I wouldn't think 2.5 would be anywhere near enough for someone in their 50s to retire.

Well, the fine folks at Fidelity would disagree with you.

Would be interesting to hear from any CFP types out there as to what they advise their clients.

Are you talking about someone that is continuing to work or someone that has stopped working in their 50's and then has to pay the gap until eligible for Medicare and all other inflated expenses? I guess it all depends on lifestyle and life expectancy.

agdaddy04 said:

---

I wouldn't think 2.5 would be anywhere near enough for someone in their 50s to retire.

---

Completely depends on the person/ family and their situation

- are you talking 2.5million in 2017 dollars? Or in 2047 dollars when I will be retiring?
- is your house paid off?
- where are you going to live in retirement?
- how much money do you plan to pull out of retirement savings per year? (4%?)
- do you have kids/ heirs you want to pass money down to? or splurge on so that they come visit you?
- how often/ where do you want to travel?
- what do your future health care costs look like? (The ones you might know about)

And many, many more. The number is different for everyone. I think the ultimate goal is that whatever number you retire at, you are comfortable living off of 4%(ish) of that yearly. That gives you a pretty good chance to die with as much as you retired with (or at least not run out of money)

EnviroAg96 said:

---

Starting my 10th year in offshore drilling...6 years before that was with an oilfield equipment manufacturer (wellheads, subsea trees, riser, etc). Just survived a merger/acquisition so ready to start a new journey with the new (much bigger) company!

---

Yo D-Man; when we getting a beer? Is the new place hiring?

agdaddy04 said:

---

I wouldn't think 2.5 would be anywhere near enough for someone in their 50s to retire.

---

define 2.5m?

You could have zero cash but have 2.5m in rental properties pulling in $12k a month. It never goes away and only goes up as you get older.

You could also have one pr both of the spouses with a pension. Lots of teachers out there that are making $50k/year after retirement. I plan for my wife's pension to pay any and all bills. My money is for everything else.

Two biggest factors are:
Do you have a mortgage or substantial car loans
Are you putting kids through college.

Take both of those out and you don't need much to live and travel.

Watch the game somewhere on 249 Monday nite? I don't think there is much hiring going on, will keep an eye out for you.

canagian said:

---

Depends on your age. We have friends in their early 50s who were told by a financial advisor that they need $2.5M before they should consider retiring. If you are at or near retirement, I'd think $2M would be more than enough.

I've run spreadsheets out the wazoo, and if I can make about 0.5% above inflation in my investments, I'll die with more money than I have right now. Fidelity has run several scenarios for me also. In a "much worse than average" economy I'll leave more money to my kids than I have right now. In a "normal" economy their inheritance will double.

It's really interesting, once you retire your strategy changes from "amass as much $ as you can" to "minimize taxes to the fullest extent possible". A very different mentality, for sure...

---

Your spreadsheets are absolutely correct. I played with a bunch of em for YEARS before it was my time to go live and your numbers are SPOT ON. I know ..I'm living em..

You are so right about the change in strategy. Takes a bit of getting used to. What is really hard to grasp and get comfortable with is the change from a life of accumulation and wealth BUILDING to wealth SPENDING. Its a real mindset 180... You need to realize that all that money is now there to be spent..Its OK to start to tap..thats what its for.

AND if you really want to have fun with your money guy tell hm to run the scenarios with one of the inputs being ZERO in the amount to be left to heirs! Some calculators actually won't accept a ZERO. I usually put in $200,000 just so there is a enough to plants us, pay off anything and buy a nice weekend somewhere for the heirs. I think you will be amazed at how much you will have to spend with that $2mill nest egg as a start.

The Original AG 76 said:

---

Quote:

---

You are so right about the change in strategy. Takes a bit of getting used to. What is really hard to grasp and get comfortable with is the change from a life of accumulation and wealth BUILDING to wealth SPENDING. Its a real mindset 180... You need to realize that all that money is now there to be spent..Its OK to start to tap..thats what its for.

---

---

I think that is really a huge hurdle to get over.

As a young(ish) guy, that is almost unfathomable, though I would love to get there.

Coming from talking to my peers, people just don't realize how much you won't spend if you plan right. No more $18k a year going into a 401k, no college savings or kids to pay for anymore, Likely have paid off a house. Like you mentioned, tax strategy will be hugely different as well. Many younger people also don't look at both accounts together if they're married, which is potentially a big game changer as long as you chose wisely (ie, don't get divorced).

My planning for max years in retirement would likely leave only a small inheritance to my kids. Though with normal life expectancy, they would likely get a pretty decent chunk of change. If I drop dead at my desk, there is plenty of life insurance for them in addition to all that retirement money.

Brad06ag said:

---

The Original AG 76 said:

---

Quote:

---

You are so right about the change in strategy. Takes a bit of getting used to. What is really hard to grasp and get comfortable with is the change from a life of accumulation and wealth BUILDING to wealth SPENDING. Its a real mindset 180... You need to realize that all that money is now there to be spent..Its OK to start to tap..thats what its for.

---

---

I think that is really a huge hurdle to get over.

As a young(ish) guy, that is almost unfathomable, though I would love to get there.

Coming from talking to my peers, people just don't realize how much you won't spend if you plan right. No more $18k a year going into a 401k, no college savings or kids to pay for anymore, Likely have paid off a house. Like you mentioned, tax strategy will be hugely different as well. Many younger people also don't look at both accounts together if they're married, which is potentially a big game changer as long as you chose wisely (ie, don't get divorced).

My planning for max years in retirement would likely leave only a small inheritance to my kids. Though with normal life expectancy, they would likely get a pretty decent chunk of change. If I drop dead at my desk, there is plenty of life insurance for them in addition to all that retirement money.

---

Something else that is also "in vogue " right now is to ignore SS. Everyone likes to regurgitate the woe is me SS won't be around stuff BUT the reality is that SS WILL be around for damn near everyone on this board. Perhaps there will be a means test ( likely) which will eliminate it for the very wealthy but thats NOT who we are addressing. The VERY wealthy doesn't have to worry about retirement strategies like we do.
For most of us SS will mean around $50,000 a year. That aint something to sneeze at. You can't really live off of it BUT its a HELLOVA nice starting point for a planned retirement income stream. It is a great fall back to keep the lights on for the guaranteed down years when we need to limit the amount see take out of our investments. Building your plan WITHOUT SS is a great strategy for building your worst case scenario. If you plan is sound without SS you have a tremendous layer of emergency fall back cushion for those un planned craptastic investment collapse years.

I'm so screwed with retirement. I had a 14 year delay in getting started. Worked as a laborer on a shrimp boat, was in the military for about 7 years, then undergrad, then law school. Between student loans and starting late, I'll likely die at my desk unless my earnings jump dramatically. I've come to terms with this but it was tough

Talon2DSO said:

---

I'm so screwed with retirement. I had a 14 year delay in getting started. Worked as a laborer on a shrimp boat, was in the military for about 7 years, then undergrad, then law school. Between student loans and starting late, I'll likely die at my desk unless my earnings jump dramatically. I've come to terms with this but it was tough

---

Right there with you buddy. Congrats on the work anniversary!

Talon2DSO said:

---

I'm so screwed with retirement. I had a 14 year delay in getting started. Worked as a laborer on a shrimp boat, was in the military for about 7 years, then undergrad, then law school. Between student loans and starting late, I'll likely die at my desk unless my earnings jump dramatically. I've come to terms with this but it was tough

---

no you are NOT !!!! ( unless you are 59 and at ZERO..then...you be screwed !!)
I didn't even know how to spell retirement until I was around 40. What little I had was wiped out by a horrible 18 month marriage to a shopping and spending addict. I was FLAT BROKE at age 40..zero..nada...
In my 20's and 30's there just wasn't any real talk of retirement. 401k's really didnt exist, wasn't even an option till I finally had one available at age 41. I didn't start SLAMMING and scheming BIG time till about age 50. Had 2 windfall years where the wife ( a new SANE one) sold new homes and made low 6 figures for those 2 wonderfull years so we could pay off everything, drop a few dollars into a retirement account and got a fresh new start.
At age 63 I had no choice but to retire but , luckily , I was set ( barely).
You ABSOLUTELY can do it ! Follow the Dave Ramsey plan if you are REALLY serious. It is harsh and not for everyone but it is 100% guaranteed to work.

Yes, 2.5 should be more than enough. I've crunched the numbers and at my age, I'm almost there. My FIL did the same. He retired at 60, former CEO at a small E&P company. He actually has built a spreadsheet over the years that he uses. His returns in a "normal" year are around 10-12%. This year, unbelievable. He manages our money right now as something to do. His returns are so impressive that his nephew, a Fidelity guy, wants to purchase his system. He won't sell as of now. He's slowly training me on how he uses it. Many algorithms. Stuff is complex that's for sure.

The Original AG 76 said:

---

Talon2DSO said:

---

I'm so screwed with retirement. I had a 14 year delay in getting started. Worked as a laborer on a shrimp boat, was in the military for about 7 years, then undergrad, then law school. Between student loans and starting late, I'll likely die at my desk unless my earnings jump dramatically. I've come to terms with this but it was tough

---

no you are NOT !!!! ( unless you are 59 and at ZERO..then...you be screwed !!)
I didn't even know how to spell retirement until I was around 40. What little I had was wiped out by a horrible 18 month marriage to a shopping and spending addict. I was FLAT BROKE at age 40..zero..nada...
In my 20's and 30's there just wasn't any real talk of retirement. 401k's really didnt exist, wasn't even an option till I finally had one available at age 41. I didn't start SLAMMING and scheming BIG time till about age 50. Had 2 windfall years where the wife ( a new SANE one) sold new homes and made low 6 figures for those 2 wonderfull years so we could pay off everything, drop a few dollars into a retirement account and got a fresh new start.
At age 63 I had no choice but to retire but , luckily , I was set ( barely).
You ABSOLUTELY can do it ! Follow the Dave Ramsey plan if you are REALLY serious. It is harsh and not for everyone but it is 100% guaranteed to work.

---

I hope you're right. I have been following the Dave Ramsey plan, thankfully. This year I paid off credit cards and the business loan from last year. This year I'll pay off my car around June and roll that into the student loans. Thankfully, I consolidated my student loans while I was married at a low low rate (1.9%) and now that I'm headed toward becoming single, the soon to be ex isn't saddling me with alimony or child support. She's been pretty supportive and adamant that I get on my feet (she's from a wealthy family...i'm not). Dave Ramsey has some great strategies for paying off debt, which is my biggest goal right now

The Original AG 76 said:

---

Brad06ag said:

---

The Original AG 76 said:

---

Quote:

---

You are so right about the change in strategy. Takes a bit of getting used to. What is really hard to grasp and get comfortable with is the change from a life of accumulation and wealth BUILDING to wealth SPENDING. Its a real mindset 180... You need to realize that all that money is now there to be spent..Its OK to start to tap..thats what its for.

---

---

I think that is really a huge hurdle to get over.

As a young(ish) guy, that is almost unfathomable, though I would love to get there.

Coming from talking to my peers, people just don't realize how much you won't spend if you plan right. No more $18k a year going into a 401k, no college savings or kids to pay for anymore, Likely have paid off a house. Like you mentioned, tax strategy will be hugely different as well. Many younger people also don't look at both accounts together if they're married, which is potentially a big game changer as long as you chose wisely (ie, don't get divorced).

My planning for max years in retirement would likely leave only a small inheritance to my kids. Though with normal life expectancy, they would likely get a pretty decent chunk of change. If I drop dead at my desk, there is plenty of life insurance for them in addition to all that retirement money.

---

Something else that is also "in vogue " right now is to ignore SS. Everyone likes to regurgitate the woe is me SS won't be around stuff BUT the reality is that SS WILL be around for damn near everyone on this board. Perhaps there will be a means test ( likely) which will eliminate it for the very wealthy but thats NOT who we are addressing. The VERY wealthy doesn't have to worry about retirement strategies like we do.
For most of us SS will mean around $50,000 a year. That aint something to sneeze at. You can't really live off of it BUT its a HELLOVA nice starting point for a planned retirement income stream. It is a great fall back to keep the lights on for the guaranteed down years when we need to limit the amount see take out of our investments. Building your plan WITHOUT SS is a great strategy for building your worst case scenario. If you plan is sound without SS you have a tremendous layer of emergency fall back cushion for those un planned craptastic investment collapse years.

---

SS will be around but i don't see myself getting out what the gov't is putting in for me. It'll either be a negative return or somewhere around 2-3%.

Talon2DSO said:

---

I'm so screwed with retirement. I had a 14 year delay in getting started. Worked as a laborer on a shrimp boat, was in the military for about 7 years, then undergrad, then law school. Between student loans and starting late, I'll likely die at my desk unless my earnings jump dramatically. I've come to terms with this but it was tough

---

I started late too man.. Dropped out of A&M at 23, had a decent job as a designer/drafter, but had lots of CC and wife's school loan debt in mid/late 20s. I think at 30 we had maybe $40k net worth? I went back and finished degree a week before I turned 30.

I was determined to play catch up, and now 8 years later we have 4-5 years combined salary worth of retirement funds and home equity and no unsecured debt.

It's never too late to start.

I retired early at 61 after 38 years in the patch. A million is not what it use to be and neither is 2mill. If interest rates ever normalize that would help many people. It depends on how much you want when you retire. Is 80% of your current income good enough. You have to consider whether you and your wife end up in an assisted living facility in your later years. Those facilities are not cheap and will surely go up in the next 10-20 years, but you will probably be selling your house to take care of that expense. Medical expenses are always the unknown and that is why I said $1-$2 million is not all that much. Your tax situation should be better if you are like me ... it is mainly cap gains and that tax rate is nice at 0%, 15%, and 20%. The new tax law is hurting me considering the loss of many deductions. I am also taking social security at 62. I don't get all that much from SS since I have not paid into for 20 years, but it is something and I am getting back what my former employers and myself put in. When you plan be conservative in your rate of return and if it is better than what you planned then it is that much better for you and your aires.

When it comes to leaving the estate to the kids I told them they get what ever is left. I was told many years ago that if you don't have a good time with your retirement wealth your kids will.

62strat said:

---

Talon2DSO said:

---

I'm so screwed with retirement. I had a 14 year delay in getting started. Worked as a laborer on a shrimp boat, was in the military for about 7 years, then undergrad, then law school. Between student loans and starting late, I'll likely die at my desk unless my earnings jump dramatically. I've come to terms with this but it was tough

---

I started late too man.. Dropped out of A&M at 23, had a decent job as a designer/drafter, but had lots of CC and wife's school loan debt in mid/late 20s. I think at 30 we had maybe $40k net worth? I went back and finished degree a week before I turned 30.

I was determined to play catch up, and now 8 years later we have 4-5 years combined salary worth of retirement funds and home equity and no unsecured debt.

It's never too late to start.

---

Your guitar is worth a bit as well.

Ulrich said:

---

Posted without comment

http://business.financialpost.com/feature/eco-colonialism-rift-grows-between-indigenous-leaders-and-green-activists

---

Another surface owner (surface rep. in this case) shoots themselves in the foot trying to squeeze more money out of the oil companies.

Money needed to help those squashed by greenies with an agenda that WILL benefit somehow from it all. They always do....

TxAg20 said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

Posted without comment

http://business.financialpost.com/feature/eco-colonialism-rift-grows-between-indigenous-leaders-and-green-activists

---

Another surface owner (surface rep. in this case) shoots themselves in the foot trying to squeeze more money out of the oil companies.

---

While this definitely happens a lot of the time, not sure we have enough info from this story to be able to know if it was a landowner trying to squeeze an oil company, or an oil company trying to stiff a landowner. looking at a map it looks like its about a 30 mile stretch across their traditional tribal territory. That amounts to a 44 cent per foot per year rental fee. Now i have no idea what market rate for ROW is in B.C. or if they own that land or are just being paid a fee but actual landowners are being paid for the ROW. But assuming that is the only ROW fee for that stretch, that's only about $5 per rod using 8% discount and a 30 year project life. All that to say, this scenario could really go in either parties favor as far as who is being unreasonable. But we can all agree that the "greenie group" is an entity we can all despise

I think part of the problem is that the greenies are using the tribes as figureheads. There's not necessarily any negotiation for better financial terms that would benefit both parties (from what I've seen, a lot of times the companies will pay up after negotiating); it's all to get the project shut down. Saying the company's initial offer was low is probably true because that's how negotiations work, but that's not in itself indicative of unfair practices.

NYC sues 5 major oil companies over climate change:
WSJ Link

Quote:

---

New York City Sues Oil Companies Over Climate Change

BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell are named in lawsuit
By
Corinne Ramey and

Mara Gay
Updated Jan. 10, 2018 2:15 p.m. ET

New York City filed a lawsuit against five major oil companies, asking for billions of dollars to protect the city from climate change.
"In this litigation, the City seeks to shift the costs of protecting the City from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat," said the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
The complaint, filed late Tuesday, said that "the very climate disruption and injuries that Defendants' scientists and consultants warned them about decades ago have now arrived."

The city filed the suit against oil companies BP PLC, Chevron Corp. , ConocoPhillips , Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
A Shell spokesman said the company believes "climate change is a complex societal challenge that should be addressed through sound government policy and cultural change to drive low-carbon choices for businesses and consumers, not by the courts."
A ConocoPhillips spokesman said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.
The other three companies didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
San Francisco and Oakland filed similar suits in September against the same five companies.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Comptroller Scott Stringer on Wednesday also pushed the city's five major pension funds to begin studying ways to divest from fossil fuel investments, saying the city should take a more active role in fighting climate change.
That kind of investment decision requires approval from the trustees of the city's pension funds. Officials for Messrs. de Blasio and Stringer, both Democrats, plan to present a proposal calling on the funds to take the measures on Thursday. Some funds may choose to accept the proposals while others may not.

---

Should they sue the combustion engine manufacturers that convert the fuel into CO2? Should refined products be banned from sale in NYC? I'd like to see the latter happen.

Didn't San Francisco already sue these companies? Why don't they all sue Saudi Aramco or hell why don't they raise an army and invade the Ghawar Field and shut the taps off themselves? That is about as logical as all of this nonsense.