return that would be far better than the 8% I assume.
JOE

Hi this is vishwas.
I am working with a Pension administration company. and my monthly
saving in INR is 23000/- (RS) my current age is 26 year.
I do not want to work after 45 year of my age.
and want every month regionalbe amount as per inflation
Any suitable advice.