r/SipsTea • • 5d ago

Chugging tea Well, I’m 42, with zero savings. Definitely have less than $900 in my checking.

Post image
17.3k Upvotes

6.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/Catch_ME 5d ago edited 5d ago

If you can do $100 a month in S&P500 and other large Indexes from age 18 and up, you are good. You'll be better if you increase your contribution average every year. 

Start as soon as you can. Don't fucking touch it until age 59. 

I keep this special account separate from my other retirement accounts. 

3

u/annoyed_meows 5d ago

Yeah go all in at ATH! Hope this AI bubble doesn't pop or the big fat blob of shit doesn't pull us into a recession that whacks the S&P down 20%

6

u/Altruistic-Park-7416 5d ago

The bubble has been coming forever. It’s always coming. If your horizon is long term, then history suggests the market conditions at the time of your early investments will matter much less than the compound interest you’ll benefit from. In sum, don’t time the market, just invest in low fee index funds

2

u/annoyed_meows 5d ago

I know I know. I was kinda being a smart ass. But thanks, I hope someone finds your wise words useful.

1

u/Individual-Damage-51 5d ago

You’re playing the long game. The big orange idiot is going to die long before you need access to those funds.

2

u/jjones8170 5d ago

I think the multiplier for someone who is 18 now is something like 190, meaning for every $1 you contribute to a Roth IRA it's worth $190 at retirement age.

3

u/Express-Shoulder6174 5d ago

VTI and chill 

2

u/BikePuzzled1165 5d ago

Wait, for real? What if someone is 35 and has a decent 401k currently, but just wants to make up for getting a late start? Could doing this ($100 monthly in S&P500, etc.) still somewhat pan out?

Hypothetically speaking, of course >.>

3

u/Catch_ME 5d ago

For you, depending on your income, you should start a Roth IRA. Max contributions are $7500 a year. Put at least that IMO. When you hit age 50, you get to increase your contributions, you should do that. 

What is a Roth IRA: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/smart-money/what-is-a-roth-ira

ETF stock recommendations: https://www.nerdwallet.com/retirement/learn/these-are-the-best-roth-ira-investments

3

u/Suspicious-Fish7281 5d ago

100 per month getting the market average of 10% for 27 years or till you are 62 would be 166k. Let's inflation adjust it at 3%. That would be 96k in today's purchasing power. That plus SS would be a pretty meager retirement. Let's go longer and work till 70. $181k (that is about the median) in today's money plus a full SS and that is probably okayish, but working till 70 for just okay is still not my idea of a good time.

Let's double that to $200 per month. $362K at 70 or $193K at 62. Plus SS and maybe a paid off house and that starts to look a lot more sunny and like more of a win.

That 18 year old has a lot more time than a 35 year old for the compounding to happen.

You say that you have a decent 401k already, how much? The above was starting with zero. If you have something to already compound out that would vastly help those numbers.

1

u/oh_WHAT 5d ago

Depends on what outcome you want to reach. I did over 20% at 35 because I really felt i needed to catch up, now on track for a few mil by retirement

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[deleted]

1

u/bigfloppydonkeydng 5d ago

I started my 401k over 25 years ago and Ive averaged 15%. 12% is very realistic.

-1

u/Remarkable-Win-8556 5d ago

No. Not with the history of the US economy. That kind of return is outsized.

1

u/Remarkable-Win-8556 5d ago

No, losing out on 17 years means you need to put aa lot more than $100 per month in for the same result but starting now is the best time if you haven't.

1

u/gregsting 4d ago

You still have 20+ years to invest so yes. Did this a few years back and return is over 100%

1

u/Synaps4 4d ago

If youre 35 instead of 18 youve missed out on 17 years of interest growth which is enough to double twice. You will need more than 100 a month to make up for that lost interest.