Financial Independence Lucrative career drains my soul, advice for aspiring FIRE? |
- Lucrative career drains my soul, advice for aspiring FIRE?
- Appreciating John Bogle
- Daily FI discussion thread - January 31, 2019
- BI Article: Millennials are both the 'brokest' and 'richest' generation
- Better question: WHEN should the wealthy get asset protection?
- Sixty year old guy who FIRE'd at 36... now sails around the world.
- Can I go on?
- Ideal portfolio composition for early retirement - the Ultimate Guide seems to contradict itself.
- Get to FIRE or search for meaning abroad
- I want to get out from under the corporate master. Sell house, rent it, buy investment real estate, farm?
| Lucrative career drains my soul, advice for aspiring FIRE? Posted: 31 Jan 2019 05:38 AM PST I am a 25 year old investment analyst at one of the most prestigious private equity funds in Manhattan. Objectively, my career is progressing very well. First, I earn far more than most of my peers and even many of my seniors. Second, my fund continues to trust me with increasing responsibility. For instance, I was recently tapped to replace the lead analyst on one of the largest and most complex transactions in the history of our industry. This responsibility is an honor and bodes extremely well for my resume and expedited career trajectory. My exposure is unparalleled and my career is on a great track forward. Yet emotionally, I continue to dissociate from this life path. Being on a predestined track of advancement saps the excitement from my life. I hate knowing exactly what my career will consist of five, even ten years down the line. I can't motivate myself to continue working hard down this path when my lifestyle will effectively remain unchanged. Oddly enough, I feel that advancing further into this career would lead to mental and personal stagnation. I feel stuck. On one hand, I worked hard for this great career, and I'm earning a lot of money. On the other hand, the money doesn't mean much if I spend the next five to ten years of my life in front of a desktop, performing the same function with little variance. I am posting here because, like many of you, I would like to FIRE. However, my great career is draining my soul. I either need to fix my mindset, or fix my career. I am earning great money, yet the cost of my deteriorated mental state feels too high. Would any of you have advice for me? Have you or a friend been a similar situation? Have I succumbed to any common mental pitfalls? EDIT: Thank you, everyone, for your kind insight. I am back at work now that it's past 9 EST so my responses will be slower until I get back home tonight, which might be pretty late today. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Jan 2019 08:07 PM PST It's been a couple of weeks, and several great posts acknowledging it in this forum, but I just want to express how grateful I am for John (Jack) Bogle. Countless amounts of people have unknowingly had their financial independence journeys advanced because of this man, and his impact is immeasurable. How lucky are we that we were born after he introduced the index fund etc. I encourage anyone who isn't familiar with him to search YouTube for his interviews. So consistent, straightforward, and humble. What a great experience it must have been to meet the man. Thank you, Jack. You're a legend, and I hope this forum can continue your legacy even in the smallest way! [link] [comments]  |
| Daily FI discussion thread - January 31, 2019 Posted: 31 Jan 2019 03:07 AM PST Please use this thread to have discussions which you don't feel warrant a new post to the sub. While the Rules for posting questions on the basics of personal finance/investing topics are relaxed a little bit here, the rules against memes/spam/self-promotion/excessive rudeness/politics still apply! Have a look at the FAQ for this subreddit before posting to see if your question is frequently asked. Since this post does tend to get busy, consider sorting the comments by "new" (instead of "best" or "top") to see the newest posts. [link] [comments]  |
| BI Article: Millennials are both the 'brokest' and 'richest' generation Posted: 31 Jan 2019 02:56 PM PST I didn't find this too surprising to read, but this is probably one of the first times I'm seeing a media outlet speak to the subset of millennials who are doing well. An interesting juxtaposition if nothing else. https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-wealth-generation-experts-data-2019-1 [link] [comments]  |
| Better question: WHEN should the wealthy get asset protection? Posted: 31 Jan 2019 01:05 PM PST Providers are always trying to tell you who needs to preserve their wealth with "asset protection." The decidedly unhelpful answer (IMO) that is given is: everyone. Lots of advice on the internet on whether asset protection is a form of legalized (or not so legalized) deception. Some really smart people can explain why the legal system is so expensive, everyone should get asset protection. (I don't agree.) Others say that it is immoral--that people who have the right lawyers shouldn't be able to walk away untouched while others who cause the same amount of damage (damages--adding an "s" makes it lawyerly) get ruined. (I actually kinda see this one.) 1. Asset protection is a spectrum.Insurance is asset protection. Forming an LLC (even if it's not in the "right" jurisdiction) is asset protection. Having good accounting _records_ is the type asset protection that probably staves off more disasters than lawyers do. Having good habits with liability waivers is a type of operational asset protection along the spectrum. My view is that (a) asset protection needs to be proportional to your risks and (b) be compatible with the way you operate. I've had clients who were in a crisis and formed a hierarchy of asset protection trusts and holding companies. Then as soon as the danger was past, they found the whole thing so burdensome, that they have emptied it all except the ordinary family living trust (and the life insurance trust, I guess). It was just too cumbersome for the way they operate now that the emergency is over. The way some asset protection trusts are done, you are simply swapping one set of threats for a smaller set. So just slapping a trust on top of everything and then having the lawyer/trustee run away with your accounts should be a risk scenario your remember to think through. Another illustration: are offshore asset protection trusts better? For a dozen very good legal reasons, the answer is yes. they are actually the pinnacle or the fullest expression of asset protection at the far end of the spectrum. But at the same time, they are a terrible solution for most wealthy families. Terrible. And the simplest way of explaining why is to return to the idea that the spectrum of protection has to be based on the spectrum of risk; moving wealth offshore is not a proportional response to the risk most of the wealthy should contemplate. 3. To answer the question: WHEN?IANYL: Business owners or families need formal asset protection when they become a target. Whether it's through prominence or just because they are the deepest pocket in a venture, wealth itself becomes an obstacle to an expeditious resolution. If that is vague lawyerspeak, then the corollary should actually be helpful. The asset protection steps to be taken at any time are the steps sufficient to take assets out of the reach of a claimant so that foreseeable risks can be settled. Using my rule, maybe the spectrum idea makes more sense. Insurance can really be a type of asset protection (one that lawyers don't sell you). If dropping an umbrella policy on your businesses means that a legal threat doesn't engulf all your entities, take you away away from running it, and forestalls a discovery battle about an owner's personal net worth, then that is a powerful step. Moreover, if that insurance policy covers all the reasonably foreseeable claims, then why go further? Sure it is a good thing when lawyers get paid, but there is complexity and new risks that accompany each step along the spectrum. I think it's a bit like technical debt in software. It's more than just money, there is cost to living with the structure you build. So I don't like the number of $500,000 some people use. Is that illiquid or not? What is the direct or indirect exposure? If it's not enough for you to actually follow the rules of the protection mechanism, then you are not helping yourself at all. Don't move to the right along the spectrum unless you are getting proportional peace of mind with respect to (a) the foreseeable risks and (b) complexity you are taking on. 2. All complexity is not necessarily protection. (You thought I mis-numbered.)Hiding assets is not asset protection, in my opinion. Families love putting assets in someone else's name so that no one knows about it and their friend feels important and trusted. Some people love the idea of a high-tech mattress where neither IRS nor a creditor could ever unearth it in century. First, in a digital world, if you are going to benefit from it, then it probably is traceable. Is everyone--_everyone_ willing to perjure themselves to keep assets hidden? How do you fix accidental disclosures? But second, what happens if it works too well? What happens when someone dies and the family can't get the asset back? What happens if the person holding in the asset attracts their own trouble? What happens if someone steals it, is your connection so remote, that they start to have the stronger claim? One anecdote: an immigrant family built a network of motels in California. One of the sons was very dedicated to the family business and so, partially as a tax play, and partially to lock in preferential treatment once the patriarch and matriarch were to pass away, the family started giving him a large ownership in several of the holding companies. Then one night the son and his wife are especially drunk and they get in a fight. It gets physical. This starts a war between the previously close families. The wife's family won't let her take anything less than half of the son's interest in the hotels. So the attempt to protect the business from claims against the parents (and a few tens of thousands in taxes) puts millions in jeopardy. That was one of the times where integrating trusts from asset protection jurisdictions would have been well worth it. I believe the motel-owning family would have been better off if they had put in place a structure years before instead of titling assets in the son's name. Call me naive, but I actually believe that if less money had been in play, the couple could have been able to resolve the matter without the toxicity introduced by destroying or preserving an empire that the son had not built. Asset protection in non-asset protection jurisdictions are not slam dunks, it is true. But done right, or even kind of right, there is no way they would have had as much at stake and as much desperation if they had a mature formal asset protection plan. I'm dropping words like a "mature" plan, or a "properly-run" plan. Shams and alter egos are super dangerous. If a plan is abused or ignored, then creditor's counsel salivates. He gets to be the hero. The attorney gets to smear you with these terms laden with negative characterizations. For example, a "fraudulent conveyance" is not criminal fraud (usually!) but opposing counsel will drop that term every chance he gets if you give him or her any chance. Fraud Fraud FRAUD. If you don't maintain the structure, even if it's as simple as paying the annual fee for your LLC (or corporation, or whatever), you are fooling yourself if you think all the work setting it up and putting it on your shelf is enough to give you peach of mind. So the second corollary, is if you aren't going to give life to your plan, you probably went too far on the spectrum and you either wasted money or have a false sense of security or both. So, yeah. Complexity is not protection. [link] [comments]  |
| Sixty year old guy who FIRE'd at 36... now sails around the world. Posted: 31 Jan 2019 11:32 AM PST Probably nothing new for most of the people here, but a nice story of a dude who lived below his means and now has the time and money to live his best life. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Jan 2019 05:49 PM PST I'm looking for some advice for my unique situation. I'm in my mid-30's and recently had a heart attack. The best doctors don't know what it is, and I have a defibrillator implanted in my chest as an insurance policy now. This whole ordeal has caused me to reconsider how much longer I am able to work. I've given thought to FI and debated how soon I want to RE. But I've also got a family to support. I've got 300K in investment. I own two properties, one of them is paid off and rented, we live in the other one, and I'm building a multi-housing development with a partner that will be ready in 2-3 years. When finished, we will use one unit as our primary residence. I have a job that pays average for the area (low six figures), but I live in a HCOL area, so there's that. It's good work, even enjoyable, but I'm often under constant pressure to learn new things and build products. I've always worked hard before, staying late to finish projects at the expense of my family time. After this bout with death, I dialed back my hours. My career took a hit, but I didn't get laid off and get more time with my family. I'm afraid that if I put in the effort I used to, I'm going to die -- literally. I also wonder if I can work into my late 50's with a heart condition so early in life. It seems that to FIRE, you really need to hustle, and I can't move at that speed anymore. Thanks for reading. Advice? Edit: for those interested, it was a VF episode that caused syncope. The implanted device is an ICD. It lasts for 15 years before it needs to be cut out and replaced. [link] [comments]  |
| Ideal portfolio composition for early retirement - the Ultimate Guide seems to contradict itself. Posted: 31 Jan 2019 07:25 AM PST I was given a link to The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates, which seems like an excellent resource. However, there appears to be some ambiguity regarding the ideal composition of the portfolio to maximize SWR. In Part 1 of the guide, the author states:
However, the SWR chart presented in that very same post seems to indicates the 75% stock portfolio is safer than the 100% stock portfolio for 3.25% withdrawal over 60 years: the former is at 100% confidence for these parameters, the latter at 99%. I also checked against the Google Spreadsheet the author posted in Part 28, the last part of the guide. To hit 0% failure rate at CAPE > 20 over 60 years, a 100% stock portfolio will only allow 2.68% SWR. A 50% stocks, 50% bonds portfolio will allow a 3.46% SWR. This is a massive advantage for a portfolio composition that is very different than the 100% stocks claimed as the ideal in Part 1. So my question is: for someone looking to minimize the risk of an early retirement failure (say with a 60 year horizon), and willing to settle for an SWR as low as 3-3.25% to achieve that, what's the ideal portfolio composition? [link] [comments]  |
| Get to FIRE or search for meaning abroad Posted: 30 Jan 2019 07:35 PM PST Hey everyone! I'm finding myself in a bit of a spiritual crisis and would like the opinions of people on this sub. Currently, I'm working in engineering in the USA, for a large company in a large city. I'm saving about $4000 (70% of my income) a month, have about $30k in investment accounts and about $35k net worth. If I continue on this path, I'll be FIRE fairly soon. I'm 28 now, and my goal is $400k when I'm 35. I should be able to achieve this. I would then love to move abroad to SE Asia. I already did TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language) there from 2016-2018, and went home to build a larger nest egg. I felt so much more at peace and at ease there. It's as though I belong there. The problem is, I really couldn't save any money, so I made the difficult decision to come home and resume my career in engineering. I broke up with my gf to come home. That was rough. Life in the states right now feels so empty, and I'm really unhappy. I could continue this plan, but there are a few things bothering me. First, I really don't like working in engineering much. I LOVED teaching. Each work day is bearable, but I feel like I could be out there doing something I love. There was a damn good reason why I quit my old engineering job to pursue something meaningful. Those same feelings of emptiness are hitting me again now. Can I really spend seven more years enduring something I don't like. I feel like I'm just faking my way through it every day. 35 is still young, but these are some of my best years. Second, I was far happier living in Asia. Everything is cheap. I had like-minded friends I'm not finding in the states. Girls everywhere. Super nice people and excellent food. The USA is just not doing it for me. It was like going to heaven and coming back to earth. Killing me. Third, I don't want to teach in the USA. I've heard bad things and it doesn't appeal to me. The country I want to teach in I could only make about $1200 a month, unless I work in an international school, where I could make a good amount more. However, with the international schools comes higher levels of stress and dealing with more problems. I'm lazy at heart and would be happiest just chilling at the TEFL level. My old job was awesome and I was so happy. So...my options: Plan A: Save up until I'm 35, just about hating every day. Once I'm done I'd be completely free, and wealthy in a new country while following my passion. Plan B: Leave again this summer with about $50k in investments. I think I would be a lot happier in the short term, but it's far riskier. I'd be teaching until normal retirement age and would probably have to get a teaching certificate so I could work at international schools. I may not have any kids for financial reasons. I don't really want kids though anyways. Plan C: Somewhere in between. Maybe save until I'm about 32. Could be a solid balance. I'm constantly thinking of when is a good time to get out of here. I really don't know when I'll leave, but at least when I put it off I keep getting wealthier haha, so this indecision isn't entirely bad. If I get fired from work for some reason I am gone on the next flight out of here. Note: I understand I'm in a highly privileged position. I am fortunate beyond belief to even have these options and I'm thankful for that. However, life is not about money, it's about finding meaning, and sometimes you just have to do something crazy to find it. Only crazy to a certain extent though haha. Thanks to those of you who read all of that and respond. It means a lot :) Edit: Hey guys. Good responses. You've made me think a lot about this. I'm going to keep at it at my current job. Plan A is definitely the best one for long term success. Maybe I'll change my mind when I'm 35, who knows. One thing I want to clear up though...I don't plan on stopping work when I'm 35, only moving to Asia again and teaching again. I will live off any salary I make as best I can. I don't have any plans to touch my investments. If I need to, I will get a teaching cert and work at international schools, especially if I were to plan on having kids. The $400k is mostly to offer flexibility, not as the ultimate FIRE number. I'll continue looking for money making opportunities. I'm not packing it in guys. Just want this to be clear. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Jan 2019 06:39 PM PST I want to get out from under the corporate master. We have 400k in equity, no mortage, house could rent for 2400/mo. Ideas I'm pondering are: should I rent it out and travel in our rv, or sell and buy some other investment real estate, or buying a hobby farm, buying vacation property and renting that out, buying acreage and start a campground? Are any of these ideas better than the others? pros-cons? other suggestions? [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from financial independence / early retirement. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment