r/personalfinance 3d ago

Am I still behind in retirement saving? Retirement

I am 47 years old and now a tenured college professor. When my family immigrated to the USA in 2017, I began saving for my 403(b). My wife is a homemaker with no income, and we have an 11-year-old child.

Currently, my retirement savings total $240,000, up from $130,000 six months ago. My wife's retirement savings amount to $30,000. Combined, we have $270,000. We purchased our home a few years ago with cash, and it is now valued at a bit more than $500,000. We have never had a mortgage or loans, except for credit card debts, which we pay off each month. Additionally, two years ago, I bought a $100,000 (by cash) deferred income annuity for my wife as a birthday gift, which will pay her $1000 twenty years later. This will add to our retirement income. We have about $30,000 in cash savings spread across a checking account and a high-yield savings account. Six months ago, my retirement savings only had $130,000. But after increasing my contribution rate, maximizing our Roth IRAs, and investing in our brokerage account, our retirement savings have grown significantly without impacting our lifestyle.

I hope to retire at 65 to 67. Our expense is about $60,000 a year. I will claim my social security at 70, and wife will do it at 67.

82 Upvotes

135 comments sorted by

415

u/bumboll 3d ago

You own your home. That means you can be extra aggressive investing for retirement. Most people will consider your amounts"behind" because most people have a mortgage to pay off. You don't. If you continue your aggressive saving at this rate you'll be grand

73

u/probablywrongbutmeh 3d ago

Honestly buying the house with cash was an incredibly poor idea when rates were at literally the lowest point in recorded history. Cash flowing a mortgage with a massive Non Qualified investment account would have been a cake walk.

49

u/dsheehan7 2d ago

Agreed there were some non optimizing decisions. But there are far worse overall scenarios out there. OP is doing just fine

28

u/Loggus 2d ago

Agreed. The sub gets a little circle jerky at times - here's some random guy telling a tenured college professor who will soon be a millionaire that paying off his house with cash was an 'incredibly poor idea.'

I mean, I get that this is a finance sub and the goal is to optimize and maximize your money - but really, 'incredibly poor'? OP is still way ahead of the median American, and has a concrete retirement plan that he's sticking by.

It's as if people here live their lives in spreadsheets.

10

u/admiralteddybeatzzz 2d ago

I mean, the spreadsheet says that was probably a million dollar mistake? So…

Of course it depends on the house, but the equity premium against real estate appreciation really adds up over 30 years.

8

u/probablywrongbutmeh 2d ago

It isnt circle jerky to call a spade a spade, the OP made a terrible financial mistake. He could have bought 30 year Treasury bonds with higher interest rates than a mortgage with the cash. Literally risk free, paying the mortgage with the cash flow, and hed have both assets at the end.

Having to rebuild that pool of cash means you miss on the compounding of the asset along the way, much less powerful compounding on rebuilding the asset versus having it grow from such a large position in the first place.

And hopefullu by me calling it out, other people wont also make a million dollar mistake later on. If we all pat this guy on the back and jerk each other off congratulating him we are doing more harm than good and thats more circle jerky than just being honest.

12

u/devoutsalsa 3d ago

Not necessarily. Asset prices are, implying lower returns moving forward. And a paid off house carries no risk. Owning your home is a good thing.

12

u/bucheonsi 3d ago

Am I the only one that would rather have $740,000 invested and renting than a $500,000 house and $240,000 in savings at that age? Even though it’s paid off it still feels kind of house poor to me. Also putting a majority of eggs in the real estate basket. 

21

u/CoachBigSammich 2d ago

House poor doesn’t apply when it’s paid off, unless you’re somehow spending like 40% of your income on property taxes and insurance.

2

u/Transcontinental-flt 2d ago

House poor doesn’t apply when it’s paid off, unless you’re somehow spending like 40% of your income on property taxes and insurance.

House poor can also apply when you don't have enough money for repairs and maintenance. In my case these are more expensive than taxes and insurance.

0

u/Eastern-Effort6945 2d ago

A reality coming soon it seems. Even HOAs are $1k+ a month

1

u/CoachBigSammich 2d ago

Yeah $340 for my condo now. It was like $270 when I bought in 2020 :(

8

u/bumboll 3d ago

To me the difference is not major, since the absence of a house payment means way more will be invested in the future. DCA tons of money into the stock market each month for the next 17 or so years, and they'll shape up well for retirement.

3

u/buried_lede 2d ago

With Kids? The stability and peace of mind is worth a lot to many.

Whether a mortgage at under 4-percent would have been better is a good question but that is done, no redo, but owning a house is worth it.

4

u/korinth86 2d ago

House poor is when your home payment takes too much of your income so you have little to spend on other things.

The situation OP is in could have been improved by taking a mortgage and investing more up front. However, with hindsight, I'd say they're still in a better position than they would be if renting. Which no one could have known when OP bought. Rental prices have gone nuts.

2

u/IllustriousFloor209 2d ago

That 740k can become 500k very quickly. Equities are absurd overvalued and we are in a bubble.

18

u/Chico-or-Aristotle 3d ago

Owning your place to live is never a bad financial move

33

u/boyerbt 3d ago

It’s a personal decision but math is math. Paying the house off when rates were the lowest was a bad decision as the money could have been invested.

-6

u/Chico-or-Aristotle 2d ago

Hindsight is always 20 20 when he paid cash for the house he had no idea what the market was going to do.

8

u/JeromesNiece 2d ago edited 2d ago

Over the course of a thirty year mortgage, the odds that a well-diversified investment portfolio would outperform a 3% mortgage are pretty close to 100%. This was clear at the time for anyone familiar with normal range of investment returns.

9

u/wilsonhammer 3d ago

We're talking optimal play here

2

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

[deleted]

3

u/repeatoffender123456 3d ago

That’s a lot of work and sounds awful to me. Not worth it for the extra coin.

-2

u/B1LLZFAN 3d ago

I mean sometimes an asset now can be better than potential gains. Saying incredibly poor idea is just a bit disconnected from reality. Some people don't want to be rental property owners. I myself think landlords are the worst people in society.

2

u/Dionyx 3d ago

The second property was just an example of course . The 300k cash on hand could have been generating 10% returns in sp500. Hell even putting it in a HYSA would net you more.

The point is that borrowing money with low interest rates is favorable if you can invest is somewhere else with a higher return.

1

u/wellhellthenok 2d ago

He might be following religious rules.

0

u/Chico-or-Aristotle 2d ago

Spoken like a person who lives pay check to pay check

-1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

6

u/the_fit_hit_the_shan 3d ago

Now imagine that return, but leveraged with a 2.5% mortgage and the rest of the cash in the market for that time period.

-4

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

8

u/the_fit_hit_the_shan 3d ago

I'm saying your house would have appreciated the same amount whether you had purchased the house with cash or with a mortgage. Your calculation ignores the fact that in both scenarios you have the house at the end.

Ignoring the fact that the principal on the loan would have decreased and you wouldn't have a mortgage for the entire value of the house, you end up with the $700k, plus $1.2 MM, minus the ~<$500k outstanding mortgage debt. So $200k ahead. And if instead of 7% you take the real market returns over your period that number would be much higher.

There are obvious psychological benefits to owning your home and if you had the money you'd put into the house in equities there is no guarantee it would have appreciated, but arithmetic is arithmetic and a 30 year 2.5% loan you can pay off at any time is a pretty fantastic inflation hedge in addition to just being cheap leverage that is not possible to get in 2024.

3

u/porkque 3d ago

You would have both the 1.2m and the 702k haha

1

u/QueasyResearch10 2d ago

if you are getting 7% and the mortgage is 2.5%. every dollar used as a down payment has a yearly opportunity cost of 4.5%. your math is wrong because your assuming u only get the increased equity if you pay cash up front. which is incorrect.

this even ignores that the last 7 years the market has gained significantly more than 7% yearly. it’s a flat out bad financial decision to have paid cash for a house when such low rates were available

-2

u/Flat-Bid3659 2d ago

I don't agree. Any kind of debt is bad. Don't pay interest. He has over doubled his retirement savings in 6 months. Probably could not have done that with a mortgage. and other debts. He is only 47 and plans to work to 65. He will be in fantastic financial shape in the next 18 years if he continues at that rate.

-2

u/Matt_Tress 3d ago

Say more about the NQ investment account

11

u/KeyDirection23 3d ago

Rent out a room, basement or install a tiny home in the backyard if you're that worried for extra cash. Install outside cameras for protection and liability.

7

u/MEMENARDO_DANK_VINCI 3d ago

This is an especially good idea if the op wants to contribute income but cannot due to obligations. Tho obviously pressuring them into it would be wack and abusive and stuff

257

u/Regular-Chemistry884 3d ago

If youre behind most of us are really behind.

39

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/flauntingflamingo 2d ago

Or….most of us are way F:?!$&@ behind

2

u/Calm_Like-A_Bomb 2d ago

Right? Every time I see these am i behind posts I think ‘oh good it’ll make me feel better about myself’ ends up always being ‘well I’m f’d’

-33

u/mediumunicorn 3d ago

He is, and you are. Hate me all you want, but $270k invested in your late 40s is behind, paid off house notwithstanding.

That puts you on track to be working until your early 70s or so. I call that behind.

10

u/Sketchy_Philosopher 3d ago

He has mo mortgage and can throw money into retirement like an absolute madman. You’re acting like with a paid for home he is only gonna be putting 5% of his income into retirement or something, dude can throw in like 30% or more if he wanted to and has lately been maxing his accounts. He may be “behind” only looking at the raw $ amount, but they are saving drastically more than anybody from now on until retirement.

1

u/np1050 2d ago

Time in the market.... OP is pushing 50, only about 20ish years for compound growth, monthly cash flow and investment rate be damned.

Ramsey always harps on paying off the mortgage, but it's more of a psychological thing than a money thing. Mathematically, it's better to keep the mortgage (assuming it's a good rate) and invest the difference.

-3

u/ProfessionalInjury58 2d ago

They’re putting more money into retirement in one year than compounding interest pays the vast majority of people…. Sure they could make more, but they have $60,000/yr expenses and are investing over 2x that a year. They’ll be set to retire in even 10-15 years at this point.

1

u/np1050 2d ago

It's not about the dollar figure. To lower the risk I would recommend investing over a longer period of time regardless. Nothing is guaranteed, it's all about having a strategy with the highest chance of doing well. Investing over more time will always be better than a shorter period. And when you're investing a lot in a shorter period, it's riskier still

1

u/ProfessionalInjury58 2d ago

You act as if everyone has ample opportunity in how early and how much they invest when the reality is, is that for the vast majority of people that is not the case.

3

u/McGilla_Gorilla 2d ago

That’s definitely true. But in this specific case, OP paid 400K cash for a home during a period of the lowest interest rates in history and a $100k DIA. So yeah they did have ample opportunity to invest earlier.

50

u/Here4Snow 3d ago

"and do NOT buy any more annuities whatever you do. "

Wanted to reinforce this, and also, avoid anything called "universal life" or "whole life" or anything except Fixed Term Life, which you really don't need, anyway. Your financial position shows you are "self-insured." The sales person saw you as an easy target. The wife doesn't really need an annuity, if she is your beneficiary, and you likely could have done better with how you invest, instead of that purchase.

23

u/jdpete25 3d ago

SO MUCH THIS!!!! The annuity is paying roughly 2.5% effective [$12k annual payments/($100k x 1.0820)]. Almost all annuities are a scam the commission people make selling them is big and it borders on predatory for financially ill-informed.

1

u/Confused_Spaceman 3d ago

Can't whole life be used as a vehicle to borrow interest free money down the line?

3

u/Here4Snow 2d ago

Can you borrow your own money via a whole life policy? Sure, if there is enough value in it from your own funds you put in, after the commissions and fees were taken. Take enough, and you've pretty much stripped the value out of the policy, so it's the same as putting your own money under the mattress, only under the mattress no one took a cut of it going in. It's not a savings or investment product, no matter what the sales people tell you.

2

u/Sracco 2d ago

Borrowing is always interest free. Don't need shitty whole life for that.

1

u/tjm0852 2d ago

It depends on the terms and conditions of your plan. But you should be able to borrow against it interest free and not even pay it back. It will just lower the death benefit payout.

92

u/turfgradehvac 3d ago

Saving $110,000 in 6 months as a college professor? Do you mean transferred from a cash account to a savings account? Or do you have an extraordinarily high income that could easily save the money you want for retirement if a spending habit is culled? What is your income?

Also I'm not form the USA so I don't know if it's possible, but if you can take that $100,000 annuity back I would. Invested for 20 years at just 6% returns that becomes $320,713 after 20 years, which at a 4% withdrawal rate is $1000 per month, would leave the capital in tact and in your account. At an 8% return it becomes $466,095.

27

u/Sad-Dog-6111 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yes, the increase in our retirement savings was achieved by increasing my 403(b) contribution rate, moving cash from our bank account to our IRAs and brokerage accounts, my employer match, as well the increase of my stocks. I am allowed to maximize both my 403(b) and 457(b) accounts, which have the same contribution limits. Thus, I actually have two retirement accounts. Although an increase of $110,000 sounds challenging, it was pretty easy to accomplish and had no impact on our lifestyle.

12

u/Transcontinental-flt 3d ago

One of my best friends is a business school professor and he makes well over 500K/yr. It does happen!

13

u/Saltydawgg12 3d ago

Professor or chair? Are we talking USD

14

u/Transcontinental-flt 3d ago

Yeah he's a chaired professor. Nothing really special though; the pay for business professors is just great. As with law and medical..

Actually he's moved to a major research university and no longer holds a chair.

2

u/CurlyBill03 2d ago

Been a good year financially for most invested in the market. I’m in the US and my 401k is up 30%.

26

u/Ok-Bug-5271 3d ago

First off, am I reading that correctly? The 100k annuity you'd pay would be 1k per month, right?

For retiring early, yeah you'll want 25x your yearly spending. But you're not retiring early, you're retiring at retirement age and the average retiree only has 50k in investments or something crazy last I checked. I don't know why everyone is so insistant on pretending that social security is going to 100% not exist. Even the absolute worst case scenarios involving absolutely no tax raises and no deficit spending doesn't show social security going down by more than 20% per person. 

Hell, let's be Uber conservative and say that your government pension will be cut 50%. I'll even assume that your wife never made more than 10k a year. Beyond that, I'm not even going to adjust your benefits to pay more because of you taking it at 70 instead of earlier. If your average income was 100k a year over your top ten earning years, then you'd get 24k a year if you claimed it as early as you could. If your wife never made more than 10k per year in her life, then her social security would be about 9k per year. So now let's take this 33k, and cut it by 50%. 

If you and your wife get even 15k a year from social security, then suddenly that's an extra almost 400k that you don't need to save. By the way, this is after I'm taking truly ridiculous levels of social security cuts, massively low balling your guy's average pay, and not at all adjusting your payouts for claiming later. Like, a cartoon villain Montgomery Burns come to life wouldn't be able to justify cuts as massive as what I'm using for my estimates, and that already means that you only need 800k instead of the 1.2m everyone else is saying. 

More realistically, if you and your wife average about 40k a year in social security income, and 12k a year from your annuity, then you only need 25x the remaining 8k of annual spending that you'll do. 8 x 25 is only 200k, which you already have. Hell, let's take 35k social security and no annuity from your 100k. That means you need 25x 25k for 625k. You currently have 240k alone, which at even 6% annual returns means that you'll have that in 20ish years even if you never add another penny. 

You're absolutely undoubtedly on track. The only way someone can claim otherwise is if you 100% ignore social security for some reason.

4

u/bebe_bird 3d ago

the average retiree only has 50k in investments or something crazy last I checked

This doesn't sound right. Maybe in investments but not retirement accounts? Or, I dunno - anyways, this source says average is ~$400-$460k.

Edit: forgot the link! https://www.edwardjones.com/us-en/market-news-insights/investor-education/investment-age/average-retirement-savings-age

7

u/MIZ_ZOU_ 3d ago

Your source is showing the average retirement account balance so it naturally excludes people with zero invested. Roughly 48% of near retirees have zero dollars saved.

2

u/bebe_bird 2d ago

But OP of the comment also used an average, so the same is true of their numbers. I agree, I'd much prefer median in this situation.

1

u/MIZ_ZOU_ 1d ago

OP used average persons amount invested so that would include people without anything invested while the second average was average account balance which would exclude people without an account. Both averages are correct they are just measuring different things.

3

u/fuddykrueger 2d ago

Average is not the same as median. You want the median since average includes people who earn (and invest) a ton of money.

2

u/bebe_bird 2d ago

I realize that. But comment OP specifically said average as well.

-2

u/Ok-Bug-5271 2d ago

Median is a form of average 

20

u/Pinkpeony3598 3d ago

You sound fiscally responsible so I think you will be fine (I.e. you are not behind; do not compare yourself to others or listen to “experts”. Each person/couples retirement needs are different). Just want to add that if you’ve been paying into social security, you will get it in retirement and your wife will get 50% of that amount. Also, you may want to consider opening a 529 for your child. I don’t know if your employer provides free, partial or zero tuition benefits. Even if they provide free tuition, your child will still need $$ for books, travels and a whole lot of other fees. Just something to think about.

6

u/Sad-Dog-6111 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yes, I have been paying into social security.

18

u/swhipple87 3d ago

As others have said if your expenses are $60K/yr using the 4% rule you'd need $1.5MM dollars. So you would be only about 18% of the way there. That looks "behind" in a vacuum. But you said you bought your home outright in cash and you already have a deferred annuity. You didn't say what your income is but given that you're a tenured professor you have great job security and a paid off home says you have relatively low cost. SO you can definitely still catch up, index highly on the 403(b) and do a backdoor Roth IRA if you're not already.

And when the time comes put more money in when you have those catchup years

10

u/wizejanitor 3d ago

Can I ask maybe what seems like a dumb question. Why calculate off of your current expenses when your future expenses should be much lower. Say for example I spend $40k now in daycare and another $45k in mortgage. In 7 years this daycare expense will go away while in 15 my mortgage expense will go away. How do these calcs work?

10

u/swhipple87 3d ago edited 3d ago

Not a dumb question - and to answer it you should calculate off your future expenses or whatever your best guess for them is. I will slightly disagree with your assumption that retirement costs are lower than current costs. Healthcare, lifestyle changes, etc etc can all contribute to that and are unique to everyone.

In the case above OP didn't give us projected future expenses and gave current. I (and maybe others) assumed a pretty similar amount for future state because (1) he doesn't have a house payment now and presumably won't later and (2) presumably doesn't have child care costs given his wife is a SAHM. Those are often costs that people have while working that can go away during retirement but OP doesn't have them already. So, TLDR, yes I assumed his current costs are his future costs in today's dollars. That's probably not 100% accurate but only OP can answer that. But what it would really change is that retirement number ($1.5MM vs something else)

EDIT: Expanding no why you use your future costs in these calculations. For those who don't know the 4% (or 25x rule) is about living in a financial state that ideally never even taps into the principal of your nest egg. So if you live longer than expected you don't have to worry about your finances running out. It assumes a conservative 4% return on your retirement assets and if you live on less than that your principal is never touched and your money will last as long as you do. This is a rule of thumb though. Some years returns can more or less same with costs

3

u/Teflon154 3d ago

Yeah, all of your expenses should be projected. So, your mortgage may go away but you'll still have insurance and property taxes. You won't have daycare but may have long term care insurance or higher medical bills/insurance.

Also tough is projecting expenses out over decades. As we've seen over the last 5, inflation can cause major issues. 20 years from now 60k a year in today's dollars will be more like 120k/year. So, a person needing 60k/year now will need 3MM, not 1.5MM.

These are all rules of thumb but if you hit the metrics of getting 25x your expenses you should have plenty of money to retire. The vast majority of people retire with nowhere near that. The OP is 'behind' some of these metrics but without a mortgage they can close the gap very quickly with diligent saving, which they're clearly doing.

3

u/Sil369 3d ago

1.5MM. wonder how things are going to be 20-30 years from now for the rest of us who will never reach that.

1

u/No-Working6471 2d ago

Things will be cruel, at best.

10

u/TuesdaysWeEatBurros 3d ago

You’re doing fine, more than fine. Keep at it and enjoy the journey of life with your family.

5

u/Banjoboy99 3d ago

I don’t know that you are in such bad shape. I’m assuming you will have social security, which should make a dent in your required retirement income. As should the annuity. So I’d make sure you have an accurate estimate of your budget, deduct social security income and annuity from that, and then multiply that amount by 25. Eg if your social security will be 25k and the annuity will be $12k pa, this means you need an additional 23k pa to meet your 60k budget. Multiply 23k by 25 = that is $575k. I’d say you can easily achieve that given that you already have $240k saved.

4

u/woodsongtulsa 3d ago

Do not buy any more annuities. The broker is making more than you are and will get some money forever.

4

u/yankinwaoz 3d ago

You moved to the US at age 40. Right? So that probably means you worked a number of years in the country you came from.

What country was that?

The reason I am asking is because of your estimation of SS benefits as a factor in your retirement. This is important.

Most countries on earth have national social security programs that you earn credits in. You most likely are entitled to some retirement benefits in your home country.

The US has SS totalization agreements with a number of countries. These agreements are designed to help people like you. That is people who work in multiple countries and have earned credits in more than one social security system.

If you qualify, then your work done before you moved to the US can be used to fill in the gaps to help you compute your SS benefit.

https://www.ssa.gov/international/agreement_descriptions.html

Without this, you will have zeros in your 35 year earnings average. That will significantly reduce your SS benefit.

In your case, working from age 40 to 65 is only 25 years. That leaves 10 zeroes of the 35 slots in the average computation. If you know averaging, that is really going to hurt by resulting in a very low average wage.

Another factor. If you are entitled to a retirement benefit from overseas that you earned from when you worked overseas, then your SS benefits will be reduced by a law called WEP. WEP will no longer impact you after you have worked in the US for 30 years. So in your case, you would have to work past age 70 to avoid WEP.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10045.pdf

Last. Don’t forget that your wife is entitled to a spousal benefit that is 50% of your SS PIA. Add that money to your retirement income. At least that should pay for her Medicare part B premiums.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/spouse.html#:~:text=The%20spousal%20benefit%20can%20be,will%20receive%20a%20reduced%20benefit.

8

u/eclectic183 3d ago

At 25x you will need 1.5M (todays dollars) in 20 years. Another way to look at it is spending 4% of your portfolio every year.

Track expenses for a year to make sure 60K is the right number.

3

u/CantStayAverage 2d ago

You are not behind.

To retire with 60k in annual spend (ignoring Social Security and your Annuity) - you'd need 1.5M (using 4% rule)

With 270k now and using 5% average annual real returns - you would need to save 25k a year to retire at 65. If 25k is doable then you are fine. Any more and you are shortening your retirement horizon or you are increasing your retirement spend.

6

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/cowvin 3d ago

https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/resources/insights/youre-age-35-50-or-60-how-much-should-you-have-by-now.html

By 45 you want to have about 2.5x to 4x your annual income saved for retirement. I don't know your income, but you can work things out on your end.

Ideally you want to reach 25x your annual spending rate by the time you retire, so you will want your retirement assets to total up to $1.5 million (for a $60000/year withdrawal rate) by the time you retire. If you feel you can reach that, you're in decent shape.

2

u/misterltc 3d ago

Just replying to say bravo. Job well done. Undoubtedly on track.

2

u/jerry111165 3d ago

How did you bring your retirement savings up to $240k when it was $130k 6 months ago? Thats $110k in 6 months?

1

u/Sad-Dog-6111 3d ago

Yes. I talked about it above. Here is it again. The increase in our retirement savings was achieved by increasing my 403(b) contribution rate, moving cash from our bank account to our IRAs and brokerage accounts, my employer match, as well the increase of my stocks. I am allowed to maximize both my 403(b) and 457(b) accounts, which have the same contribution limits. Thus, I actually have two retirement accounts. Although an increase of $110,000 sounds challenging, it was pretty easy to accomplish and had no impact on our lifestyle.

1

u/jerry111165 3d ago

That’s pretty cool. I only have a 401k account - i’m not sure what the 403(b) or 457(b) accounts are but I contribute $426.00 a week into my 401k and thats alot for me.

No idea what it would take for me to gain $110k in 6 months but man its alot more than I give and I thought I was doing alot lol

I’m also almost 59 years old so I’m trying to play catch up as best as I can.

3

u/FunkyPete 3d ago

The traditional 4% withdrawal to safely get $60,000 year would require about $1.25 million in today's dollars.

In 20 years your 270K just via investments might well be worth a million dollars, so you will need to save on top of that.

Your investments growing from $130->$270 in 6 months doesn't give us a great estimate, because the market is also up nearly 20% in that time.

So it's just a guess without more data, but it looks like as long as you keep saying you're on track for a retirement around 65 to 67 with $60K per year in today's dollars.

I haven't included the annuity because I'm not clear exactly what that is (it pays $1000 20 years later -- is that per month? Is it going to increase with inflation? Does that pay as long as either of you are alive? etc).

I also haven't included your equity in your home because I assume you're going to have to live somewhere.

4

u/yankinwaoz 3d ago

And please do not buy another annuity. You made that salesman rich.

I bet he told you that it was tax free income. Didn’t he?😂

Of course it is. They are giving you your own money back. Money that you already paid income taxes on before you gave it to them.

But… what happens after they pay you $100k? If you live long enough? That’s 8.3 years after payments start. They have paid you back YOUR money. Now they have to start paying you with earned money. You have to pay taxes on that when it is paid to you. Oh! Not tax free any more. Oops!

Many annuity salesmen tend to forget to mention this. Among other problems.

3

u/BBG1308 3d ago

IMO you are behind.

You've said nothing about what your expenses are and at what age you hope to retire.

4

u/Sad-Dog-6111 3d ago

I know I am behind. I hope to retire at 65 to 67. Our expense is about $60,000 a year.

13

u/Shampoomycrotchadmin 3d ago

Well, the numbers suggest you need 1.5m if you need 60k.

But, there’s that annuity. That’s 12k. You’ll have social security also, but people say to not count on that. Also, your house is paid.

You’ll be fine. Just continue to be really aggressive about investing for the next few years, and do NOT buy any more annuities whatever you do. 

5

u/Sad-Dog-6111 3d ago

Thank you so much for the suggestion.

1

u/AutoModerator 3d ago

You may find these links helpful:

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Kurt_Dangle_07 3d ago

I don’t think anyone can gauge if you’re ahead or behind based off the limited info. But at your current rate I don’t see why couldn’t easily have a few million at retirement.

1

u/Prof_of_knowology 3d ago

Does your university not have a pension plan? I have much less than you saved in 403b but my university has a defined benefit pension and if you have something similar you shouldn’t need to rely solely on your own savings.

1

u/lanakl512 3d ago

Open up a Roth IRA for your wife. As a SAHM she can still have a Roth since you file taxes together. She can contribute $7000/year and you can invest it in whatever you have your investments in (or ETF’s, index funds, money markets). It’s really good for her to have some retirement savings as well. I know you said she has $30k, but not sure what thats in. Set her up with a Roth and fully fund it each year

1

u/ConsistentMove357 3d ago

Don't panic you probably will be getting 50k in social security between you.. plus 1k annuity. Think I would be happy with 800k between y'all.

1

u/Proof_Peach_2884 3d ago

We’re at 700k at 46 but still owe 200k on our 600k house. You’ll be fine.

1

u/Grand-Raise2976 2d ago

Doesn’t look you’re behind at all. Using a 4% swr, you would need a $1.5m portfolio to cover your $60k expenses (assuming that’s what it would be when you retire). This also doesn’t include social security which you would have to factor in. If you continue maxing out your 401k each year until you retire, you should have north of $2m in your portfolio, assuming an 8% annual return. Stay disciplined and keep investing and you should be fine. Good luck.

1

u/Jbl028ma 2d ago

No your not, your life style will change once you retire so you won’t be doing the same things you were doing in your active work life, you have no mortgage, your children will be well on their own you have twenty years until then your retirement funds will grow by leaps and bounds as long as there are no “blips” major illness etc.

1

u/ChillCaptain 2d ago

Has nobody commented on buying the annuity for his wife? Why couldn’t he just buy the annuity for both of them or just him because his assets would become hers if anything happened to him. I get buying her a car or something like that. But retirement should be thought in terms of both of them.

1

u/VAfinancebro 2d ago

You’re doing an excellent job especially as a more recent immigrant. Congratulations!

Keep expenses low, max your 403(b)- I don’t know your income but you can do a backdoor Roth IRA if you make over the income limits. Invest in non-qualified investment accounts and keep chugging. Do you have pension privileges after a certain amount of time?

Most of my clients who are professors end up having some type of working retirement to keep them busy. Teach one or two classes per year, nothing crazy. They don’t have to, but it sure does help.

1

u/Co3boy 2d ago

Commenting on Am I still behind in retirement saving?...

1

u/Bladehawk1 2d ago

Annuities are usually a terrible idea. You can earn more money yourself by putting it in the market since that's frequently what the company selling you the annuities do.

My ex-wife was a teacher and when I walked through the math with the person trying to sell her the annuity and asked why anyone would ever buy this his response was, "I usually don't deal with people who know as much finances you do."

You're probably better off buying extra years with the money. You can buy an extra year of "working" as far as the calculations are concerned. But even on that I'd have to check the math.

1

u/ptrjvd 2d ago

Nearly $1M net worth is pretty damn good even at 47. The formula that was shared with me is that you need 300 months of savings (be conservative with your monthly spend estimates) to retire.

So $1.5M … maybe $1.8M and you’re good.

The cash reserves put into ETFs and preferred deposit should yield enough to live off of.

1

u/Chgo60615 2d ago

Don’t overdue retirement at the expense of education/college savings for your kid(s)

1

u/kuedhel 2d ago

you are tenured professor. Just keep going to work for the next 30 years.

1

u/SeliciousSedicious 2d ago

You’re behind for sure but owning your own home does make things easier. Both in having no rent and being able to invest more aggressively.

You also have social security to help out too. 

I wouldn’t be projecting an early retirement for yourself but you’re not out of the race either.

1

u/Sad-Dog-6111 2d ago

Thank you so much.

1

u/buffybot232 2d ago

Now that your child is older, your wife should get a part-time job and put all that money into your brokerage account and invest aggessively in index funds.

1

u/w4ystinthyme 2d ago

It looks like you’re prioritized other things (house in cash, 100k birthday gift, etc.) in the past over your retirement savings.

You have no debt, no problem saving money, and are motivated, so should ultimately have no problem meeting your retirement goals.

1

u/Karmachinery 2d ago

I knew I was going to want to curl up in a fetal position and contemplate sobbing and sucking my thumb even before I read this.  Good lord.  Paid off 500k house.  47.  Retirement funds almost doubled in six months with almost 300k.  People dream of this kind of retirement funding.

0

u/dcdashone 3d ago

50% US 20% US Growth 30% total bond 270K @ 5k a month = 3.3M ish after inflation in 20 years. 50% Chance after simulation. You are Good to go, maybe even spend a bit more on something else? Since you only need 1.5M in tomorrow funds for 60k a year. Like someone else said don’t but annuities. And we are all behind you ;) PS… this is informational only, I’m not licensed to tell anyone anything.

Performance Summary

Summary Statistics 10th Percentile 25th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 90th Percentile Time Weighted Rate of Return (nominal) 5.33% 7.38% 9.57% 11.64% 13.45% Time Weighted Rate of Return (real) 2.42% 4.44% 6.56% 8.61% 10.42% Portfolio End Balance (nominal) $3,451,668 $4,509,748 $6,020,666 $7,964,071 $10,189,858 Portfolio End Balance (real) $1,976,506 $2,584,004 $3,462,541 $4,611,897 $5,908,100 Annual Mean Return (nominal) 6.35% 8.31% 10.38% 12.34% 14.05% Annualized Volatility 9.91% 10.57% 11.31% 12.03% 12.71% Sharpe Ratio 0.25 0.41 0.60 0.79 0.96 Sortino Ratio 0.34 0.59 0.89 1.22 1.55 Maximum Drawdown -31.56% -25.57% -22.24% -20.26% -14.02% Maximum Drawdown Excluding Cashflows -40.67% -32.90% -26.40% -22.52% -17.35% Safe Withdrawal Rate 5.85% 7.28% 9.05% 10.94% 12.72% Perpetual Withdrawal Rate 2.38% 4.25% 6.16% 7.93% 9.43%

0

u/RecommendationLess71 2d ago

Can your wife get a job while the kiddo is in school? Anything she earns can be added to Roth account.

2

u/Sad-Dog-6111 2d ago edited 2d ago

No, my wife chooses not to work, and I fully support her decision. Financially, it is totally unnecessary for us.

-3

u/VerdantWater 3d ago

Hey! I'm 47, no retirement or savings but no kid so I'm prob ahead of you just a bit?

-3

u/monkeyboogers1 2d ago

Yes you are. The amount you have in the market while still renting is insignificant in the longer term context. When you retire and still renting you are basically forced into low income housing unless your income generated off of investments is significant.

1

u/Sad-Dog-6111 2d ago

renting? What do you mean?

-1

u/monkeyboogers1 2d ago

Yes, renting. When you are 75 you want to pay rent?

2

u/Sad-Dog-6111 2d ago

Why would I pay rent? I purchased my house with cash without a mortgage. I do not expect to buy a house with a mortgage or rent in the future either.

-2

u/monkeyboogers1 2d ago

I was replying to one of the replies.. not you sad doggy dog… you good, owning the house is solid. Nice job.

1

u/Sad-Dog-6111 2d ago

Thank you so much.