I think that, somewhere north of $1 ~ $5 million is life-changing on its own. There’s no need for someone to have tens of millions or hundreds of millions. Tens of millions is like, changing multiple lives in a family with how much that can stretch.

Whenever someone has billions to their name, it is boggling to think about. That it becomes just ‘fuck you’ money at that point because more often than not, not a lot of billionaires out there being charitable. When they know they’re set for a few lifetimes just by a single billion alone.

No single person should ever have that amount of gross wealth.

  • CoyoteFacts@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 days ago

    A simple estimation based on investing that amount of money into a total world stock market index fund (e.g. VTWAX) would be your yearly expenses divided by 3.25% (pretty conservative rate). The idea is that you withdraw 3.25% of your wealth from the stock market every year, and you’ll be able to withdraw that much purchasing power every year forever due to compound interest pushing the number up as you withdraw. Realistically if you’re not withdrawing the full amount blindly during market downturns you can kick that number up to 4% or even more, but 3.25-3.5% is basically impossible to go broke with, and most likely will quickly increase your nest egg to double/triple/etc in most universes.

    So, if my expenses were 50k/year in post-tax money, I would need to invest ~1.5 million in order to withdraw 50k of “free” money per year forever, inflation-adjusted. You can do the rest of the math on how many post-tax expenses a normal person/family has and will quickly reach the conclusion that hey, a billion dollars is kinda fucking crazy.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      but 3.25-3.5% is basically impossible to go broke with,

      Historically it has not been enough to draw down funds that are invested in a broad American stock market index like the S&P500. But that doesn’t make it impossible. A 20-30 year run that looks like the Nikkei 225 between 1990 and 2020 could wipe out portfolios on a 3% withdrawal rate. Even a 2% withdrawal rate would’ve run out of money in 32 years.

      I’m kinda bearish about the continued dominance of the “invest in publicly traded large cap American equities” strategy over the coming decades, so I’m a bit more conservative in my savings rate, and what securities/assets I’m actually invested in, including soft assets like my own earning ability if I were to bail on this country and move somewhere else (fluency in another language, job skill sets that translate outside of the US borders, relationships/network with people who don’t rely on the US).

      And I know that’s not the central point you’re making. But there are plenty of people who might not feel secure with $1.5 million or even $3 million or $6 million in investible wealth, especially if it’s tied up in one particular asset or asset class, or otherwise less liquid than publicly traded securities.

      • CoyoteFacts@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I did say VTWAX (i.e total “world”), which diversifies out of a lot of problems like the Nikkei 225 and the potential collapse of America, but yes the math is not 100% gospel because at the end of the day anything can happen. Oftentimes, when calculating for a decades-long downfall of the entire world economy, the real answer is that if that happens everything is super fucked no matter what you planned for. All we can do is run simulations on historical data and get statistical significance for numbers we’re pretty comfortable with. If someone is actually pulling the trigger (i.e. retiring) for real on these numbers, I’d strongly suggest they get more familiar with why these numbers are what they are and are prepared to spend less when needed in a rare edge case scenario.

        And as you said, for this thread in particular it’s just an estimation to ballpark how much capital realistically translates into what sort of wealth for someone’s life. IMO it’s very useful to be able to estimate how a layman’s capital generation/retirement works because most people just give up on finances immediately and have no concept of what wealth even means. Does someone ever really need 20 million dollars? I’d wager most people just aren’t sure. Now we know which people we can eat.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          VTWAX is still like 65% US equities. It hasn’t diversified out of U.S. exposure (and frankly, international stocks aren’t protected from U.S. economic crises). A lot of people think about full blown collapse and crisis, but wouldn’t know what to do about lethargy and stagnation for decades, but still roughly the same economic and financial paradigm.

          I think U.S. equities are overpriced right now, especially when looking at market cap weighted indexes (because the U.S. tech bubble seems to represent a much higher percentage of any given index). And I’m concerned that the correction will just be decades of tepid growth or even stagnation where decades of investment won’t actually earn a good return. Not that I’m investing in something else, other than maybe the soft skills I’ve described in my earlier comment.