# What is your number?



## drpwong (Jan 27, 2011)

Just saw the movie "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" and when Wall Street trader Jacob (Shia Labeouf) asked the question: "What is your number?", he was referring to the amount of $ in one's portfolio that he would stop working and to go into retirement.

So, what is your number?"


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2011)

My number was ... income - deductions, expenses = savings ... not [savings]. I'm still working, but when I began thinking about packing it in a few years ago, that was my number ... don't quit if it depletes the savings.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

This question is absurd. It communicates to people that it's an easy question and answer. Next thing we'll have newbies starting threads here asking further questions about this. I hate it when people simplify stuff like this. It needs careful mathematical study.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't have a number where I would stop working yet, because I'm young and would probably get bored. But I would change how I work, most likely. For me, that number would be around a million.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> This question is absurd. It communicates to people that it's an easy question and answer. Next thing we'll have newbies starting threads here asking further questions about this. I hate it when people simplify stuff like this. It needs careful mathematical study.


I like this answer. 

But I do have "a number." Mine is shockingly low (if the question is: how much money would it take for you to *be able to* leave the workforce?). But it has nothing to do with whether I continue to work or not. Why would I stop working? I love the work I do.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> This question is absurd. It communicates to people that it's an easy question and answer. Next thing we'll have newbies starting threads here asking further questions about this. I hate it when people simplify stuff like this. It needs careful mathematical study.


Agree with you to a point. But it really isn't that hard to figure out. First: how much do you want to spend in retirement? Second: how much pension will you have(CPP, employer DB). Third: (the interesting part) what is the shortfall and at 3-4% SWR (depends on age and degree of conservatism) you can figure out the size of portfolio required. For most people it's in the $1-5 million range but it really depends on your life style desired in retirement. This was a much bigger number for me.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Square Root said:


> Agree with you to a point. But it really isn't that hard to figure out. First: how much do you want to spend in retirement? Second: how much pension will you have(CPP, employer DB). Third: (the interesting part) what is the shortfall and at 3-4% SWR (depends on age and degree of conservatism) you can figure out the size of portfolio required. For most people it's in the $1-5 million range but it really depends on your life style desired in retirement. This was a much bigger number for me.


Of course this assumes you want to retire as early as possible.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> This question is absurd. It communicates to people that it's an easy question and answer. Next thing we'll have newbies starting threads here asking further questions about this. I hate it when people simplify stuff like this. It needs careful mathematical study.


This makes a good point. As an individual could have 10 paid for properties, yielding plenty of income to live off of. So a number would be kind of unnecessary in that instance.

Having said that, I do have a number too....But it is individual and reflects my personal holdings and lifestyle.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2011)

Cal said:


> This makes a good point. As an individual could have 10 paid for properties, yielding plenty of income to live off of. So a number would be kind of unnecessary in that instance.
> 
> Having said that, I do have a number too....But it is individual and reflects my personal holdings and lifestyle.


So for that individual, the number would be 10 paid for properties ... everything rolls up to "a number" ...


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Cal said:


> This makes a good point. As an individual could have 10 paid for properties, yielding plenty of income to live off of. So a number would be kind of unnecessary in that instance.
> 
> Having said that, I do have a number too....But it is individual and reflects my personal holdings and lifestyle.


You got my number CAL , Just bought investment property #4.My husband and I did a 15 year plan in 2004 and in May 2010 my husband quit his full time job he had for 20 years and now at age 43 works only 1 day a week just to keep his medical insurance for us.We never dreamed this in our 15 year plan but my business can afford to pay him a good salary now so he moved up his retirement plan by 10 years.Our 15 year plan did not include has having huge amounts of cash but having a large real estate portfolio.Being Self Employed a few things have changed along the way ,I can retire in 8 years and be on track but I know I won't want to.
I am not a 'get by person ' I love to travel we like nice things so I really see myself working until I am 65 ,not because I have to but because I want to .


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I agree that the question is meaningless. Maybe for the birds of a feather that are Wall Street traders, there is a meaningful number. For me it was $2 million back when I retired in 2002. But I also have a non-COLAd pension and CPP. Plus I rent my residence in Canada. If I owned in West Vancouver, my number would have been $3 million.


----------



## loggedout (Dec 30, 2009)

drpwong said:


> Just saw the movie "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" and when Wall Street trader Jacob (Shia Labeouf) asked the question: "What is your number?", he was referring to the amount of $ in one's portfolio that he would stop working and to go into retirement.
> 
> So, what is your number?"


What I have now + 1 million in cash = immediate retirement.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

As was mentioned, there are a ton of variables. Here is what a current (single) retiree would need, starting now, in his RRSP, in order to achieve various levels of after tax income, dying broke at 95. 4% rate of growth, 2% inflation, in BC.

To give you an idea why you won't see a set of tables anytime soon, think about this.... This is for RRSP funds. It would be a different number if the capital were held outside the RRSP. Or what about a mix? Also, this is for someone now. The (future) amount needed for a current 30 year old who planned to retire at 50/60/65 is a whole different set of numbers.

This is a job for a program, not a set of tables.

Retiring (now) at age 50: 
ATI....Amt needed
30K... 700.6K
40K... 1.03M
50K... 1.55M
60K... 2.01M
70K... 2.54M


Retiring (now) at age 60 :-
ATI....Amt needed
30K... 366K
40K... 625K
50K... 902K
60K... 1.2M
70K... 1.54M


Retiring (now) at age 65:-
ATI....Amt needed
30K... 275K
40K... 517K
50K... 777K
60K... 1.065M
70K... 1.33M


----------



## Assetologist (Apr 19, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> This question is absurd. It communicates to people that it's an easy question and answer. Next thing we'll have newbies starting threads here asking further questions about this. I hate it when people simplify stuff like this. It needs careful mathematical study.



Oh, come on it's really not that hard and to communicate otherwise will only scare contemplative DIYers away. That's like saying don't write a book, it's hard and it might not be very good and it might not get published and you might waste your time and.....

Life is simple don't complicate it through careful mathematical study!

We really can only control a small portion of our retirement life. We should have a target number, lifestyle and most importantly meaning.

I am sure you have read the book The Number by Lee Eisenberg and if you haven't, you should. 

Pick a number, it's healthy. You have to put your ladder up against a wall but as you climb look around and make sure you are climbing the right wall for you.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

I'll walk off the job right now with 2M.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

One billion dollars! (fist with extended pinky touching corner of lips)

I don't think I'll stop working. I get satisfaction with seeing numbers perpetually increase.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

kcowan said:


> I agree that the question is meaningless. Maybe for the birds of a feather that are Wall Street traders, there is a meaningful number. For me it was $2 million back when I retired in 2002. But I also have a non-COLAd pension and CPP. Plus I rent my residence in Canada. If I owned in West Vancouver, my number would have been $3 million.


Since you have been retired a few years have your investments held up as you thought they would .Curious to hear from your experience.I know my own parents were really worried in 2008-2009 when they took a big dip in mutual funds but now they have recovered and back on track.My dad retired in 1998 and my Mother in 2002.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

For me the number represented investable assets outside RSP. Have a very good pension so only needed to fund about half my spending. I thought I needed about $10million but ended up with quite a bit more before I retired. Assets have held up pretty well since.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I spent $40,000 traveling last year to 14 difference countries and I don`t need anywhere near 10 million lol.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Jungle said:


> I'll walk off the job right now with 2M.


I can in fact walk off for $1M.
Investing @ 6% - 7% is rather easy.
The family can live comfortably (though not lavishly) with $50,000 - $60,000 after tax income.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

I hear you. A portfolio of 1M (maybe house paid off), plus if you're good with your money can do quite well.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Wow. Jungle with $1mil who can live a $50-60K lifestyle and SquareRoot with more than $10mil! We need a referee.


----------



## drpwong (Jan 27, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> This question is absurd. It communicates to people that it's an easy question and answer. Next thing we'll have newbies starting threads here asking further questions about this. I hate it when people simplify stuff like this. It needs careful mathematical study.


Wow, I didn't expect this qould generate quite a discussion in such litle time lapse. That means this is quite an active forum.

Well, I too agree that this question is "absurd", as it is no surprise that it comes straight out from a Hollywood movie. I won't however deny that such question did surface several times during some casual conversation over dinner parties a few years back. Everyone would have a different number with his/her reasons to back it up. It generated overall an interesting chat about it without much seriousness involved.

My answer to that question few years ago - without much thought - was 4 millions, with house paid off. I figured, 1 million in legacy fund for each kids (I have 3) and 1 million for my wife and me. But that was before the RECESSION! 

In the movie, the answer to the question: "What is your number?" is "More". Of course, this is all for Hollywood drama. But one must not forget the greed within us. Let's say one day I reach the 4 millions mark, I might not stop because I will then realize that I want "more".


----------



## celishave (May 8, 2010)

$1.25M with paid off home


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

For me I only need another $500,000 cash and my home paid off because of our pensions and Investment income.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

Your haves don't matter. Your wants do. Can you support them?


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

I've spent far too much time playing around with retirement calculators trying to come up with "my number". In 7 years at age 45 I should be close... if my wife wants to keep working for another 5 years that would clinch it.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

My goal is to retire after 25 years of working with 2 properties and enough money to give me a 100k income (in 2010 dollars). That's puts my cash needs at about 3 million. Of course this is all rather meaningless since all the calculations are hypersensitive to rate of returns, rate of savings, and inflation. Realistically all I can say is that I would like to retire in my mid 50s with relative affluence, just like everyone else says haha.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

marina628 said:


> You got my number CAL , Just bought investment property #4.My husband and I did a 15 year plan in 2004 and in May 2010 my husband quit his full time job he had for 20 years and now at age 43 works only 1 day a week just to keep his medical insurance for us.We never dreamed this in our 15 year plan but my business can afford to pay him a good salary now so he moved up his retirement plan by 10 years.Our 15 year plan did not include has having huge amounts of cash but having a large real estate portfolio.Being Self Employed a few things have changed along the way ,I can retire in 8 years and be on track but I know I won't want to.
> I am not a 'get by person ' I love to travel we like nice things so I really see myself working until I am 65 ,not because I have to but because I want to .


salary? are you serious?? why do that?


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

atrp2biz said:


> One billion dollars! (fist with extended pinky touching corner of lips)
> 
> I don't think I'll stop working. I get satisfaction with seeing numbers perpetually increase.


why do you need to work to see that??


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

marina628 said:


> Since you have been retired a few years have your investments held up as you thought they would .Curious to hear from your experience.I know my own parents were really worried in 2008-2009 when they took a big dip in mutual funds but now they have recovered and back on track.My dad retired in 1998 and my Mother in 2002.


Well remember that I retired right after the huge 2000 meltdown. So market meltdowns were very much on my mind. Plus the $2 million number had not yet been achieved. So I managed what I could control which was expenditures. It was amazing how much waste we had developed: premium cable, expensive cell phone plans, multiple credit cards, multiple cars, expensive wardrobes.

So we set a budget and eradicated waste. This was a surprise because it was not something we had planned to do. But everything that we eliminated did not do any harm to our outlook. We don't miss them.

I would say that the one thing that we both enjoy is following our hunches. We had some succcessful flow-through investments and some unsuccessful ones. The successes outweighed the failures. We no longer do those.

We were lucky to pick some stocks that have flourished during the meltdown. And we had some stallwarts like XOM and IBM that resisted the meltdown. We had some flyers that grew from 0.88 to 39 and from 5 to 69. We have a stop loss approach that lets us harvest capital losses from losing picks so the portfolio health is always improving. 

I never regreted retiring in 2002. DW followed in 2004.

Our investment in a vacation property has also contributed to reducing our budget, a surprise because it was counter-intuitive.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Interesting how things work out. 15 years ago we had zero net worth. We did have great careers and a lot of incentive compensation(options and restricted stock) just sitting there. Huge divorce settlement almost broke us financially. Had to borrow extensively to finance cash flow needs. All along I thought the incentive comp would come through. It sure did along with promotions and even more equity based comp. For us living below our means meant not cashing anything out early. All of a sudden we had a really significant accrued option gain so we started thinking about retirement when my job became a pain. We have set our spending level at the total of my pension(starting in 18months) and dividends on our portfolios. As I still have options to cash out the final portfolio amount is uncertain. Portfolio consists of very high quality dividend paying equities. Still too concentrated in my previous employer but working on this. Spend after tax around $800k-$850k. We are very lucky. Life is indeed good.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

Hi:

The longer I live, the closer my number gets to zero. There just is very little I want any more. I have found that most material goods take on the role of master in a master-slave relationship, yours truly of course taking on the slave role.

My wife just yesterday bought a printer to replace the latest dead printer, said printer being dead for over a year now. I don't know why it is progress when 25 years ago a dot matrix printer could work for 25 years, but now a bubble jet or laser only lasts months to a few years at most. I had resigned myself to the fact that one can no longer own an object called printer and have it last a quarter century. Oh sure, it produces beautiful images for the few short weeks it works, but I had just decided to let the grocery stores and libraries of this world be the custodians of printers, and I would visit said establishments as needed for my rare printing needs.

Now, the slave in the goods-human relationship is undoubtedly going to be seconded by my wife to help set up new printer object, and take away its predecessor.

Consider a house. Everyone wants a house right? Well what function does a house accomplish for me? I sit at this desk and use the internet. I prepare food in a kitchen. I sleep in a bed. I use the bathroom. I sit in a chair and read.

The above is the good part. I also have a bathroom to rebuild, plumbing all over that needs vents (previous owner figured vents were optional), a furnace to eventually replace, insulation that needs to be added etc. This is in a log house, so take whatever difficulty these projects would be in your house and multiply by 5.

All the above functionally could be replaced by a 100 square foot shack and an outhouse. No government of Canada would ever allow me to live like that because I would be a living repudiation of modern life and not paying much by way of taxes. Your sanctioned choices are homeless, or playing the game. I am at the point of my life where I can see the merits of the daily cold *** as opposed to the conventional alternative, the modern monster house - and the lifetime career to pay for it.

Consider the car. I am not even going to talk about the financial hit. Today, I turn to the time and obligation hit. Every time an 80 year old remotely associated with me dies, I find myself driving to a funeral. Imagine the freedom to be able to say that because I don't have a car, I can't get there on short notice, so can't attend. Every time I drive to Ottawa, or Southern Ontario, I lose a day of my life. I can certainly do without a car.

For now, I am trapped as a slave of the modern world and its money. But I certainly can see alternatives. If I were to suddenly find myself single, anything would be possible. There is even a chance my wife might come around to my way of thinking, she sometimes ponders what life would be like permanently on a boat. Sure, a boat would still be my master, but it is noteworthy that she can consider a life without a house.

hboy43


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Hboy. Good for you but we certainly are living in different worlds. To each his own.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Time for my regular rant.....

<rant>Surely the only 'number' which matters is what your lifestyle will be. (the amount of beer & groceries you get to consume and budget for, over your lifetime) The effect of all those non-investment entities... salary, pension, loans, real estate, income tax... should be considered with as much or more rigour as your laddered GICs or Nortel holdings.

</rant>


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

steve41 said:


> Time for my regular rant.....
> 
> <rant>Surely the only 'number' which matters is what your lifestyle will be. (the amount of beer & groceries you get to consume and budget for, over your lifetime) The effect of all those non-investment entities... salary, pension, loans, real estate, income tax... should be considered with as much or more rigour as your laddered GICs or Nortel holdings.
> 
> </rant>


Relax Steve. Of course you are right. Still at a cocktail party, and a forum like this, things get simplified and dumbed down. Otherwise wouldn't be any fun, would it?


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

steve41 said:


> Time for my regular rant.....
> 
> <rant>Surely the only 'number' which matters is what your lifestyle will be. (the amount of beer & groceries you get to consume and budget for, over your lifetime) The effect of all those non-investment entities... salary, pension, loans, real estate, income tax... should be considered with as much or more rigour as your laddered GICs or Nortel holdings.
> 
> </rant>


steve, great point. the cost of groceries our neighbour is paying for b/c of her psychotic drive for organic is crazy. their grocery bill is $1,500 MORE per month than ours for the same family of four. I call her kids the million dollar babies as over the next 18 yrs she will be paying close to that much more than me for food alone! and kid number three is on its way for them. I love it!


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

My point wasn't about rational spending. You could blow all your money on beer and pizza or designer drugs and caviar. The issue is that you want to be able to sustain that consumption out to a ripe old age and (maybe) not pass on a gazillion dollars to your ingrate kids.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

steve41 said:


> My point wasn't about rational spending. You could blow all your money on beer and pizza or designer drugs and caviar. The issue is that you want to be able to sustain that consumption out to a ripe old age and (maybe) not pass on a gazillion dollars to your ingrate kids.


Totally agree, except that my daughter isn't an ingrate.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

sprocket1200 said:


> salary? are you serious?? why do that?


He has a wife with expensive taste , how else will he pay for it?If you are suggesting dividend over taxable income ,TD Bank insists we use our tax assessments when we buy investment properties so my business pays my husband a salary enough to keep us qualified for our continued investments in RE.It is a pain these guys as we have banked with them since day 1 of the business , they see the growth we have achieved and liquidity of my business.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

My number?

Whatever amount it takes to invent a keyboard that automatically puts a space after a period, and perhaps even starts a sentence with a capital letter.

grrrrr


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Square Root said:


> Totally agree, except that my daughter isn't an ingrate.


 I would hope not. Not with a NW like yours! However, doesn't she at least hint that you might consider easing back on your $5-600K lifestyle once in a while?


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

Calculating your "number" can be fun, but it depends on so many things. The biggest factors might be your comfort level (I want more than the minimum to support my lifestyle) and desired lifestyle. The "standard" answer is the lump sum required to generate 70% of your pre-retirement income for a pre-determined length of time. In fact, I recently saw a tax expert (Tim Cestnick) give a woeful answer on TV, likely based on this assumption. He advised Canadians that they would need to save 2 -3 million dollars to retire comfortably! Obviously, he hasn't read MoneyGal's book.

Malcolm Hamilton, an actuary, studied Canadian seniors and found that they lived comfortably on 30 - 70% of their pre-retirement income. Canada has a progressive tax system, so higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate than lower incomes. This favours seniors who have high net worth (usually due to a mortgage-free home) but lower income. Also, unlike young families, seniors frequently don't need to make mortgage payments or support children. The "number" is probably smaller than most people think - *if you're debt free*. See www.csls.ca/events/slt01/hamilton.pdf


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

The problem I have with the 'number' is that it gives no indication how you should be budgeting (spending&saving) With the addition of a few simple parameters, you should be able to determine a realistic budget, based on salary/pension, retirement age, estimates of rates and a few notable extras such as loans, realestate, etc... you can derive an amount (your die-broke-at-100 ATI) which is infinitely more meaningful than the 'number'.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

steve41 said:


> I would hope not. Not with a NW like yours! However, doesn't she at least hint that you might consider easing back on your $5-600K lifestyle once in a while?


Actually the lifestyle is more like $800-850k but no she never has. She travels wih us frequently and seems very appreciative for everything we do to help her and never asks for anything. We are very lucky in this regard and know it could have turned out much differently. Cheers.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Larry: The points you raise are valid but they seem to be considerations on how one might determine "the number". I don't see it making the number irrelevant or meaningless. Now, I think what is more important is that the number would likely change frequently over time as your ability to get there improves (worsens) or your like (or dislike) of your job changes.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

I didn't say the "number" was meaningless. What I did imply was that individuals with similar financial circumstances may have very different numbers depending on their comfort levels. For example, if one assumes that OAS will remain unchanged in perpetuity, then one's number is smaller than someone who assumes no OAS. Also, the number may be "smaller" than many think.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I have serveral 'numbers'

My lottery number is at least $4 MIL normally (I like my job), it's a $1 mil when I've not really happy with work, and then my spouse has to continue working

For a regular retirement, it would really depend on when I retire.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Larry6417 said:


> I didn't say the "number" was meaningless. What I did imply was that individuals with similar financial circumstances may have very different numbers depending on their comfort levels. For example, if one assumes that OAS will remain unchanged in perpetuity, then one's number is smaller than someone who assumes no OAS. Also, the number may be "smaller" than many think.


Good points.

Also - one individual could have several "numbers" representing different lifestyles - kind of like what "Plugging Along" mentioned. 

Too many people (helped by industry advertising) think of retirement planning as all-or-none. Either they retire with a "million" or whatever and have a great retirement or they will be living in a cardboard box.

In reality, there are probably several levels of retirement income which could result in reasonable, although not always ideal retirements.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> Good points.
> 
> Also - one individual could have several "numbers" representing different lifestyles - kind of like what "Plugging Along" mentioned.
> 
> ...


Agree. Well put.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I think just like anything in life, your retirement number all comes down to choices.

If you're in a situation where you hate your work, you may be willing to retire on less, in order to get rid of a major stressor. If you have kids, you may change you retirement plans based on the beliefs you have on what you want to be able to provide for you kids. 

I think the number reflects the quality of life you want to have now vs when you retire. Ideally, I would like to have a high quality of life through out my life. The difficult part is really defining what 'high quality of life is'.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> I think just like anything in life, your retirement number all comes down to choices.
> 
> If you're in a situation where you hate your work, you may be willing to retire on less, in order to get rid of a major stressor. If you have kids, you may change you retirement plans based on the beliefs you have on what you want to be able to provide for you kids.
> 
> I think the number reflects the quality of life you want to have now vs when you retire. Ideally, I would like to have a high quality of life through out my life. The difficult part is really defining what 'high quality of life is'.


Uh... has anyone mentioned the "H" word, yet?

(health)


----------



## drpwong (Jan 27, 2011)

steve41 said:


> Uh... has anyone mentioned the "H" word, yet?
> 
> (health)


Indeed, Health should be considered in one's retirement plan. What scares me a bit is that I do know several ppl who postponed their retirement (by choice - and maybe driven by greed) until their late sixties. Then sickness hit them and forced them to stop working... and ended up regretting their "lost" healthier years when they could have enjoyed without work and be around more with their families.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

steve41 said:


> Uh... has anyone mentioned the "H" word, yet?
> 
> (health)


Health??? This is the Canadian Money Forum, all about greed ...  

My number comprised a few things, one of them being that if I did become prematurely injured, disabled, ill ... that I would not be a financial burden on my family. 

On health, I meet on occasion a retiree whose wife was unfortunately diagnosed with Alzheimers shortly after his retirement and who has since passed away, who asks me every time I see him "Retired yet? Don't put it off too long".


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

As an aside.... I sell to financial planners, and by far the most technologically driven (those that use the program most intensively) are those from the insurance rather than the investment side of the spectrum. I.e, those that deal in products such as Life, LTC and Disability Insurance. Makes sense, I guess.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2011)

steve41 said:


> As an aside.... I sell to financial planners, and by far the most technologically driven (those that use the program most intensively) are those from the insurance rather than the investment side of the spectrum. I.e, those that deal in products such as Life, LTC and Disability Insurance. Makes sense, I guess.


Also aside ... my goal or number was not retirement or retirement related ... my goal was financial independence. Ok, so that's achieved ... now, when to retire ... well, for now, it's as my buddy at the office says, I'll stop coming in when it stops being fun.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

rikk said:


> Also aside ... my goal or number was not retirement or retirement related ... my goal was financial independence. Ok, so that's achieved ... now, when to retire ... well, for now, it's as my buddy at the office says, I'll stop coming in when it stops being fun.


Good point. Totally agree. FI much more significant in my view than ER. One is a necessary condition of the other.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

thanks for the perspective guys. I have a young family and a great wife. always better spending time with them than at any job...


----------

