How Closely Do You Monitor Your 401k / Retirement

[tvguy]

Not really. They get paid regardless.

Yes really. Because happy clients refer more clients and they make more money.

 

[mrodgers]

Outside of my 401k (which I always try to max out), I'm never sure of how much extra I'm supposed to be saving? I saw a youtube video where a couple retired at age 30-35ish with $2M saved up. The majority of the comments stated that it was not enough money (which I agree with). Putting your kids through college could easily take a big chunk of that! How much do people usually aim to have in their retirement fund, say if youre aiming to retire at 60 years old?

$500k and 4% interest would replace my salary now. How much you need would depend on how much you want.

Mom has around $200k. She's been living on early withdraw of my Dad's SS for almost 10 years and been living on payments from the $200k for 3 years. She doesn't know what to do with all her money she has now that she's withdrawing from investments.

Oh, and one is not required to pay for their child's college, so that might not even be a factor.

 

[RamblingMad]

Outside of my 401k (which I always try to max out), I'm never sure of how much extra I'm supposed to be saving? I saw a youtube video where a couple retired at age 30-35ish with $2M saved up. The majority of the comments stated that it was not enough money (which I agree with). Putting your kids through college could easily take a big chunk of that! How much do people usually aim to have in their retirement fund, say if youre aiming to retire at 60 years old?

As much as you can.

I know what my mortgage and utilities cost today. I have no clue what healthcare and other expenses are going to be when I retire. Healthcare CPI is north of 4% annualized.

My plan is to save as much as I can while still having a good life. You can find retirement calculators online. But I’d assume their inflation and investment growth numbers are too optimistic.

The reality is that most people won’t have enough.

 

[soccerdad72]

Outside of my 401k (which I always try to max out), I'm never sure of how much extra I'm supposed to be saving? I saw a youtube video where a couple retired at age 30-35ish with $2M saved up. The majority of the comments stated that it was not enough money (which I agree with). Putting your kids through college could easily take a big chunk of that! How much do people usually aim to have in their retirement fund, say if youre aiming to retire at 60 years old?

Too many factors go into that - it's unique for everyone. It depends on your lifestyle, needs/wants, family situation, geographic location, health, etc.

 

[Searc]

Not really. They get paid regardless.

Not if you take your money elsewhere.

 

[RamblingMad]

Not if you take your money elsewhere.

Most 401k plans will now default to a retirement dated fund. And those funds charge a lot to rebalance your money. Most charge over a point. And they are not marketed as funds that try to out perform the market. Finally, most 401k plans have funds sold by less than a handful of fund companies. They really aren’t worried about you switching from one fund they offer to another.

 

[Searc]

Most 401k plans will now default to a retirement dated fund. And those funds charge a lot to rebalance your money. Most charge over a point. And they are not marketed as funds that try to out perform the market. Finally, most 401k plans have funds sold by less than a handful of fund companies. They really aren’t worried about you switching from one fund they offer to another.

I'm not talking about 401k's. I am talking about other investments.

 

[runwad]

Outside of my 401k (which I always try to max out), I'm never sure of how much extra I'm supposed to be saving? I saw a youtube video where a couple retired at age 30-35ish with $2M saved up. The majority of the comments stated that it was not enough money (which I agree with). Putting your kids through college could easily take a big chunk of that! How much do people usually aim to have in their retirement fund, say if youre aiming to retire at 60 years old?

One thing that might help you is that they recommend that you only withdraw 4% of your portfolio a year in retirement to last throughout your life. So say you have 500k saved, 4% of that a year would be 20k a year that would be safe for you to withdraw. Could you live on that? Maybe you need to save more? As others said it depends on your expenses in retirement and what other $$ you have coming in.

 

[tvguy]

One thing that might help you is that they recommend that you only withdraw 4% of your portfolio a year in retirement to last throughout your life. So say you have 500k saved, 4% of that a year would be 20k a year that would be safe for you to withdraw. Could you live on that? Maybe you need to save more? As others said it depends on your expenses in retirement and what other $$ you have coming in.

We plan to use some of 401k money to bridge us from age 63 to age 66 1/2 when we start taking our full Social Security benefit. Our estimated full Social Security payment is within $200 of our take home pay now, so hopefully the 401k withdrawals will stop at 66 1/2, then we will only take out the minimum required starting at age 72. The just raised the age when you have to start taking money out of IRAs and 401ks form 701 1/2 to 72.

 

[Christine]

Outside of my 401k (which I always try to max out), I'm never sure of how much extra I'm supposed to be saving? I saw a youtube video where a couple retired at age 30-35ish with $2M saved up. The majority of the comments stated that it was not enough money (which I agree with). Putting your kids through college could easily take a big chunk of that! How much do people usually aim to have in their retirement fund, say if youre aiming to retire at 60 years old?

As pointed out earlier, there's no set good amount. It's really going to depend on your cost of living when you retire, if you have other sources of income (pensions, rental investment income, amount of social security). I've lived in a high COL area for a long time and, as such, both my husband and my incomes look very high on paper to others who live in lower COL areas. Believe me, we are not rich. But we have worked all our lives and both of us will pull the max social security amounts when we retire. Of course, to live around here, those amounts are only a fraction of what we make today (versus TVGuy whose Social Security payout is almost what they make today--amazing).

I'm kind of using the 4% rule (but stretching it over 30 years versus 25 years which I think 4% depletes at 25 years). Anyway, I'm not even trying to get to what I make now but if I wait to take SS at 70, retire earlier and just use my small pension, I need something like $1M in my 401K to get my income to 75% of what I make today. Will I even need that 75% (I mean, I won't be saving like a madwoman and I should have no mortgage). That's the great unknown.

 

[mnrose]

As pointed out earlier, there's no set good amount. It's really going to depend on your cost of living when you retire, if you have other sources of income (pensions, rental investment income, amount of social security). I've lived in a high COL area for a long time and, as such, both my husband and my incomes look very high on paper to others who live in lower COL areas. Believe me, we are not rich. But we have worked all our lives and both of us will pull the max social security amounts when we retire. Of course, to live around here, those amounts are only a fraction of what we make today (versus TVGuy whose Social Security payout is almost what they make today--amazing).

I'm kind of using the 4% rule (but stretching it over 30 years versus 25 years which I think 4% depletes at 25 years). Anyway, I'm not even trying to get to what I make now but if I wait to take SS at 70, retire earlier and just use my small pension, I need something like $1M in my 401K to get my income to 75% of what I make today. Will I even need that 75% (I mean, I won't be saving like a madwoman and I should have no mortgage). That's the great unknown.

For me, the 75% of what you made was hogwash. I retired before I was 50. And, moved from the Bay Area to Minnesota. In the Bay Area, my home "cost me" over $8K per MONTH in expenses (mortgage, property taxes, insurance). In Minnesota, my fully paid for home (with part of the equity from my CA house) cost me $600 a month in the same expenses (now risen to about $800). Obviously, I no longer "needed" about $7400 of my pre retirement "income" to have the same spending power. Factor in that everything else costs a LOT less in Minnesota (food, gas for my car, insurance for my car, even tuition at my kids' college), and my family lives quite nicely on about 14% of what I previously earned...and I still take nice vacations, and my 401K is still going up and I still haven't touched any of my outside savings...14+ years now. I think the 75% applies if you intend to "retire in place" with the same expenses for housing you had the day before you retire. Especially in high COL areas, you can do way better by moving to a lower COL area.

 

[morgan98]

For me, the 75% of what you made was hogwash. I retired before I was 50. And, moved from the Bay Area to Minnesota. In the Bay Area, my home "cost me" over $8K per MONTH in expenses (mortgage, property taxes, insurance). In Minnesota, my fully paid for home (with part of the equity from my CA house) cost me $600 a month in the same expenses (now risen to about $800). Obviously, I no longer "needed" about $7400 of my pre retirement "income" to have the same spending power. Factor in that everything else costs a LOT less in Minnesota (food, gas for my car, insurance for my car, even tuition at my kids' college), and my family lives quite nicely on about 14% of what I previously earned...and I still take nice vacations, and my 401K is still going up and I still haven't touched any of my outside savings...14+ years now. I think the 75% applies if you intend to "retire in place" with the same expenses for housing you had the day before you retire. Especially in high COL areas, you can do way better by moving to a lower COL area.

This! I know the guidelines, are just that, guidelines, but some of them to paint a very conservative picture, which inflates the savings number, which I think in turn make some people feel they will never reach the goal.

Expenses are what you need to think about saving for, not some arbitrary % of income. While I am not going to say I am worried about over saving, I am worried about balancing saving vs. living for now. We have been fortunate and saved. Furthermore, we do not have children and quite frankly, I am not interested in leaving seven figures to a more distant relative or a charity at the expense of working now and missing out on some experiences.

However, how to die with zero is a calculation no one is willing to take a gamble on.

 

[starry_solo]

I look at it when the quarterly statements come in. I really need to create an online account but haven’t yet.

I plan to stay in my same location at retirement. mortgage will be paid off so I need to look at healthcare, property taxes, and other living expenses. I’m 16.5 years away from retirement (or maybe earlier),,,,much of it will depend on how well my parents are doing and whicy if my employer’s offices I’m working at

 

[Christine]

For me, the 75% of what you made was hogwash. I retired before I was 50. And, moved from the Bay Area to Minnesota. In the Bay Area, my home "cost me" over $8K per MONTH in expenses (mortgage, property taxes, insurance). In Minnesota, my fully paid for home (with part of the equity from my CA house) cost me $600 a month in the same expenses (now risen to about $800). Obviously, I no longer "needed" about $7400 of my pre retirement "income" to have the same spending power. Factor in that everything else costs a LOT less in Minnesota (food, gas for my car, insurance for my car, even tuition at my kids' college), and my family lives quite nicely on about 14% of what I previously earned...and I still take nice vacations, and my 401K is still going up and I still haven't touched any of my outside savings...14+ years now. I think the 75% applies if you intend to "retire in place" with the same expenses for housing you had the day before you retire. Especially in high COL areas, you can do way better by moving to a lower COL area.

Yes, I'm running my numbers on "retiring in place." At least for a while. I want to be somewhat close to my kids and, after retirement, if they move, things change, I never see them, I'll be looking for another location.

 

[Christine]

This! I know the guidelines, are just that, guidelines, but some of them to paint a very conservative picture, which inflates the savings number, which I think in turn make some people feel they will never reach the goal.

Expenses are what you need to think about saving for, not some arbitrary % of income. While I am not going to say I am worried about over saving, I am worried about balancing saving vs. living for now. We have been fortunate and saved. Furthermore, we do not have children and quite frankly, I am not interested in leaving seven figures to a more distant relative or a charity at the expense of working now and missing out on some experiences.

However, how to die with zero is a calculation no one is willing to take a gamble on.

For what it's worth, I didn't pick an arbitrary number (75%) and work toward it. I just factored in what I think I need to live here and live at a lifestyle where I don't have to worry about every penny that I spend and go a little wild sometimes. If I stay in this area, I think I'll need about 75% of our household income to do that. Could I do it for less--I sure could. But I don't want to live that way.

 

[tvguy]

(versus TVGuy whose Social Security payout is almost what they make today--amazing).

Just to be clear and repeat, almost as much was we TAKE HOME working not what we make. Not gross pay. But I expect to be in a very low, or zero tax bracket when I start drawing Social Security. Of course I will any IRA and 401k withdrawals will be taxable income (no Roths here).
I have worked with a lady for 13 years who is in a lower paying position. She is 68 and started also taking her full social security benefit last year. She previously (for 30 years) was an executive with a major company and her pay there was several times what she makes now. Because Social Security uses your 35 highest earning years to determine your benefit, her benefit is actually $500 a month more than she is making working. She plans to retire this year, and has kept working to pay for remodeling her home, and some really nice trips before she retires. But full disclosure, her house, car etc were paid off and she had no debt when she lost her job, so her expenses were minimal the last 13 years and will continue to be in retirement.

 

[disneychrista]

her benefit is actually $500 a month more than she is making working.

My estimated benefit (at 70) based on what I was making previously is higher than what I am currently bring home by about $400/month. Unfortunetly, I still have about 23 years of working before than. So my estimated benefit will continue to go down each year since I am making so much less now than I did in 2018.

 

[tvguy]

My estimated benefit (at 70) based on what I was making previously is higher than what I am currently bring home by about $400/month. Unfortunetly, I still have about 23 years of working before than. So my estimated benefit will continue to go down each year since I am making so much less now than I did in 2018.

With 23 years to go you never know, it may go up.

 

[HerRoyalHighness]

My wife shifted everything (100%) of her 401k money 8 years ago in low interest savings because she has been putting 15% of her pay plus the 3% company match into the 401k for 40 years. The balance, with social security was more than enough to carry her into her 100's. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20-20. We are both 62 and plan to retire this year when we turn 63. Our financial planner ran the numbers, if she had left it in the stock market fund in her 401k , she would have $225,000 more in her 401k. Oh well.

Did the planner do that on their own or did you ask them to run the numbers? No reason to show you that you screwed up if nothing can be done about it...other than them just wanting to show you that you screwed up. Just be wary of turning your money management over to someone with that kind of attitude.

 

[tvguy]

Did the planner do that on their own or did you ask them to run the numbers? No reason to show you that you screwed up if nothing can be done about it...other than them just wanting to show you that you screwed up. Just be wary of turning your money management over to someone with that kind of attitude.

The planner did that on his own. Why would I be wary of someone who honestly has our best interest in mind? THAT is the kind of person I WANT.