How to ruin your return by paying off principal …

Posted on May 20, 2012 by Adrian

A while ago, I did a three-part ‘anatomy of a commercial real-estate deal’ …

Drew wanted to know:

You mentioned 63k income that you can spend, but I don’t see you including principle payments. Wouldn’t that cut into your cash flow?

You’ll need to go back and read the three-part article, but this question goes to the heart of whether to pay off your mortgage, and is somewhat the same argument whether you want to do this on an investment property or even your own home.

It boils down to return:

The building that I was looking at buying would have generated $255k in rents – $192k in expenses (including $130k bank interest) = $63k net ‘profit’ p.a.

Paying down principal doesn’t change that dramatically: it does lower my interest expense, which should increase my net profit, hence my return …

… in $$$ terms.

But, when you do the math, it can lower the % return that I am getting on my money.

Aldo says:

Continuing with the comment from the previous reader, can you elaborate a bit more on why principal payments would not affect this deal? On the previous article you mentioned going for a 7yr financing or so, which will represent about 250-300k of additional capital you need to put each year. After the first year you would have invested 700 + principal (let’s say 250k) = 950k. The 63k you make then will become a 6.6% return on your own money… Then down to 5% the next year… And so on…

Aldo has forgotten to allow for the reduction in interest expense as my equity increases (and, the bank’s loan decreases), but he points to the % return on my overall investment decreasing …

… whereas, an investor should generally be looking to increase their % returns.

In simple terms: if I can buy a $100k property with 20% down (i.e. $20k), when I find (e.g. by saving) another $20k, am I financially better off:

1. Putting it into this property to pay it off quicker?

2. Putting it into my home mortgage to pay my home off quicker?

3. Putting it into another $100k property that I can buy with 20% down?

In order of decreasing return, it’s generally 3. then 2. then 1.

I know which I would rather do. How about you?

Why are professional athletes so horrible with money?

Posted on May 6, 2012 by Adrian

In 2009, Sports Illustrated observed:

78% of NFL players and 60% of NBA players are bankrupt within two years of leaving the game.

From this Get Rich Slowly concluded:

Many professional athletes are horrible with money.

Why does this occur?

Investopedia in a recent article stated the obvious:

Athletes have a unique problem that many other professions don’t: the earnings window is small. While the more traditional careers may allow a person to work 30 to 50 years, a professional athlete will work only a fraction of that time. This leaves the retired athlete with the job of managing what they have to last for the rest of their life with only a fraction of their old salary being earned.

Whilst I agree with GRS that many sports players are horrible with money, this is simply an undistributed middle fallacy of the type:

All students carry backpacks.

My grandfather carries a backpack.

Therefore, my grandfather is a student.

In other words, this problem is not isolated to athletes … they are just one class of people who have highly skewed earnings.

Others include anybody with what I call “Found Money”, which is my term for any one-off (or otherwise time-limited) sudden influx of cash. For example:

– Anybody who signs a major contract (athletes, musicians, actors, celebrities, even sales people or small business owners who “land that once in a lifetime deal”)

– Anybody who wins a substantial sum

– Anybody who inherits a substantial sum

… and, so on.

The Horrible Money Management Syndrome, that Get Rich Slowly incorrectly attributes to athletes, actually comes with the sudden influx of money i.e. it’s a problem with the source, not the recipient.

For example, there are lottery winners from all walks of life, yet the operators of the UK Lottery found that, on average, lottery winners had spent 44% of their winnings after just 2.5 years, which supports the anecdotal evidence that 80% will be entirely broke in just 5 years after winning a major lottery!

Whilst some sharp wits may observe that this is “because the qualifications for playing the lottery are being ignorant of the principles of mathematics” [AJC: for example, as one blogger recently observed, you are more likely to die from melting underwear than winning the lottery], my theory is that …

… you need to learn the lessons slowly on the way up, in order to stop yourself learning them the hard way on the way down.

In case any of you are planning to make a lot of money quite suddenly [AJC: even faster than $7 million in 7 years ‘suddenly’], you would be wise to heed the lessons that I taught my children when they were still very young (and, follow to this day):

When they get money [AJC: Any money: an allowance, a gift, find it on the street, etc.] half goes into Spending and the other half into Savings.

So, too, does it go for you: anytime that you get any additional money [insert ‘found money’ methods of choice: you’re a professional athlete; you win the lottery; you get a pay increase; a second job; loose change that you save out of your pockets; a gift; a manufacturer’s cash rebate; tax refund check; etc.; etc.] you Spend half and you Save half.

At least, this is advice that will tide you over until I share my Found Money System with you …

… next time 😉

Another reader question …

Posted on March 6, 2012 by Adrian

Eddy asks:

I am 21 years old living in Los Angeles CA. I dropped out of [college] after 2 years of studying because of lack of stimulation. I’ve had a job since I was 15 and have been in sales since I was 18. I currently work as an account manager at an IT outsourcing company. Oh, and I forgot to mention one small detail, I am also $40,000 in college debt.

My only plan right now is to gain enough experience and a set of skills in sales to make six-figures. After that I will begin investing. I know its to early to doubt myself, but I am constantly reminding myself where I am and where I am going to make sure I am on the right path.

My question is this, am I on the right path? A lot of my colleagues do a great job reminding me about the glass ceiling above me because I don’t have a college degree. Also, once I start making six-figures, how do I learn how to invest?

I told Eddy that I don’t/can’t give personal financial advice (laws aside, I simply don’t know enough about him … or any other reader).

BUT, I can make some general observations about the e-mailed question:

To succeed in life requires tenacity … and, to make any sort of large Number (e.g. $7 million) in any sort of soon Date (e.g. 7 years) requires super tenacity; if it didn’t, everybody would be rich!

A reader question …

Posted on March 1, 2012 by Adrian

A reader asks:

… [I have] a question on your Blogpost “Advice for a new Multimillionaire” you stated something that grabbed me “Wealthy people spend capital. What they should be spending is income.”
My question is this… when you were first starting out how did you determine how much of your income to turn into capital and at what point did you decide to change that ratio.

This is an excellent question because it ties into the common notion of “paying yourself first” i.e. putting aside a set portion of your income into debt reduction and/or savings.

For a very long time, I didn’t save anything …

Then I discovered my Life’s Purpose (a very expensive one at that!) and realized that I would need to make $5 million in 5 years [AJC: I overachieved, although it took me a little longer than hoped, hence the title of this blog].

That made me rethink everything in my financial life, including starting to save.

So, I pumped as much as I could spare into buying mainly real-estate and a little in stocks and other investments … and, as my income increased, I pumped almost all of that increase into more investments.

Unfortunately, I didn’t have much of a strategy at that time beyond “save as much as I can”.

Now, I recommend that (if you are still earning income) you should pay yourself twice.

A new kind of slum dog millionaire …

Posted on September 29, 2011 by Adrian

KC points me to an article in Yahoo Finance:

A new AP-CNBC poll finds nearly one-third (31 percent) of U.S. residents believe they would need a minimum savings of $100,000 to $500,000 if retiring this year in order to be confident of living comfortably in retirement, and 22 percent believe the minimum is $1 million or more to retire comfortably.

I’ve just conducted my own survey and I’ve found:

– Nearly one-third (31 percent) of U.S. residents are totally deluded if they think that they can retire on $100,000 to $500,000 today.

– 22% are only slightly less blinded to the obvious to think that even $1 million will be enough to sustain them in retirement.

Let’s say that you can withdraw 4% of your portfolio ‘safely’ each year (a figure commonly promoted by the financial planning industry): then, you can give yourself a salary of:

– $4,000 per year if you retire today on $100,000

– $20,000 per year if you retire today on $500,000

– a whopping $40,000 per year if you retire on $1 million

Now, there’s be a whole bunch of people reading this who’ll say: “$40k a year, indexed for inflation … for life … without working. Now I can live with that!”

So, let’s see what it will take to get to $1 million in retirement savings; the same article says:

If you start with an initial $10,000 investment and your portfolio grows by 5 percent every year, here’s how much you need to save each month to reach your $1 million goal by age 70, according to Bankrate.com’s calculator.

• 25-year-olds have to save $450 a month. That’s just $15 a day for the rest of your working years.

• 35-year-olds have to save $850 a month.

• 45-year-olds have to save $1,700 a month.

• 55-year-olds have to save $4,000 a month. (Of course, with an average inflation rate of 3 percent, that $1,000,000 nest egg will only be worth $642,000 in today’s dollars. So that means you’ll likely wind up having to save even more.)

Did you check out that last point? Even if you could save these amounts, your $1 million is whittled down by inflation by the time you get there, so $40k expected retirement salary is only worth (in today’s dollars):

– $30,000 p.a., if you’re 55 and have 10 years to retirement

– $20,000 p.a., if you’re 45 and have 20 years to retirement

– $10,000 p.a. if you’re 35 and have 30 years to retirement

… or, to put it another way – because of inflation (even at only 3%), if you want to retire at age 65 on the equivalent of today’s $40,000 salary, you need to:

– Quadruple the above suggested monthly savings rates if you’re 25

– Double the above suggested monthly savings rates if you’re 45

– Add 50% to the above suggested monthly savings rates if you’re 55

… Oh, and did I mention that these numbers are after tax?

And, just when you were kidding yourself that you really can save yourself to a decent retirement: current CD rates are 1% and inflation is still running close to 0.5%, meaning that even a 4% withdrawal rate – previously described as ‘safe’ according to the financial planning industry – is committing financial suicide.

On current returns, to safely pay yourself $40,000 p.a. (indexed for just 0.5% inflation) you would need to retire with a nest egg of not just $1,000,000 …

… but, $8,000,000.

Or, you could just keep reading this blog and find a whole new way to look at your financial future 😉

[AJC: Try and find consensus on inflation; it’s hard! One article that I saw in researching this post suggested that inflation is currently running at just 0.5%, another says 4%, as suggested by Steve in the comments below – http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf. Since nobody really knows what inflation will be over a long enough period, I always use 3% – 4% just because it makes forward planning easy: just double your estimate for how much money you need to retire with for every 20 years until retirement]

The problem with financial advice – Part II

Posted on September 15, 2011 by Adrian

Why do you see a financial advisor?

ONE reason that people go, is because they expect that the financial advisor has great modeling tools, so they should be able to calculate your financial position and future needs with great accuracy.

What if I told you that doing your own financial planning using the simplest possible online tools and financial spreadsheets would get you closer – much closer – to your real financial needs than any ‘typical’ financial advisor can? What if I told you that is exactly the reason why I do my own financial planning using those exact same simple online tools and financial spreadsheets?

But, what if I told you that most financial advisors routinely underestimate your retirement needs by ~80%?

Would you even pay for such ‘professional’ financial advice again?

Need proof?

Well, a week ago I covered the first of best selling author, Dan Ariely’s comments about financial advisors, but he then goes on to say:

In one study, we asked people the same question that financial advisors ask: How much of your final salary will you need in retirement? The common answer was 75 percent. When we … asked where they got this advice, we found that most people heard this from the financial industry. You see the circularity and the inanity: Financial advisors are asking a question that their customers rely on them for the answer. So what’s the point of the question?!

In our study, we then took a different approach and instead asked people: How do you want to live in retirement? Where do you want to live? What activities you want to engage in? And similar questions geared to assess the quality of life that people expected in retirement. We then took these answers and itemized them, pricing out their retirement based on the things that people said they’d want to do and have in their retirement. Using these calculations, we found that these people (who told us that they will need 75% of their salary) would actually need 135 percent of their final income to live in the way that they want to in retirement.

This is a really important point; let’s say that your expected final salary is $100,000 in today’s dollars.

Then at 75%, you would need a nest-egg of $75,000 x 20 = $1,500,000

But at 135%, you would need a nest-egg of $135,000 x 20 = $2,700,000

[AJC: the ’20’ in the above calculations comes from my Rule of 20; see this early post]

That’s a shortfall in your retirement of $1,200,000 … more, if your expected ending salary is over $100k.

Now, what if I told you that I think your shortfall is not likely to be $1.2 million, but closer to $2mill – $3mill or even more?

I’ll let you know how I think you should calculate your true retirement needs in the next – and, final – post in this short series, because knowing what you’re aiming for now will stop a LOT of disappointment later 😉

real rich, real simple, redux

Posted on June 23, 2011 by Adrian

This is a redux of a 2009 post, but it’s about time that I gave my newer readers a heads-up as to what we’re all about … if I had to point somebody to just one of my posts to get them started this would be the one; putting in all of the links nearly killed me 🙂

______________________

I get a lot of questions, comments, and e-mails in general from new readers, and this one – from Chad – is reasonably typical of what I might see:

I’m turning 27; just got a job making 50k/yr.; on the market for my 1st condo to live in (and hopefully rent out a room); have 1 student loan at < 3% fixed interest. My goal is $7 million in 13 years.

1. I have very little to no knowledge of finance/investing. Do you recommend any resources to get me up to speed so I can understand what you write about?

2. Where does my situation put me in terms of Making Money 101 and 201, i.e. where do I go from here?

I appreciate ANY direction you can give me as I do not want to be stuck behind a computer in a cube for the next 30-40 years.

While I love reading these sorts of e-mails (AJC: I really do!], I have a hard time responding because I can’t / don’t give direct personal advice … but,

I can suggest that Chad think about:

1. Exactly HOW important that $7 million in 13 years is to him, and

2. Assuming it’s VERY important (critical even), how he is going to get there.

You see, my advice might change according to his Number – more importantly to his Required Annual Compound Growth Rate:

a) If low – say, no more than 10% to 15% – then I would point Chad to the various ‘frugal’ blogs (my personal favorite is Get Rich Slowly) and ‘starter books’ like The Richest Man In Babylon, or the more modern equivalent: Automatic Millionaire by David Bach, or anything by Dave Ramsey or Suze Orman.

Each would probably suggest something along the lines of:

– Keep your job; times are tough!

– Save as much of your salary as you can (max your 401k’s, then your IRA’s)

– Pay down ALL debt, following a Debt Avalanche or Debt Snowball, whichever is your favorite

– Invest any ‘spare change’ (after all debts are paid off and the requisite ’emergency fund’ has been built up) into a low cost Index Fund

… and, wait until your government-directed – or, employer-forced if you are retrenched and become unhireable – ‘retirement’. This is where that fully paid off home and a lot of candles and canned food stockpiled will really pay off … you won’t be able to afford real food 😉

a) If high – say, more than 10% to 15% (and, I would venture that $7 million in just 13 years would well and truly put Chad in the 50+% required annual compound growth rate category!) – then I would instead point Chad to books like Rich Dad, Poor Dad and The E-Myth Revisited and then towards this blog and its 7 Millionaires … In Training! ‘sister blog’ and suggest that he starts working his way through the back issues (well, posts).

After reading/digesting properly, he should be able to come up with his own plan … something along the lines of:

– Keep your job, but get into active stock and/or real-estate investing – better yet, start a side-business; because times are really tough(!):

i) A mildly successful part-time business might provide additional income to help you weather the financial storm and supercharge your savings, investment, and debt repayment plans

ii) A more successful part-time business might provide a built-in ’emergency fund’, tiding you over should you lose your job and/or unexpected expenses crop up

iii) An even more successful part-time business that can be started and/or survive during a recession may prove to become wildly successful once the clouds of the recession begin to lift, maybe even carrying you directly to your Number [AJC: do not pass Go, but do collect $200 million 🙂 ]

– Control your spending, and save as much of your salary as you can to build a war chest for starting / running your business

– Pay down ALL expensive debt, following the method laid out in the Cash Cascade, but keep your mortgage (lock in to current low rates) subject to the 20% Rule and the 25% Income Rule and seriously think about keeping your other cheap debt loans.

– Invest any ‘spare change’ from your job and business (after all expensive debts are paid off and the requisite ‘business startup fund’ has been built up) into quality ‘recession-priced’ stocks and/or true cashflow positive real-estate.

… and, wait until you have reached your Number (through sale of business and/or conservative valuation of your equity in your investment assets).

That’s it 🙂

Pay Yourself Twice!

Posted on May 12, 2011 by Adrian

It is commonly taught that in order to build wealth, you first need to save; and, the best way to save – so common financial wisdom says – is to pay yourself first.

Investopedia (the online investment dictionary) explains Pay Yourself First:

This simple system is touted by many personal finance professionals and retirement planners as a very effective way of ensuring that individuals continue to make their chosen savings contributions month after month. It removes the temptation to skip a given month’s contribution and the risk that funds will be spent before the contribution has been made.

Regular, consistent savings contributions go a long way toward building a long-term nest egg, and some financial professionals even go so far as to call “pay yourself first” the golden rule of personal finance.

Whilst certainly better than the other 99% of the population who don’t even bother saving anything, paying yourself first doesn’t go far enough:

Never mind underestimating what it costs to live a reasonable lifestyle, realize that the old “retire a millionaire’ ideal is no longer adequate; this is largely because of inflation i.e. over 40 years, you will suffer roughly two doublings in the cost of living.

Another handy way to think about this is to think of your retirement date & financial target:

Think of a ‘number’ … the amount that you think is reasonable to aim for in retirement, given the financial strategies that you feel that you can employ. Can you save $1,000,000 by your expected retirement date? Less? More?

Don’t guess; there are plenty of retirement saving calculators around to help you with this task …

1. If 20 years out, ask yourself: “would I be happy with living off no more than 2% of that number, each year?”

2. If 40 years out, ask yourself: “would I be happy with living off no more than 1% of that number, each year?”

If your answer is a resounding ‘yes’ then you are done … it looks like your retirement savings strategy will work.

Congratulations!

Now, stop reading this $%@@# blog, it will make your head spin 😉

But, I’m guessing that the answer will be ‘no’ … then what?

Then, you have to face some realities about your current “pay yourself nothing” and “pay yourself first” and “no debt in my life” strategies:

– A million dollars in 20 years (= approx. $500k today) to 40 years (= approx. $250k today), is too low a target,

– 10% isn’t enough to save,

– 20 – 40 years is too long to wait,

– Your 401k – more importantly, the underlying investments – isn’t the right place for your money,

– And, you are probably under-leveraged.

Today, we’ll deal with the first issue:

If you have two reasons to save money (1. to pay down debt, and 2. to build your investment war chest), then it stands to reason that you should pay yourself twice!

But, most people pay themselves second, if at all.

From now on, I want you to concentrate on paying yourself twice … before you spend money on anything else (other than taxes and social security); here’s how:

1. Pay Yourself Once: If you currently participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, then you should continue to do so, and

2. Pay Yourself Twice: You should save an additional 10% of your take-home pay – for now, this can be in an ordinary savings account clearly separated from your other funds.

If you do not currently participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan or if you and/or your employer are currently contributing less than 5% of your gross pay into your retirement account, then you need to increase your pay yourself twice target to 15% of your take-home pay.

Of course, this is easier said than done: if you had 10% of your take home pay just lying around, by definition you would already be saving it …

… in other words, you are already paying yourself twice; if not, all of your take home pay is currently spoken for!

So, let’s start slow:

Step 1 – Could you save just 1%?

Take a close look at where your money is going: do you think you could find any spending areas where you can cut back enough to allow you to save just 1% of your take home pay?

If you are already saving – but less than the 10% / 15% Pay Yourself Second target – do you think you could find any spending areas where you can cut back enough to allow you to save another 1% of your take home pay?

[AJC: No need to start at 1% if you can find ways to save more; start at (or, adding) 2% or even more, but make sure that once you start that you never turn back … be realistically aggressive in setting your Pay Yourself Second target]

Step 2 – Wait 3 months and double it!

Over the next three months, perhaps by scouring the personal finance blogs on the internet, dedicate yourself to finding ways to double your savings rate i.e. if you started at 1%, after three months you should be saving at least 2% of your take home pay. If you started at 2%, don’t take your foot off the gas … double your savings to 4% of your take home pay.

Step 3 – Repeat

Keep doubling every three months until you reach 8% of your take home pay; three months later, save that 8% plus an additional 2% of your take home pay.

Step 4 – Almost there

What you do next depends on your Pay Yourself Second target:

– if you are already saving at least 5% of your gross pay in an employer-sponsored retirement plan (or similar), then you are done! Keep saving that 10% of your take-home pay.

– if you don’t participate in a retirement plan, or if you contribute less than 5% of your gross pay (including employer contributions), then you should keep saving 8% of your take-home pay plus you should concentrate on doubling the additional 2% every 3 months (i.e. 2% to 4% to another 8%) until you reach your combined target of 15%.

Step 5 – NEVER give up

Start today and never stop!

Unfortunately, as I’ve already pointed out, saving alone won’t get you to Your Number … it won’t even replace your current salary!

So, next time, I’ll help you decide what to do with your Pay Yourself Twice savings …

More on the the myth of paying yourself first …

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Adrian

You can play with numbers until you go blue in the face, but unless you understand the principles you won’t be able to make the right life choices.

So it is with the myth of paying yourself first.

It’s usually pitched as putting aside the first 10% to 15% of your paycheck into your 401k with any excess (when your 401K’s maxed out) I guess being put to work elsewhere. Some offer slight variations on the theme, like David Bach’s one hour of salary a day (or 12.5% of your gross).

Any way the ‘gurus’ put it, the alluring promise is of following this discipline your whole working life to ‘finish rich’. David Bach – author of the book to the left – goes even further calling this a powerful one-step plan to live and finish rich.

We have to examine this promise very carefully, because following this line of reasoning for 40 years to see what happens leaves very little room to maneuver if you come up short.

If the ‘normal’ working life is 40 years – to me this concept is almost incomprehensible – then, picking a mid-point in your career and a mid-salary of $50,000, adjusted for inflation, that you think (another terrible assumption) that you will be happy with for the rest of your life, then in my last post I showed that you would need to save almost half of your pay packet (again, indexed for inflation) until you retire …

… simply to replace your $50k salary (by then, inflated to roughly $100k but so have all of your living expenses).

But, what if you start young – as Bret @ Hope To Prosper suggests – and are happy to work 40 years?

Firstly, I would have to ask why you’re reading a blog titled “How To Make $7 Million In 7 Years” 😉

Putting that aside, you would need to save a tad under a quarter of your paycheck if you want to maintain your $50k per annum lifestyle beyond retirement (inflation would have roughly halved your buying power twice in that period, meaning that you would actually be withdrawing around $200k per annum just to maintain the same lifestyle that $50k buys you today).

Unfortunately, you are unlikely to reach your desired salary so early in your 40 year working career …

So, if you’re a graduate with a starting salary of, say, $30,000 and you somehow ramp that up to $50,000 after 5 years (at which point you start saving for retirement), you would need to save around one third of your paycheck for the remaining 35 years until you retire.

To be clear, following the common wisdom and “paying yourself first” 10% of your $50,000 gross paycheck (then indexed for the next 40 years for inflation) as recommended by many (if not most) personal finance ‘gurus’ is a sure-fire way to make sure that you retire on over $60,000 a year.

However, far from being a pay increase, because of inflation it actually represents less than 50% of your current $50k salary. Work and save diligently for 40 years and cut your paycheck in half …. nice 🙁

Any way you look at it, paying yourself first is no Powerful One-Step Plan to Live and Finish Rich as claimed by David Bach and his ilk.

Next time, I’ll share a plan that will work much better …

The myth of paying yourself first …

Posted on April 18, 2011 by Adrian

One of the first books that I ever read on the subject of personal finance was The Richest Man In Babylon … if you haven’t read it, get it and read it.

It is a wonderful primer on the basics of personal finance.

The part that stood out for me – since repopularized by David Bach in his hugely popular Automatic Millionaire series – is the notion of paying yourself first.

The story goes: if you would only pay yourself first [insert popular pay yourself first amount here: 10% of your gross; 15% of your net; up to the employer match; one hour of salary a day; etc.] you will be well on your way to financial success.

Except that it’s a crock …

If you pay yourself first, you’ll be slightly better off than the Jones’, but that’s about it.

Does that mean that you shouldn’t bother to pay yourself first i.e. save a portion of your income?

Of course you should, but not:

(a) where the popular financial press tells you to,

(b) in the amount that the popular financial press tells you to, and

(b) for the purposes that the popular financial press tells you to!

Before we examine how they got it so wrong, let’s take a look at why it doesn’t work; we’ll start with the typical ‘pay yourself first’ amount of 10% of your gross salary:

Let’s say that you start with a $50,000 annual household income, and you want to maintain your current standard of living in retirement … which is in approx. 20 years.

[AJC: why anybody would want to work for 20 years just to maintain their current standard of living is beyond me?! But, let’s go with it, just for the sake of proving a point ;)]

Firstly, you can assume CPI salary increases between now and your retirement date, so in 20 years your salary will approximately double to $100,000. Of course, since they’re only CPI increases, you haven’t really earned a pay rise as all as your gas, bread, milk and so on have also doubled in that time.

At a 4% so-called ‘safe’ withdrawal rate (to allow for average investment returns less the effects of taxes and ongoing inflation, etc.), you will need an approx. $2.5 million after tax lump sum in 20 years to generate $100k for life [AJC: assumption, assumption assumption … but, we’ll go with this, too].

Note: you can get by with less, if you trust that Social Security will be around in 20 years, but I wouldn’t bet on it … and, neither should you.

In order to generate $2.5 million in 20 years you will need to pay yourself first … drum roll please …. 75% of your gross income, starting now and continuing for the next 20 years.

This assumes a 9% after tax return on your investments; 8% undershoots by a couple of hundred grand and 10% overshoots by about the same.

So, what does David Bach’s 1 hour of salary a day (or 12.5% of your gross) actually do for you?

It gives you about $15,000 a year to live off (a little less than $8k a year in today’s dollars) making you a real Automatic Thousandaire 🙂

Next time, I’ll answer the where in for questions …

7million7years

How to make 7 million in 7 years …

Tag Archives: Saving