Nice retirement for a sweet, humble, smart Wal Mart couple

[Moonglow]

How much did you make off of them?

Exactly none of your business.

What a weird question.

By the way, are you happy for them, that they were able to put that much away working at Wal Mart?

.

What evah, Is it something of an oddity to have saved money whilst working for Wal Mart? They would have made more if Wal Mart had not killed profit sharing....

 

[Mac1958]

How much did you make off of them?

Exactly none of your business.

What a weird question.

By the way, are you happy for them, that they were able to put that much away working at Wal Mart?

.

What evah, Is it something of an oddity to have saved money whilst working for Wal Mart? They would have made more if Wal Mart had not killed profit sharing....

Yeah, I'm not expecting many positive comments on this from the Left.

.

 

[Mac1958]

That amount is 23k and change per year if they plan to take 4%, meaning they plan on making the money last 20 years....

That's 449 per week.....They probably can count on an additional 2k a month in SS....Hmm...

They already make about $30K in social security. They're taking 5% and we're investing so that the growth in the portfolio replenishes the withdrawals, plus inflation increases. This should last them the rest of their life pretty easily.

.

Very nice.....a question if you don't mind doling out a freebie.....

I had always wondered about reinvesting the SS money.....do you run it in a high risk money maker to get the difference between taking the check or adding longevity to the retirement?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean starting income earlier and investing it to make up for the lower payments?

.

No, you say you are reinvesting their SS payments into their 401k or IRA investment vehicles, right? How are you able to use the growth of those funds to replace their withdrawls? Or are you saying that they're not even using the SS checks as a monthly income?

Oh, no, we're not re-investing their social security income, that just goes to them monthly as regular income.

Then you add income from your retirement account. Here's how you do it: Take your nest egg and invest it relatively conservatively, with a target of about 5.5% long term. Then you take out 5% annually for income. So theoretically, the growth in the account will more than make up for the money you're taking out. That allows you to increase that income to keep up with inflation. Since the growth in the account is (over time) replacing what you're taking out, you don't run out of money.

So you have social security plus 5% of your nest egg plus any other income.

Does that make more sense?

.

 

[boedicca]

seems like a lot of money but at todays interest rates how do you live on it?

They both have full social security and we've set them up at a 5% annual withdrawal. Totals about $56,000 a year for the rest of their lives plus cost of living increases, with plenty of emergency funds.

That's more than they've been making.

Portfolio invested conservatively to replenish withdrawals.

Easy as pie.

.

Very nice. One question: How many years does this income plan last?

It's built to last forever, with the income increases I mentioned. The growth in the portfolio, over time, will replenish withdrawals.

When they're gone, it goes to the kids.

I have clients who have been taking 5%+ income for years and have more in their account than when they began.

.

That's wonderful. With interest rates at ZIRP, it's increasingly difficult to find 5% returns that aren't risky. Congrats to your clients.

You are never going to get good returns with investments that "aren't risky".

It's actually very easy to find good returns. You just have to accept some amount of risk.

IF my mutual fund has been doing 13% year over year, for 40 years.... is their risk? Sure. But is that risk acceptable given a 40 year track record? Sure. But you don't put all your eggs in one basket. So I have a second fund, that's gotten 11.8% over 30 years. Is there a risk? Sure. But is that risk acceptable given a 30 year track record? Yes.

Many people would be far more wealthy, if they spent less time trying to prevent all risk, and more time investment diversely.

I suspect you have quite a few years left in your working career. A retired couple in their 60s can't afford to "risk it all". My parents are retired and have just a bit more money than in the OP. They were very frugal and worked hard to save that money. They're quite happy with conservative investments that protect their principal, and have the peace of mind that high risk investments would not make possible.

 

[boedicca]

Just initiated a 401K rollover for a very sweet couple, both aged 63. They both spent the last 17 or so years working at Wal Mart. Not in corporate, but in regular ol' stores. Stocking shelves, receiving, some management, you name it.

They said "we were just careful with our money, we never had to buy the newest stuff, we lived within our means and stayed humble with our money". That's their big secret.

Totals of their 401K's:
Husband: $287,729.57
Wife: $211,898.10

Separate Roth IRA's at Edward Jones:
Husband: $42,114.52
Wife: $43,001.58

Total retirement portfolio: $584,743.77

After our meeting today, they left for a week-long camping and fishing trip with friends, celebrating the start of their comfy retirement. Just bought a cool new red Honda four-wheel-type thing for the trip. They like driving through streams.

So long Wal Mart, hello striped bass.

.

seems like a lot of money but at todays interest rates how do you live on it?

They both have full social security and we've set them up at a 5% annual withdrawal. Totals about $56,000 a year for the rest of their lives plus cost of living increases, with plenty of emergency funds.

That's more than they've been making.

Portfolio invested conservatively to replenish withdrawals.

Easy as pie.

.

Very nice. One question: How many years does this income plan last?

It's built to last forever, with the income increases I mentioned. The growth in the portfolio, over time, will replenish withdrawals.

When they're gone, it goes to the kids.

I have clients who have been taking 5%+ income for years and have more in their account than when they began.

.

If you invest intelligently, you can live off the Return on Investment (ROI), forever, and never run out of money.

It just matters that you don't withdraw more than the ROI. Everyone should be retiring with money. $100 a month, and you can actually retire without being a ward of the state.

Withdrawing the ROI is not going to protect you from inflation.

 

[Darkwind]

That amount is 23k and change per year if they plan to take 4%, meaning they plan on making the money last 20 years....

That's 449 per week.....They probably can count on an additional 2k a month in SS....Hmm...

They already make about $30K in social security. They're taking 5% and we're investing so that the growth in the portfolio replenishes the withdrawals, plus inflation increases. This should last them the rest of their life pretty easily.

.

Very nice.....a question if you don't mind doling out a freebie.....

I had always wondered about reinvesting the SS money.....do you run it in a high risk money maker to get the difference between taking the check or adding longevity to the retirement?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean starting income earlier and investing it to make up for the lower payments?

.

No, you say you are reinvesting their SS payments into their 401k or IRA investment vehicles, right? How are you able to use the growth of those funds to replace their withdrawls? Or are you saying that they're not even using the SS checks as a monthly income?

Oh, no, we're not re-investing their social security income, that just goes to them monthly as regular income.

Then you add income from your retirement account. Here's how you do it: Take your nest egg and invest it relatively conservatively, with a target of about 5.5% long term. Then you take out 5% annually for income. So theoretically, the growth in the account will more than make up for the money you're taking out. That allows you to increase that income to keep up with inflation. Since the growth in the account is (over time) replacing what you're taking out, you don't run out of money.

So you have social security plus 5% of your nest egg plus any other income.

Does that make more sense?

.

Oh, I misunderstood you then....Yeah, that is how I planned Mine. I wanted to live on a 4% withdrawl, so I have it balanceed between conservative and moderate risk investments to get me to 5%....that way, I'm always growing a percent per year and won't have to worry if I die the day after retirement or 30 years after. Plus, if I go first, the wife will be set up until she passes...then its split between the kids...

 

[Mac1958]

They already make about $30K in social security. They're taking 5% and we're investing so that the growth in the portfolio replenishes the withdrawals, plus inflation increases. This should last them the rest of their life pretty easily.

.

Very nice.....a question if you don't mind doling out a freebie.....

I had always wondered about reinvesting the SS money.....do you run it in a high risk money maker to get the difference between taking the check or adding longevity to the retirement?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean starting income earlier and investing it to make up for the lower payments?

.

No, you say you are reinvesting their SS payments into their 401k or IRA investment vehicles, right? How are you able to use the growth of those funds to replace their withdrawls? Or are you saying that they're not even using the SS checks as a monthly income?

Oh, no, we're not re-investing their social security income, that just goes to them monthly as regular income.

Then you add income from your retirement account. Here's how you do it: Take your nest egg and invest it relatively conservatively, with a target of about 5.5% long term. Then you take out 5% annually for income. So theoretically, the growth in the account will more than make up for the money you're taking out. That allows you to increase that income to keep up with inflation. Since the growth in the account is (over time) replacing what you're taking out, you don't run out of money.

So you have social security plus 5% of your nest egg plus any other income.

Does that make more sense?

.

Oh, I misunderstood you then....Yeah, that is how I planned Mine. I wanted to live on a 4% withdrawl, so I have it balanceed between conservative and moderate risk investments to get me to 5%....that way, I'm always growing a percent per year and won't have to worry if I die the day after retirement or 30 years after. Plus, if I go first, the wife will be set up until she passes...then its split between the kids...

Bingo, there ya go.

There's currently a debate about whether the income amount should be 4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%. I'm comfortable with 5.0% - we use any number of securities that can do that pretty easily, but I can definitely understand being cautious.

.

 

[boedicca]

How much did you make off of them?

Exactly none of your business.

What a weird question.

By the way, are you happy for them, that they were able to put that much away working at Wal Mart?

.

What evah, Is it something of an oddity to have saved money whilst working for Wal Mart? They would have made more if Wal Mart had not killed profit sharing....

WalMart increased their 401K matching when they ended profit sharing - which is better for the employees as they are encouraged to save for retirement. It's too tempting to spend profit sharing paychecks. Good for WalMart for helping their employees plan for the future. It sure worked for Mac's clients.


The discounter will replace profit-sharing starting in February with retirement plan contributions of up to 6 percent of pay -- as long as workers sign up and contribute an equal amount, Wal-Mart said in a memo it provided The Associated Press late Friday.

The payments added up to 4 percent to the compensation of employees who'd worked more than 13 months for the world's largest retailer.

Wal-Mart also is setting aside up to $1,000 for each employee's health care account to cover eligible medical expenses before employees have to pay any deductible coinsurance.

The memo also notes that employees have the "potential" to receive larger bonuses if the store, warehouse club or distribution center where they work performs well....

Wal-Mart ends profit-sharing ups 401K match - Cecil Daily Business

 

[boedicca]

They already make about $30K in social security. They're taking 5% and we're investing so that the growth in the portfolio replenishes the withdrawals, plus inflation increases. This should last them the rest of their life pretty easily.

.

Very nice.....a question if you don't mind doling out a freebie.....

I had always wondered about reinvesting the SS money.....do you run it in a high risk money maker to get the difference between taking the check or adding longevity to the retirement?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean starting income earlier and investing it to make up for the lower payments?

.

No, you say you are reinvesting their SS payments into their 401k or IRA investment vehicles, right? How are you able to use the growth of those funds to replace their withdrawls? Or are you saying that they're not even using the SS checks as a monthly income?

Oh, no, we're not re-investing their social security income, that just goes to them monthly as regular income.

Then you add income from your retirement account. Here's how you do it: Take your nest egg and invest it relatively conservatively, with a target of about 5.5% long term. Then you take out 5% annually for income. So theoretically, the growth in the account will more than make up for the money you're taking out. That allows you to increase that income to keep up with inflation. Since the growth in the account is (over time) replacing what you're taking out, you don't run out of money.

So you have social security plus 5% of your nest egg plus any other income.

Does that make more sense?

.

Oh, I misunderstood you then....Yeah, that is how I planned Mine. I wanted to live on a 4% withdrawl, so I have it balanceed between conservative and moderate risk investments to get me to 5%....that way, I'm always growing a percent per year and won't have to worry if I die the day after retirement or 30 years after. Plus, if I go first, the wife will be set up until she passes...then its split between the kids...

I agree. My husband and I are planning that way as well - 4% withdrawals. With where we are, I actually think we could even do 3% and be very happy. I'd rather underspend if possible and have "emergency" funds. We've got awhile to go, but that's what I'm thinking.

 

[Mac1958]

Very nice.....a question if you don't mind doling out a freebie.....

I had always wondered about reinvesting the SS money.....do you run it in a high risk money maker to get the difference between taking the check or adding longevity to the retirement?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean starting income earlier and investing it to make up for the lower payments?

.

No, you say you are reinvesting their SS payments into their 401k or IRA investment vehicles, right? How are you able to use the growth of those funds to replace their withdrawls? Or are you saying that they're not even using the SS checks as a monthly income?

Oh, no, we're not re-investing their social security income, that just goes to them monthly as regular income.

Then you add income from your retirement account. Here's how you do it: Take your nest egg and invest it relatively conservatively, with a target of about 5.5% long term. Then you take out 5% annually for income. So theoretically, the growth in the account will more than make up for the money you're taking out. That allows you to increase that income to keep up with inflation. Since the growth in the account is (over time) replacing what you're taking out, you don't run out of money.

So you have social security plus 5% of your nest egg plus any other income.

Does that make more sense?

.

Oh, I misunderstood you then....Yeah, that is how I planned Mine. I wanted to live on a 4% withdrawl, so I have it balanceed between conservative and moderate risk investments to get me to 5%....that way, I'm always growing a percent per year and won't have to worry if I die the day after retirement or 30 years after. Plus, if I go first, the wife will be set up until she passes...then its split between the kids...

I agree. My husband and I are planning that way as well - 4% withdrawals. With where we are, I actually think we could even do 3% and be very happy. I'd rather underspend if possible and have "emergency" funds. We've got awhile to go, but that's what I'm thinking.

Just having a preliminary plan puts you ahead of a lot of people.

.

 

[boedicca]

Not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean starting income earlier and investing it to make up for the lower payments?

.

No, you say you are reinvesting their SS payments into their 401k or IRA investment vehicles, right? How are you able to use the growth of those funds to replace their withdrawls? Or are you saying that they're not even using the SS checks as a monthly income?

Oh, no, we're not re-investing their social security income, that just goes to them monthly as regular income.

Then you add income from your retirement account. Here's how you do it: Take your nest egg and invest it relatively conservatively, with a target of about 5.5% long term. Then you take out 5% annually for income. So theoretically, the growth in the account will more than make up for the money you're taking out. That allows you to increase that income to keep up with inflation. Since the growth in the account is (over time) replacing what you're taking out, you don't run out of money.

So you have social security plus 5% of your nest egg plus any other income.

Does that make more sense?

.

Oh, I misunderstood you then....Yeah, that is how I planned Mine. I wanted to live on a 4% withdrawl, so I have it balanceed between conservative and moderate risk investments to get me to 5%....that way, I'm always growing a percent per year and won't have to worry if I die the day after retirement or 30 years after. Plus, if I go first, the wife will be set up until she passes...then its split between the kids...

I agree. My husband and I are planning that way as well - 4% withdrawals. With where we are, I actually think we could even do 3% and be very happy. I'd rather underspend if possible and have "emergency" funds. We've got awhile to go, but that's what I'm thinking.

Just having a preliminary plan puts you ahead of a lot of people.

.

We did that from day one. When we got married, we decided to buy a house we could afford on one income, and then saved as much as possible. That gave us an early boost. It's a lot easier to plan for retirement if one starts early.

 

[Valerie]

seems like a lot of money but at todays interest rates how do you live on it?

Well.... huh? What does interest rate have to do with it?

The money isn't in a CD I would assume. It's more likely at Edward Jones, earning dividends on a mutual fund.

My mutual fund at American Funds, earned 12% year over year. It's called "wise investment".

So lets assume conservatively, that they earn 8% on their investments.

8% of $585K is roughly $46K a year. Can you live off $46,000 a year? Yeah, I think so. I sure could.

well if people could safely earn 8% they would not invest trillions at one or two and recently in Europe at negative interest.

There is no "safe" investment. All investment has risk.

With risk, comes the rewards. Is there a chance I could lose some money? Sure. In fact I did.

During the 2008 melt down, I lost money on my portfolio. How did I deal with that? I poured as much money as possible, every spare dollar I had, into the stock market, even as it was crashing.

In the first year, I made 28% plus some, on my investment. I almost doubled my money in three years.

Now, allow me to clarify. Because I just said in the prior post, that I made 12% year over year.

That's true. In 2008, I was in a private 401K plan. I did not buy the American Funds mutual fund until 2011. So from 2008, to 2010, I made a massive 28% on my money. From 2011 to today, I've made 12% year over year.

What's my point? If you want the reward of a good return on investments, you have to take the risk.

The reason people buy bonds, and CDs, and money market funds, with absolutely terrible 0.5% interest rates, is because they are trying to avoid all risk.

Avoiding risk, is a great way to go broke. Yeah, $500K invested in sub-1% interest rate bonds, you can't live off that. And many people do that, and that's dumb.

Wisely invest into good mutual funds with long track records, with decent rates of return on your investment, and you'll do fine.

I think thats bad advice. Nobody knows what a good fund is and on average they do worse than a monkey throwing darts. THe best general advice is buy index funds that charge little .

Really? Nobody knows what a good mutual fund is?

What exactly was my advice? I said pick good mutual fund(S), with long track records.

If you have a fund that has 20 to 40 years, of decent growth, are you telling me that isn't a good pick?

You say they do worse, but my first fund has done 11.4% year over year for the past 30 years. My second fund, has done 13% year over year for the past 40 years.

They both have consistently out done the index funds, and there is nothing wrong with index funds either.

For comparison, I checked out Vangard Index 5.8% since inception. Fidelity has a number of index funds, ranging from 6% to 10%. Not bad at the top end.

So.... why is this bad advice again?

Are there index funds with long track records with consistent growth? Sure. That would be consistent with my advice.

But to say that having lower fees is important.... ah... not so much. I have almost doubled my money using mutual funds that charge fees.

See, when you look up the prospectus of the mutual fund you are considering buying, the key is:

Average annual total returns
For the periods ended December 31, 2013 (with maximum sales charge):

Notice, Maximum sales charges. So the returns listed, include the highest possible sales charges. Then you look at what that return is. 13.67%.

If I'm earning 13.67% on my money WITH sale charges,

and you are earning 6% with your index fund WITHOUT sales charges,

Which of us is doing better? Obviously I am. So just because a fund has low, or no sales charges, doesn't automatically mean it's a good fund.

So my advice again is simply.... find mutual fund(S), with long track records, and good returns on investment, and you'll be fine.

What's wrong with that? If you have an index fund with a long track record and good returns, great. If you find another fund with a long track record and good returns, great.

And don't only buy ONE fund. Buy several.

Really? Nobody knows what a good mutual fund is?



yeah, i had the same reaction to his post... and i am in the American funds as well.


Welcome to American Funds American Funds

 

[Darkwind]

Very nice.....a question if you don't mind doling out a freebie.....

I had always wondered about reinvesting the SS money.....do you run it in a high risk money maker to get the difference between taking the check or adding longevity to the retirement?

Not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean starting income earlier and investing it to make up for the lower payments?

.

No, you say you are reinvesting their SS payments into their 401k or IRA investment vehicles, right? How are you able to use the growth of those funds to replace their withdrawls? Or are you saying that they're not even using the SS checks as a monthly income?

Oh, no, we're not re-investing their social security income, that just goes to them monthly as regular income.

Then you add income from your retirement account. Here's how you do it: Take your nest egg and invest it relatively conservatively, with a target of about 5.5% long term. Then you take out 5% annually for income. So theoretically, the growth in the account will more than make up for the money you're taking out. That allows you to increase that income to keep up with inflation. Since the growth in the account is (over time) replacing what you're taking out, you don't run out of money.

So you have social security plus 5% of your nest egg plus any other income.

Does that make more sense?

.

Oh, I misunderstood you then....Yeah, that is how I planned Mine. I wanted to live on a 4% withdrawl, so I have it balanceed between conservative and moderate risk investments to get me to 5%....that way, I'm always growing a percent per year and won't have to worry if I die the day after retirement or 30 years after. Plus, if I go first, the wife will be set up until she passes...then its split between the kids...

Bingo, there ya go.

There's currently a debate about whether the income amount should be 4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%. I'm comfortable with 5.0% - we use any number of securities that can do that pretty easily, but I can definitely understand being cautious.

.

I chose the 4% for the same reason you warned the other poster about getting out if the market dips...they may be some loss due to fluxuations, so I take 4% on a 5% growth to buffer it. Over time, the worst a person should do is a half percent to fluxuations.

 

[SteadyMercury]

[I wanted to live on a 4% withdrawl

My husband and I are planning that way as well - 4% withdrawals.

There's currently a debate about whether the income amount should be 4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%.

It is fun to play around with the numbers for backtesting here: FIRECalc A different kind of retirement calculator

Put in your nut, expected withdrawal, social security, expenses, time frame, asset allocation, etc. I fiddled with it a lot before deciding on about 4% especially since retiring in our 40s we (hopefully) need 40+ years to live on the stash.

 

[Mr Natural]

Four percent withdrawals seems to be a good the rule of thumb.

I've been retired since 2001 and taking four percent a year. My balance has not gone down, in fact it's gone up a bit.

 

[Darkwind]

[I wanted to live on a 4% withdrawl

My husband and I are planning that way as well - 4% withdrawals.

There's currently a debate about whether the income amount should be 4.0%, 4.5%, 5.0%.

It is fun to play around with the numbers for backtesting here: FIRECalc A different kind of retirement calculator

Put in your nut, expected withdrawal, social security, expenses, time frame, asset allocation, etc. I fiddled with it a lot before deciding on about 4% especially since retiring in our 40s we (hopefully) need 40+ years to live on the stash.

Thanks...I'll give it a try later today...right now, I have to run.....

 

[boedicca]

Well.... huh? What does interest rate have to do with it?

The money isn't in a CD I would assume. It's more likely at Edward Jones, earning dividends on a mutual fund.

My mutual fund at American Funds, earned 12% year over year. It's called "wise investment".

So lets assume conservatively, that they earn 8% on their investments.

8% of $585K is roughly $46K a year. Can you live off $46,000 a year? Yeah, I think so. I sure could.

well if people could safely earn 8% they would not invest trillions at one or two and recently in Europe at negative interest.

There is no "safe" investment. All investment has risk.

With risk, comes the rewards. Is there a chance I could lose some money? Sure. In fact I did.

During the 2008 melt down, I lost money on my portfolio. How did I deal with that? I poured as much money as possible, every spare dollar I had, into the stock market, even as it was crashing.

In the first year, I made 28% plus some, on my investment. I almost doubled my money in three years.

Now, allow me to clarify. Because I just said in the prior post, that I made 12% year over year.

That's true. In 2008, I was in a private 401K plan. I did not buy the American Funds mutual fund until 2011. So from 2008, to 2010, I made a massive 28% on my money. From 2011 to today, I've made 12% year over year.

What's my point? If you want the reward of a good return on investments, you have to take the risk.

The reason people buy bonds, and CDs, and money market funds, with absolutely terrible 0.5% interest rates, is because they are trying to avoid all risk.

Avoiding risk, is a great way to go broke. Yeah, $500K invested in sub-1% interest rate bonds, you can't live off that. And many people do that, and that's dumb.

Wisely invest into good mutual funds with long track records, with decent rates of return on your investment, and you'll do fine.

I think thats bad advice. Nobody knows what a good fund is and on average they do worse than a monkey throwing darts. THe best general advice is buy index funds that charge little .

Really? Nobody knows what a good mutual fund is?

What exactly was my advice? I said pick good mutual fund(S), with long track records.

If you have a fund that has 20 to 40 years, of decent growth, are you telling me that isn't a good pick?

You say they do worse, but my first fund has done 11.4% year over year for the past 30 years. My second fund, has done 13% year over year for the past 40 years.

They both have consistently out done the index funds, and there is nothing wrong with index funds either.

For comparison, I checked out Vangard Index 5.8% since inception. Fidelity has a number of index funds, ranging from 6% to 10%. Not bad at the top end.

So.... why is this bad advice again?

Are there index funds with long track records with consistent growth? Sure. That would be consistent with my advice.

But to say that having lower fees is important.... ah... not so much. I have almost doubled my money using mutual funds that charge fees.

See, when you look up the prospectus of the mutual fund you are considering buying, the key is:

Average annual total returns
For the periods ended December 31, 2013 (with maximum sales charge):

Notice, Maximum sales charges. So the returns listed, include the highest possible sales charges. Then you look at what that return is. 13.67%.

If I'm earning 13.67% on my money WITH sale charges,

and you are earning 6% with your index fund WITHOUT sales charges,

Which of us is doing better? Obviously I am. So just because a fund has low, or no sales charges, doesn't automatically mean it's a good fund.

So my advice again is simply.... find mutual fund(S), with long track records, and good returns on investment, and you'll be fine.

What's wrong with that? If you have an index fund with a long track record and good returns, great. If you find another fund with a long track record and good returns, great.

And don't only buy ONE fund. Buy several.

Really? Nobody knows what a good mutual fund is?



yeah, i had the same reaction to his post... and i am in the American funds as well.


Welcome to American Funds American Funds

I have a couple Vanguard funds that I really like.

 

[Ravi]

How much did you make off of them?

Exactly none of your business.

What a weird question.

By the way, are you happy for them, that they were able to put that much away working at Wal Mart?

.

What evah, Is it something of an oddity to have saved money whilst working for Wal Mart? They would have made more if Wal Mart had not killed profit sharing....

Why is it a weird question? Financial planners for the most part are bottom feeders. Thanks for posting that they'll get more from SS though.

 

[Mac1958]

How much did you make off of them?

Exactly none of your business.

What a weird question.

By the way, are you happy for them, that they were able to put that much away working at Wal Mart?

.

What evah, Is it something of an oddity to have saved money whilst working for Wal Mart? They would have made more if Wal Mart had not killed profit sharing....

Why is it a weird question? Financial planners for the most part are bottom feeders. Thanks for posting that they'll get more from SS though.

Nasty stuff, you just have to make it personal.

I'm glad I'm not like you.

.

 

[Mac1958]

I have a couple Vanguard funds that I really like.

Vanguard's been really solid for a long time. Good funds, low cost.

Their ETF's are pretty good, too.

.