Related Posts
Hello all, I am currently working at EY India as a SCon in the risk advisory service line post my MBA. I have 2 offers in hand please suggest.
YOE - 2 years 9 months
PwC SDC - Senior Associate 1 - 17 LPA fixed plus 2.5L joining bonus woth 18 months lock in. Permanent wfh.
Deloitte India - Deputy Manager - 17LPA foxed no joining bonus. Chennai location.
Any suggestion would help. My joining dates are approaching faster.
More Posts
I gave interview in Amazon and cleared all the rounds , then went on hold and still on hold due to hiring freeze in that departement. HR does respond and update me when reached out.
Interesting thing which happened here is iam cracking each every product based interviews now after my tough preparation for Amazon and getting higher packages than what Amazon would give. So whatever happens , happens for good. Cheers Amazon
Don't be sad that you couldn't get through a FAANG 🤙
Bowl Leader
The day just started, and already...
Anybody getting into DraftKing?
Additional Posts in Personal Investment Chatter
Pro
Conversation Starter
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Yeah, I get that people like metrics, but this one is garbage (although it makes me look great).
Conversation Starter
This assumes your salary stays constant and doesn't grow significantly so it wouldn't work for someone in their 20s and early 30s
This is the point to keep in mind.
My net worth is about $500k, at age 32, with a household income of $265k. By this absurd formula, I'm a horrible under-saver.
Never mind that:
1) My wife couldn't find a good career-type job until she was 25 and didn't find one with a good retirement match until 27
2) We had to pay off about $35k in student loans (not complaining! Loans were 100% worthwhile)
3) A year ago we were earning $210k, and five years ago we were earning $155k
One good bump in pay makes you "behind," which is ludicrous.
These rules of thumb are pretty dumb overall. If you're going to have enough for a healthy retirement that doesn't force you to make major sacrifices, then there's really no issue.
There’s a lot of misconception here, so let me just clear it up with the proper formula:
((L*D)+(W/G))/(A^2)
Length times Diameter plus Weight over Girth divided by Angle of the tip squared
I thought it was all about the motion of the ocean or something??
What...? You're saying a 20 year old making 100k (N=200k) needs a NW of 400k+ to be "prodigious"?
Even a NW of 100k or below would be an under accumulator here? Wtf are you looking at lol.
I am 42. My net worth has increased mainly over the last 7 years ( excluding gains in residential property appreciation). I was below the watermark in my 20s as I invested in my education. Although my factor, calculated based on the formula above, is 1.8, I do believe my net worth is far from the ideal considering the total savings one will have to accumulate to finance a reasonable retirement. Adding to it the insanely inflated housing costs and cost to raise kids (daycare, education).
Rising Star
OP, you posted this in the wrong bowl. Most here in this bowl are late 20s, make close to 200k, but have little saved or invested prudently (read: not crypto, ARKK, or the latest fad) Try the FIRE bowl. I understand where the formula is coming from and it's a good benchmark.
If you are in your 20s or 30s making 200k and are living paycheck to paycheck, you need to evaluate your priorities. And definitely get your IQ testing done. You will be surprised by the findings.
What
This is very dumb 🤣 I would be an under accumulator with this formula with $155k saved, and it’s saying that the average for my salary at 27 years old is $335k, yeah right….
Okay fine, savings + investments (no debt, no house etc)
This is a dumb formula
I should have 770k saved at 28? That makes no sense.
People in this bowl seem to forget that being prodigious means being a prodigy (so top 1%).
They also seem to forget that only 30% of accumulating wealth is how much you save and the other 70% is what return you get on that investment. For example, putting money into market ETFs is not a method to get a prodigious ROI, that’s an average ROI as literally everyone and their mother is doing it. A prodigious ROI would be investing in start ups that get a 20x return in 5 years or buying a house, living in it with roommates for 5 years having them pay down the mortgage for you then flipping it for 50% more than what you bought it for.
Nobody is going to consider you a prodigy at accumulating wealth because you save 40% of your income and invest it in market ETFs. That’s literally the bare minimum for accumulating enough wealth to retire, not prodigy shit.
Oh yeah, all of us are just ignoring all the plentitude of opportunities to invest in early stage startups and instead opting for 10% ETFs.
What dolts we are!
What a low effort post. No one is taking this seriously
High effort reply, thanks D3
I’m unemployed so I have infinity N 😎
OK, so I am at 9N, which puts me as a super-duper prodigious accumulator.
But, I am 63 yrs old - a couple of years from retirement, and I worked and saved and invested all my life, and my NW isn't due to I am particular good at accumulating wealth, but mostly due to simply have been at it for a longer time than most folks.
So this formula seems to be skewed toward in favor of old people that would have a higher NW result, is that right?
In other words, even though most young folks here in their 20s and 30s, would have a less NW number today, by the time they reach my age, they will likely all have the similar NW, since their salary now is much higher than when I was in the 30s. By the time they retire in their 60s, their salary and number of years will result in a much higher number.
So if it's only a matter of time and the salary, what element in this formula really reflects one's investment or wealth accumulation acme or skills here?
If you’re earlier in your career and/or have a rapidly changing income, try this formula instead.
AvgLast3YrSalary X Age / (10 + YearsUntil40)
As a 30 year old that recently made manager, that changes my number from 405k to 180k which I feel is much more reasonable.
Then use the formula in the OP. You can still take average of the last few years salaries if that’s been evolving. If you’ve been on 50k for 20 years and just changed to 150k, the formula won’t work though. It’s for people that have had pretty even progression and have been saving the whole time.
Hmm just switched jobs and I’m now at $180K TC at 27. According to this formula, my NW should be $486K. I’m at $363K NW so that’s 0.75N.
Great book (The Millionaire Next Door), but would also recommend Millionaire Fastlane
lol at this entire thread
Holy shit I’m rich af
This is actually a pretty good formula as long as you’re older than about 30 years old and didn’t recently (recent being in the past 1-3 years) increase your income by a significant amount (significant being about 30% or $50k, whichever is greater). It would be more accurate if it had you average out your income from say the past 3 years to compensate for any really large and recent increases in income.
For reference: given the formula OP provided my number was a 1, but I’m only 26 and more than tripled my income in the past 3 years so this isn’t a great metric for me. If I were to average out my income from the past 3 years then my number would be a 1.5 which is a lot more reflective of my behavior I’d say.
Rising Star
Millionaire next door has decent tips, but I think a better indicator outside the bands is the ratio of money invested. You may have a slow start, but consistently investing 50% of take home and pre tax maxing out retirement is a huge step ahead.
Lots of people getting caught up up what wealth means here and being a prodigious accumulator. This is a great metric, despite your age or salary, to gauge where you could be if you are trying to be prodigious (remarkably or impressively great) in accumulation of wealth. Because it’s based off your salary, it provides a very good gauge at where you could be given your circumstances and priorities. This is precisely the millionaire mentality.