Community for NRIs plus Indian Residents ...
https://r2iclubhangout.org/
Quite possible with initial 15M annualized return of 24% in next 20 yearsfire_india wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 10:58 am I think I can reach a Billion USD by the time I am old!
In the following 10 years it might become 10 billion dollars, and we would finally know who FI is since he will be on the Forbes' richest people list!JINSAKAI wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 11:23 amQuite possible with initial 15M annualized return of 24% in next 20 yearsfire_india wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 10:58 am I think I can reach a Billion USD by the time I am old!
I would only be worried if average salaries explode in real terms, which I dont see happening. If the new millionaires are rising due to rising stock prices, thats not a worry as long as you are also invested. The Safe withdrawal rate accounts for inflation and rising stock prices, so that wont change. It doesnt require a crash.nodegree wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:11 pm Sometimes I think if the current consensus on how much is good enough to retire/to be considered wealthy/FIRE movements is vastly outdated. For starters, Even adjusted for inflation - there are way too many deca-millionaires in every big city in the US and the average age of millionaires just kept going down and down. The thing about wealth is it's relative to other people and the lifespan of the person. Also, a lot of these youngins are likely fully invested in equities which means they're exposed to a lot of risk. On the other hand, if inflation doesn't go back to 2% even fixed income assets will get eaten alive. The traditional safe withdrawal rules of (around 3%) will likely stop working unless there's a big crash in asset prices and a lot of wealth gets 'reset'.
The problem of deca-millionaires exists from even 1988nodegree wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:11 pm Sometimes I think if the current consensus on how much is good enough to retire/to be considered wealthy/FIRE movements is vastly outdated. For starters, Even adjusted for inflation - there are way too many deca-millionaires in every big city in the US and the average age of millionaires just kept going down and down. The thing about wealth is it's relative to other people and the lifespan of the person. Also, a lot of these youngins are likely fully invested in equities which means they're exposed to a lot of risk. On the other hand, if inflation doesn't go back to 2% even fixed income assets will get eaten alive. The traditional safe withdrawal rules of (around 3%) will likely stop working unless there's a big crash in asset prices and a lot of wealth gets 'reset'.
, NJ being the highest concentration these rich people now.The first million is the hardest and the net worth grows exponentially after that. The only exception to the rule is our business genius, can't believe he had a net worth of $1/$5 billion in 1988 and now he's at $8 billion mainly because of the DJT stock without which it would have been $4 billion.JINSAKAI wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 11:13 amThe problem of deca-millionaires exists from even 1988nodegree wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:11 pm Sometimes I think if the current consensus on how much is good enough to retire/to be considered wealthy/FIRE movements is vastly outdated. For starters, Even adjusted for inflation - there are way too many deca-millionaires in every big city in the US and the average age of millionaires just kept going down and down. The thing about wealth is it's relative to other people and the lifespan of the person. Also, a lot of these youngins are likely fully invested in equities which means they're exposed to a lot of risk. On the other hand, if inflation doesn't go back to 2% even fixed income assets will get eaten alive. The traditional safe withdrawal rules of (around 3%) will likely stop working unless there's a big crash in asset prices and a lot of wealth gets 'reset'., NJ being the highest concentration these rich people now.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html