Interesting, especially for number crunchers. Contribute $15,500 in a 401-K and $5,000 in an IRA at 26 and have $1 Million at 67. Assumes a hopeful (wishful?) return of 10% on investments, but I think it is still a good read.

I found the table showing how you could still achieve it with a string of consecutive max investments even if you are nearing 50 especially interesting.

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/104801/The-One-Year-$1-Million-Challenge

Link

$1M sounds like a lot of money, but in 40 years it will have the same purchasing power as about $300K today (assuming 3% average inflation). You'll need a lot more than $1M to cover you for retirement, unless you only plan on living for 5 years or so after you retire.

I did a quick calculation one time I assumed another (late 70's early 80's inflation - 10-11% rates for a couple of years) and kind of came up with a number of 12 Million I would need for retirement.

I assumed I would retire at 65 live to 85 - wanted 100k per year(inflation adjusted dollars)

Started saving in early 20's.

Senturon said:CPAESQ said:I did a quick calculation one time I assumed another (late 70's early 80's inflation - 10-11% rates for a couple of years) and kind of came up with a number of 12 Million I would need for retirement.

I assumed I would retire at 65 live to 85 - wanted 100k per year(inflation adjusted dollars)

Started saving in early 20's.If I'm calculating that out right, that 12 mil inflation adjusted would allow you to live for ~36 years to bring that down to 0 assuming you earn as much to simply keep pace with inflation...

I see where you are coming from - in my assumption when I reach 65 - my money is put under my mattress (i.e an extremely conservative CD)..

But you are correct - that if It was invested that $ would grow while I was drawing down on it.

It was just a quick calc that I did one time to depress myself.

the article assumes no matching, but with a conservative match (say the company only matches up to 3% of your salary per annum) it becomes a lot more feasible. yes a raw 10% return (pre- match) would not happen every year even with a reliable diverse mix of medium-to-aggressive funds, but it is near historical norms for the S&P.

if you factor in a match as return on the money you put in, you can subtract a percentage point or two off the needed return to get to the desired level. though maxing out your 401(k) for just one year, even though the article does it to prove a point, is kinda stupid... gotta sock that money away somewhere anyway and there are decent tax benefits, at the very least while you're employed. might as well put in as close to the max as you can manage each year.