DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,090
In what capacity and on what basis?I always tell people its 2M is the goal to fund.
I meant, in what capacity are you giving that advice?Private sector, company scheme.
Yes, but suggesting that €2M is a useful or even achievable target in general seems crazy to me. Obviously any individual's pension amount is going to depend on their income throughout their working life and many will never come close to accumulating a fund that size.Basis... you need more than you think.
+10% on everything.
Age | Pot |
20 | 0 |
25 | 50,000 |
30 | 75,000 |
35 | 150,000 |
Exactly, the reason most people just switch off when talking about pensions and feel there is no point in even trying. The numbers bandied about are silly at times and make people feel that pensions aren't for them, and only for the wealthy.As much as everyone needs to prepare their future, it is totally unrealistic for most. I just think it can discourage people to even trying.
But why bother with that?I've used this but don't think it is great which is just my personal opinion in terms of what I am looking for.
Example..... I want an income of 40k in retirement (self funded ~28k net of state pension). That requires a pension of x Eur e.g. 1,000,000. I want to then create a table that shows what my pot needs to be each year per the below.
This would help when doing financial health checks etc.
Age Pot 20 0 25 50,000 30 75,000 35 150,000
Meanwhile in the real world where most of us don't have a wealth manager...Irish Life do one.
I always tell people its 2M is the goal to fund.
After that you can relax.
My wealth manager is RBC, and they see such pension fund amounts on a daily basis.
But why bother with that?
As mentioned above, any contribution to a pension is better than none.
And once you own your own home and don't have any expensive debts the next rule of thumb is to aim to maximise your pension contributions up to your age related tax relief limit if possible.
Obviously it's also assumed that your pension is invested appropriately - most likely mostly or all equities (arguably even approaching or in retirement/ARF - but some will baulk at and disagree with that).
It'd be very risky. The 4% rule comes from a study which showed that when backtested between 1926 and 1976, someone's retirement pot never ran out over a 33 year period. Someone retiring at 50 with today's life expectancy and tomorrow's market returns may not be so lucky. There's any number of articles online about why a 2 or 3% withdrawal rate may be more appropriate.if you had a pension pot of 1m at age 50, retired, and wanted 40k annual income would that be sustainable? i.e would your pot survive until, say 90 yrs old? given assumed growth of 4% per annum.
No because the chances of you obtaining a growth rate of 4% are extremely slip. I spent over three decades in Swiss banking and I was very involved in performance attribution and measurement... and from what I have seen most will not achieve those levels and many that think they do, do so because the fail to measure return correctly.if you had a pension pot of 1m at age 50, retired, and wanted 40k annual income would that be sustainable? i.e would your pot survive until, say 90 yrs old? given assumed growth of 4% per annum.
fail to measure return Care to elaborate? Do you mean adjust return for inflation and for fees?
Would a pot of 1m with an assumed growth rate of 4% after fees and inflation survive 40 years?emphasis on assumed.
Didn't you read my post above?Would a pot of 1m with an assumed growth rate of 4% after fees and inflation survive 40 years?emphasis on assumed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?