Copying the magician …

Have you seen those acts where the magician calls a volunteer up from the floor, hands them a rope then says to “do exactly as I do”.

The magician walks the volunteer, step by step, through the process of knotting his rope, while the volunteer tries to copy him exactly.

Of course, at the end, the magician’s rope is neatly knotted and the volunteer has rope all over the place and looks a little foolish.

You see, the magician has some extra steps that the volunteer doesn’t pick up, or performs in mirror image, so the trick is doomed to failure for him.

Of course, it’s all good-natured fun …

… but, it’s not so much fun when it happens in real life 🙁

For example, in my last post, I outlined some steps that retirees can take to create a “zero withdrawal rate” strategy for their retirement to virtually guarantee that their money will last as long as they do:

Now, 0% does not mean withdrawal nothing, but it does mean having a sustainable, self-regenerating supply of income; this is not as hard to achieve as you might think.

For example, you can create an ongoing stream of income from:

1. Inflation protected annuities (albeit expensive)

2. TIPS (albeit a low return)

3. 100% owned real-estate (albeit, needs management)

4. Dividend stocks (my least preferred as they are sometimes a sub-par investment that tends to rise-fall with the markets).

Remember, when you retire, you want not only ZERO chance that your money runs out, but you don’t even want to get anywhere near to zero by a wide margin.

A great feat … if you can pull it off.

But, you have to copy my strategies exactly … and, to do that you need to use your powers of observation to do exactly as I do. No deviation.

So, let’s take a ‘volunteer’ from the audience, Evan, who commented:

My goal is to have a little bit of all those buckets…right now I am trying to build the dividend portfolio.

Right strategy, but it seems that Evan missed the magician’s “secret step”:

You only implement these steps AFTER you have retired (at least, after you have reached Your Number).

Your goal should be to:

1. Have a large enough nest-egg (i.e. Your Number) to provide enough to retire with, and

2. To then ensure that it (i) keeps up with inflation and (ii) never runs out.

These strategies (dividend stocks, TIPS, 100%-owned real-estate, etc.) only work for Step 2.

They typically don’t provide enough return (including growth of capital and income) to build up the nest-egg that you need, in the first place!

So, if you implement them too early, your nest-egg will be too small to begin with …

Instead, you need to find a class of investment where both your capital and your income grow (at least) with inflation.

Here’s an example using real-estate:

a) BEFORE retirement, build up a large real-estate portfolio with 20% down, and refinancing at regular intervals to build up a large portfolio over time. Reinvest all excess profits into buying more real-estate. Use a mixture of residential and commercial to provide higher growth. Add value by building, rehabbing, etc. etc.

b) AFTER retirement (or, as retirement approaches) sell down your portfolio (particularly the lower-return residential component) until you have sufficient cash to pay out the prime commercial properties in your portfolio. Your aim is to own the best rental properties 100%, with a buffer for vacancies, repairs and maintenance, etc.

c) WHEN you get too old or ill to manage the portfolio (even with the help of qualified Realtors and property managers), sell out (or, leave instructions to your attorneys to sell out) and purchase TIPS (or bonds, if TIPS aren’t available).

Three radically different investment approaches … one for each critical stage of your life.

The 0% ‘safe’ withdrawal rate …

What % of your retirement ‘nest egg’ can you safely withdraw each year, to make sure that you money lasts as long as you do?

Many would say that this is a question best answered by highly educated practitioners of the highly specialized field of Retirement Economics, who will give you an answer – or, more likely, a range of answers – accurate to many decimal places.

But, I can give you a single answer …

… one that is accurate to at least 17 decimal places, yet I am not an economist of any kind.

You see, Retirement Economics is an oxymoron.


First, let me give you an excellent example of what retirement economics is …

In his blog dedicated to pensions, retirement plans, and economics, Wade Pfau provides the following chart:

It superimposes two charts:

– one shows descending survival rates for men, women and couples who retire at age 65.

For example, if you retire at 65, there’s only a roughly 18% chance that at least one of you will live past the age of 95. Reduce that to 90, and there’s a 40% chance that one of you will survive.

– The other is an increasing probability that your money will run out before you do the larger the % you withdraw from your retirement portfolio.

For example, if you only withdraw 3% from your portfolio (if invested in the exact 40%/60% mix of stocks and bonds assumed by Wade) then there’s almost 0% chance that you’ll run out of money by the time you reach 95 (and a small chance thereafter).

But, there’s a 30% chance that you’ll run out of money by age 95 if you increase that ‘safe’ withdrawal rate to just 5%.

You’re supposed to use these ‘retirement economics’ to make decisions like:

“Well it’s very likely that either my wife or I will live to 95 and we don’t want our money to run out, so we’ll invest all of our savings in a 40% stocks / 60% bonds portfolio, and we’ll only withdraw 3% of it each year just to be sure that our money won’t run out.”

That seems like sound economical judgement for the average person …

… BUT, you are not average!

For better or worse, you are … well … you.

Besides the obvious [AJC: who says you want to wait until you’re 65 to retire?!], when YOU are 95 (albeit in the 10th percentile), how happy will you be if your money has either either already run out or there’s a reasonable chance that you will soon be out of money, hence out of care?

I would argue that only a 100% chance of your money outliving you is acceptable.

Even then, only with a LARGE buffer, so you never need to worry about even the possibility of your money running out!

In my opinion:

Only a 0.00000000000000000% withdrawal rate is acceptable.

Now, 0% does not mean withdrawal nothing, but it does mean having a sustainable, self-regenerating supply of income; this is not as hard to achieve as you might think.

For example, you can create an ongoing stream of income from:

1. Inflation protected annuities (albeit expensive)

2. TIPS (albeit a low return)

3. 100% owned real-estate (albeit, needs management)

4. Dividend stocks (my least preferred as they are sometimes a sub-par investment that tends to rise-fall with the markets).

Remember, when you retire, you want not only ZERO chance that your money runs out, but you don’t even want to get anywhere near to zero by a wide margin.

Don’t you?

Fitting another square peg into a round hole …

I need your help on a small project that I am working on! I have a new FaceBook Page for Top Secret Startup Project # 4 and need 25 people to “like” the page in order to get a proper URL. Would you PLEASE take exactly 10 seconds to visit that page by CLICKING HERE and click the “like” button.

I might even send one of you (by random selection) a surprise gift (HINT: think ‘apple’ and think ‘card’) AND you will be amongst the first to know what I’m up to over the next few weeks! Now, back to today’s post …
Philip Brewer is the first to break ranks … that makes him a pioneer!

He’s the first personal finance writer to question the validity of the 4% Rule; I’ll let him do what he does best … explain:

There’s a rule of thumb that’s pretty well known to retirement planners: the 4% rule. It states that if you spend 4% of your capital in your first year of retirement, you can go on spending that much — and even adjust it for inflation — and you won’t run out of money before you die. That rule is starting to look kind of iffy.

The rule is just an observation: Over the past hundred years you could have followed the 4% rule starting in any year and you wouldn’t have run out of money. That’s been true because the return to capital has been pretty high, and because downturns have been pretty short.

So, that’s the genesis of the 4% Rule … basically an assumption that if inflation runs at 3%, you can get at least 7% return on your investment (the difference being the amount you can spend: 4%). But, most investments haven’t ‘returned’ 7% – or anywhere near that – for quite some time, as Philip explains:

Stock investors saw some price appreciation in the 1990s, but there’s been no appreciation since then. In fact, your stock portfolio is probably down over the past decade, even with reinvested dividends.

… and bonds and cash haven’t fared much better, certainly not enough to keep up with inflation and provide spending money for a retiree!

The problem is we’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole:

Square Peg

Bonds, cash, and stocks are all capital investments (my term); they are designed to hold (preferably, appreciate) the capital that you put in.

You create ‘income’ from these investments: (a) from their (relatively speaking) meager dividends, and/or (b) by selling down your portfolio as needed. The 4% Rule says that the amount that you need to selll down SHOULD be offset by the increase in value of what you have left even after accounting for inflation.

The problem is in the ‘SHOULD’ word: this should all work, but as Philip points out, there are times when it doesn’t …

Round Hole

When you are retired you shouldn’t spend capital unless you print the stuff … or, at least, have an unlimited supply.

You don’t want capital, when you are retired, you really want income.

Specifically, you want a certain amount of income – and, you want regular pay increases (at least enough to keep up with inflation) – just like when you were working.

But, you want it:

a. without needing to work, and

b. without running the risk of being ‘fired’ (i.e. having your retirement income run out).

Other than some nebulous (perhaps, for you, well-defined) need to leave some of your hard-earned, precious, irreplaceable, capital behind for charity, your cat, and/or the next generation, you really don’t – shouldn’t – care very much about it, except for its ability to provide that much needed income.

So, why try and cajole capital-appreciating assets to do the work of your former employer, when there are perfectly good investments out there specifically manufactured for the sole purpose of:

1. At least maintaining their own value (ideally, after inflation), and

2. Providing you with an income, indexed for inflation, for your life or the life of the asset (whichever comes first).

A few such assets immediately spring to mind … each with their own pros/cons (which we can explore in the comments and/or future posts):

1. Real-estate: it tends to increase in value according to inflation; it tends to provide semi-reliable income that increases (again) with inflation,

2. Inflation-indexed annuities: you give up claim on the capital in return for a guaranteed (well, as long as AIG or its like stays in business) income that increases with inflation,

3. Treasury Inflation-Protected Bonds (some Municipal MUNI’s also do much the same): These guarantee that your capital will increase with inflation, and you can ladder them cleverly to provide some semblance of a (albeit low) income stream that increases with inflation.

Of all of these – and, in retirement – I like 100%-owned (i.e. paid for by cash) real-estate the best; what do you recommend?

Avoid wiggly-line investments!

UPDATE: We have a winner in my $700 in 7 Days Giveaway … yep, ‘barbaramontgom’ (with 6 points) was chosen by random drawing (see below) and wins the entire $700 Cash!!!!!! Barbara just needs to send me an e-mail ajc [at] 7million7years [dot] com to claim her $700 cash prize (less any PayPal fees)!

Bet you wished that you had entered 😉

Special thanks to Steve and Trisha who tied at the top of the leader board … if you send me an e-mail with your name/mailing address I will send each of you a $60 Apple Gift Card! Thanks to all of the others who entered and promoted the contest like crazy!

LAST CHANCE to enter my free contest: CONTEST OVER: in just ONE more today, I am giving away $700 cash to one lucky reader (drawn at random) as part of my $700 in 7 Days No Strings Attached promotion. It’s free to enter simply by clicking here.


CNNMoney fields a question from a reader who’s scared that her money will run out before she does:

Question: I recently had to take early retirement at age 57 because of back problems. I’m now looking for a safe place to invest my retirement money where I’ll have no risk losing it. Any suggestions? — Donald H., Morris, Alabama

Yes, I have a suggestion: don’t post your questions to a financial ‘expert’ who still works for a living!

If you do, you’ll get answers like:

Answer: If the threat of losing principal were the only financial risk you had to protect yourself against in retirement, then finding a safe haven for your money would be pretty simple. You could plow your entire nest egg into Treasury bills or spread it among FDIC-insured savings accounts and CDs (taking care to stay within the FDIC coverage limits).

But while doing this would insure that you would never lose a cent of your money, it would also insure that your retirement stash earned a pretty measly return.

Good, so far … so, no cash. Got it!

What should she do instead (?):

If you want to have a decent shot at your retirement savings lasting as long as you do, you also want to invest in a way that has at least some potential for long-term growth.

[Keep some in cash and the] rest of your savings you want to keep in a diversified portfolio of stock and bond funds. Again, there’s no single correct mix. Typically, though, someone just entering retirement might have 50% or so of his or her portfolio in stocks and the rest in bonds.


Question: If you are aiming to retire, why do you want long-term growth?!

Answer: Because, you expect to lose some significant proportion of your capital to:

– Spending too much,

– Inflation,

– Market downturns.

In other words, the expert recommends to invest in a ‘wiggly line’ investment, hoping that the upswings outweigh all the downswings + spending after inflation is taken into account.

How well has that been working out for the past, oh, 20 years?

So, can you think of an investment that tends to grow with inflation, and provides income that also tends to grow with inflation?

Well those treasury-protected bonds certainly have principal that keeps up with inflation, but the returns are so low that income will become a real problem.

But, what about real-estate?

It’s where ‘the rich’ have kept the bulk of their retirement savings since time immemorial … I wonder why? 😉

Staring down as the ground rushes up to meet you!

[click here to see movie]

I’m not a great fan of roller-coasters and thrill-rides, although I have ridden my fair share.

The most recent was at Disney World in Orlando, FL where I rode the The Disney World Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster, mainly because I heard that it accelerated from a standing start as fast a Formula 1 race car, or something along those lines.

But, the one that scared me the most was one that I rode at our local Luna Park in my late teens … it was called The Zipper: more a thrill-ride than a coaster [AJC: I was ‘thrilled’ to find the image/movie above … imagine it at high speed and the whole arm on which the cages are moving around ALSO orbits around a central hub with the effect of ‘throwing’ each cage towards the concrete ground!], as it consisted of a number of cages spinning on an orbital arm; the effect – at certain stages of the ride – was rushing face down towards the pavement … a nice way to pick up your heart and shove it firmly into your mouth!

This effect is also one of the main reasons that I’m not enamored with most of the so-called Safe Withdrawal Rate retirement strategies that abound.

Whereas the main differentiator of these plans is usually in the % that you can ‘safely’ withdraw each year from your retirement ‘nest egg’ (usually in the 3.5% – 5% range), they are usually based on some sort of mathematical calculation that takes into account:

1. Your current age

2. The Number of years you expect to live (usually 30 or 40 years post-retirement)

3. The amount that you retired with

4. The mix of cash, stocks, and bonds that you would be most comfortable with

5. The probability that you would be most comfortable with that your money will last as long as you do (usually 75%+)

The mathematical models used then try and take these various factors into account, along with the historical performance of the cash/bond/stock markets and calculate what % of your nest-egg that you can withdraw that will – within the % accuracy that you chose – ensure that you have at least $1 left to your name on the day that you predicted that you will die.

Now, if that doesn’t sound totally idiotic to you, let’s just imagine for a moment that you CAN predict that you will die pretty close to the date that you selected for the model to work AND that you are comfortable with something less than 100% certainty that your money will last as long a you do …

… I still can’t help thinking that for the latter years – when you are pretty old and absolutely powerless to do anything other than ‘hang on for the ride’ – you will have to endure the REALITY of your bank account rapidly depleting towards that ‘perfect’ $1 remainder (or, whatever remainder you selected).

And, I can’t help but picture myself – eyes ever widening in financial terror – wondering: “will I hit Ground Zero ($)?”

I still hate thrill rides 🙁

PS I’m glad that I didn’t read about the safety issues with the earlier version of the Zipper ride – likely the same model as the one that I rode – otherwise my ‘face rushing to meet the pavement” may have turned out to be real (!):

On September 7, 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a public warning, urging carnival-goers not to ride the Zipper after four deaths occurred due to compartment doors opening mid-ride … the same scenario was repeated in July 2006 in Hinckley, Minnesota when two teenage girls were ejected from their compartment as the door swung open.

A new kind of Bucket List …

This guy makes a big deal of this ‘new approach’ to investing.

Recognizing that people are scared of the market right now [AJC: before they become irrationally exuberant, again, in the next upswing] instead of giving this guy 100% of your money to invest in crappy mutual funds …

… you only give him 80% 😉

You put ‘the other 20%’ into The Bank, so that you have 2 years of cash to live off, and essentially ride the downswings.

I think that they’re hoping that by focusing on that yummy cash, you’ll forget to check what the market is doing, until you next go to top up your 2 year bucket.

OK, pre-retirement, 2 years living expenses is way too much to have aside. $0 is a better number.

Post retirement, I agree on the 2 year number (in fact, I recommend it); but, I don’t agree with his recommendations for the 80% bucket 🙂

How to save $1 million by 65? Who cares?!

The current state of American financial thinking is terrible, if this is the best advice that “a senior editor with Money Magazine” can come up with:

Question: I’m 28 and would like to have $1 million by the time I retire at 65. What are some of the investing options I should consider? –Joshua Sin, Fresno, Calif.

Answer: I’m all for savvy investing, and I’ll get to what I think you should do on that front in a minute. But let’s not forget that when it comes to building wealth, investing alone won’t do it. –Walter Updegrave, Senior Editor, Money Magazine.

Walter Updegrave, the author, then goes on to provide a very interesting analysis of how to come up with the $1 mill by 65 – basically saying that it can’t be done:

If you begin putting away $100 a month starting now and continue doing so until 2047, the year you’ll turn 65, you would need an annual return of roughly 13.5% a year to turn that monthly hundred dollars into a million bucks.

What investment options can deliver a 13.5% annual return for almost 40 years? None that I know of.

True. Correct. Perhaps, Insightful.

But, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: who in their right mind cares?

Hasn’t Walt forgotten to ask the key question … why???!!!

Joshua is to be commended for thinking so far ahead, at the age of 28, towards retirement. But, shouldn’t our financial expert’s first step be to examine if the objective is reasonable?

Let’s give it a shot:

Choosing a much more reasonable go-forward inflation rate of 3.5% …

[AJC: The author assumed “a modest 2.5% inflation rate”; that’s just UNDER the current outlook for the next 5 years, pulling out of a major global recession … but, I wouldn’t bet FOR a 40 year recession, if I were planning my own retirement!]

… by the time Joshua turns 65 that $1 million will only be worth $268k.

What does that mean?

It depends on what Joshua does with the money; however, given that his 37 year financial strategy has been simply to ‘save’ (presumably via CD’s, Bonds, Mutual Funds, and the like), I guess we need to assume that he will continue that strategy in retirement.

Therefore, Joshua will have little choice but to abide by the ‘advice’ of the financial planning community, which will be centered around finding a ‘safe withdrawal rate’; a great way to find out what that might be for Joshua, is to plug his $268,000 nest-egg into the T. Rowe Price Retirement Calculator:

Now, what annual income would be reasonable for somebody like Josh to aim for in retirement? $150k a year? $75k a year?

Let’s just say that he aims for $30,000 a year or $2,500 (before tax!) per month in today’s dollars; how well does he do with his $1,000,000?

Not very:

[AJC: PLUS whatever social security there may happen to be in 37 years time … how optimistic are you?!]

Do you think that Josh would have been more surprised to learn that:

a) he would need to average 13% p.a. on his savings to reach $1 mill, or

b) even if he made it all the way to his $1 mill. target, he would only have $871 per month to spend?!

Our readers represent a small but keen-to-learn cross-section of people interested in the subject of personal finance;  let’s tell the financial services, advice, and publishing industries:

What sort of financial advice are you looking for?

Go ahead, leave a comment – especially if you’ve never done so before – and, we’ll challenge them to respond!

To mini-retire or not to mini-retire?

DrDollaz takes issue with whole ‘eat hamburger now so that you can eat steak later’ philosophy:

Problem with that philosophy is that years later – after being used to eating nothing but hamburger – most people have a hard time splurging on steak!

The whole fallacy of ‘saving so that you can enjoy retirement’ is BS – your life should be filled with mini-retirements.

But, Think Simple Now tried a mini-retirement and found that it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be:

When I first learned of the mini-retirement concept, I was immediately attracted to the idea. To me it represented freedom. I had all these romantic notions associated with it, and when I found a way to take three months off from work, I jumped at the first chance and ran with it.

While traveling is an eye-opening experience and a chance to see how others live in vastly different cultures. It is exhausting, on many levels. It quickly became clear to me that the romantic concept of traveling is flawed.

It turns out that TSN is more disillusioned with travel rather than mini-retirements, per se.

Fortunately, I agree with DrDollaz …

The $7million7years Way  is all about leading you to some future date where you have amassed the required amount of money to start living (your Life’s Purpose).

But, of course, if that’s all you take away then you’ve missed half the story:

Because I also say that money has only one purpose: to spend.

And, I have written many posts telling you to save now, but also to spend now!

Life is a journey …

… and, that includes the bits both before and after your reach your Number 😉

The Golden Faucet

Ordinary folk don’t plan their finances during their working life, so what chance do they have in retirement?


But, that doesn’t apply to us smart folk who read personal finance blogs …

… WE plan our retirement according to either Poor Man methods, or Rich Man methods known only to a few i.e. The Rich!

By the end of this post, you will know the difference; whether you choose to believe me and what you choose to do with this information is entirely up to you 😉

So, here goes:

Conventional Personal Finance wisdom – clearly ascribed to by the majority of my readers – says that you pick a so-called ‘Safe Withdrawal Rate’ …

…. that is, the percentage of your retirement Nest Egg that you can withdraw to live off each year that you feel will be small enough that your money will last as long as you do.

A sensible objective, wouldn’t you think?

You can pick any % between 2% and 7% (even up to 10%, if you believe all of those Get Rich Quick books) and find some expert or study that supports your choice.

You then have a choice to

a) make that % a fixed amount of your initial retirement portfolio (e.g. let’s say that you retire with $1,000,000 and choose 4%, giving you an initial retirement salary of $40k p.a.), then increase that salary by c.p.i each year regardless of how your portfolio rises or falls [AJC: it’s called the “close your eyes and hang on tight” approach to retirement living], or

b) choose your preferred ‘safe’ withdrawal % and let that rise and fall according to the rise and fall of your your portfolio’s value … so, if you happen to retire a year before the next stock market crash, you could be withdrawing 4% of $1 mill. in one year, then 4% of $500k the next year [AJC: no problem, as long as you can stifle the urge to jump off a ledge when your income halves, as well]

Optimists will choose a withdrawal rate in the 5% to 7% range and pessimists will choose a withdrawal rate in the 3% to 5% range …

… Rich people will do neither!


Well, before you retire (i.e. now, while you are still working) you could draw a curve of your likely salary moves between now and retirement and you could pick a living standard that corresponds to that curve, using actuarial tables to basically create an inflation indexed annuity for yourself throughout your working life.

But you don’t.

Instead, you live according to your means – and, adjust as necessary – and, build up various safety nets (via cash reserves and insurances) as you deem prudent and necessary.

Why would you do any different after you retire?

Poor people who retire put their money in a bucket and a little trickles in (interest, dividends, capital appreciation) and a lot gushes out (inflation, taxes, expenses, disasters).

You have a bad year or three, overspend a little, a couple of health issues, and you’re screwed [AJC: it even happens to retired sports stars, movie stars, and musicians. Ever heard of MC Hammer?].

But it doesn’t happen to smart Rich people, because they don’t drink from a bucket … they drink from a golden faucet:

They create – then live from – an income, both before retirement and after!

Think about our energy crisis past, present and future … all resolvable (we hope!) by switching to an abundant source of clean, green, renewable energy.

Now, think about all of your spending crisis past, present and future … all resolvable (you hope!) by living within your means a.k.a. creating an abundant source of renewable income!

That income can come from a family business that you retire from but retain “passive” part-ownership of; from venture capital activities; from real-estate investments; and, so on … in fact, from any investment that produces a reliable income stream that tends to grow at least in line with inflation.

Here is how I planned it:

1. I used the Rule of 20 strictly for planning purposes [AJC: this sounds like a 5% withdrawal rate, but who said that I’m actually going to withdraw the 5% each year?!]

2. I started creating a Perpetual Money Machine: something that will produce income that I can live off; in my case, it was RE bought with (or, for which I already have built up) plenty of equity or cash to ensure a healthy positive cash flow.

3. To cover ‘bad years’ and other contingencies, I retain at least 25% of the income stream until I have built up enough for TWO YEARS of living expenses and then I reinvest whatever is left over (i.e. buy another property every few years).

So, what if something goes wrong as it did for me when the GFC hit leaving me with too much house, another house I can’t get rid of, and $2.5 million of unavoidable stock losses [AJC: part payment for my business came in UK stock … yuk!], resulting in not enough income?

You go back to MM201 and start again (hence, my commercial property development activities) …

… after all, history has shown that your first fortune is by far the hardest 🙂

The Ultimate Gift – Part II

If Monday’s post didn’t spur you to start early, this one sure should!

First, here is something that will upset you if you are already 55 and figure that you need another 10 years to retirement:

Not bothered?

Well, let’s see if we make the same comparison, starting with a much earlier retirement age:

If you used to think that a lifetime of work was good for you, think again – this chart [AJC: the blue line is the important one] shows:

The longer you work, the shorter you live!

From another article:

Generally, it is found that people retiring early live more, but how long do they live? Or what is the average number of years they live after retirement? Well, now 49-50 is usually not considered to be a retirement age in most countries. However, if a person plans everything well and retires at the age of 50, he is expected to live for at least another 35-36 years, which increases the life span to almost 85-86 years! People retiring in their early 50s, normally live up to their late 70s or early 80s and people retiring at their early 60s, live till their early or mid 70s.

We had a pretty important reason to aim to Get Rich(er) Quick(er) i.e. so that we could have the time and money to finally live our Life’s Purpose …

…. but, if you don’t have a clearly defined purpose, then let me give you just one real clear, real simple reason to get Rich(er) Quick(er):

If you retire before 50, you will live 20 years longer than if you wait for normal retirement age.

No longer is the idea that “business/investing is too stressful … I’ll just wait it out in my nice stress-free post office job” valid …

…. I don’t care whether you intend to retire with $1 million or $10 million, as long as you reach your Number much sooner than you otherwise would.

By reaching my Number at age 49, I not only gave myself the gift of finally having the means to truly live my Life’s Purpose, but I also gave myself the gift of 20 years extra in which to live it …

… this, too, is my gift to you.

Don’t waste it!