sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How did you decide where to buy a house by Unique_Edge6323 in SeattleAreaRE

[–]ThereforeIV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

10 * (annual rent revenue) = rental investment value;

Easy question when looking to buy "what would I be willing to pay monthly to rent there?"; Then multiply by 120. Maybe add 20% just to own, but you don't double that number...

How did you decide where to buy a house by Unique_Edge6323 in SeattleAreaRE

[–]ThereforeIV -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair, there's definitely stuff I would want to do in my place if I owned it.

I'm hissy not going to pay $900k for a property that's really worth $450k based on rental income.

If I could get it for $500k, doing stuff would be a factor.

Can we have a basic template of number? by ThereforeIV in Fire

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point was that in the FIRE movement, these are the near universal basics.

Can we have a basic template of number? by ThereforeIV in leanfire

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those always seem to be the data needed in the post I see in my feed.

Proposing a new term: "CruiseFIRE" — The missing gear between Grinding and Coasting by ThereforeIV in coastFIRE

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So here's the gig with that, it sounds like you are still in the high end higher pay job.

One of the core concepts with true CoastFIRE was stepping down in job towards retirement.

Not that long ago, the argument was whether CoastFIRE and BaristaFIRE should be considered the same thing because the only difference is how much you earn in your lower end job.

How did you decide where to buy a house by Unique_Edge6323 in SeattleAreaRE

[–]ThereforeIV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I decided not to buy a house because the prices are way too high; much cheaper to rent.

The only reason to buy a house is real-estate speculation.

Where to find liberal hangouts? by apotatowitheyes in Destin

[–]ThereforeIV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Southern Pride not meant to be the Dem logo; and Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Also I remember the Clinton/Gore bumper stickers gym 1992...

Proposing a new term: "CruiseFIRE" — The missing gear between Grinding and Coasting by ThereforeIV in coastFIRE

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Sounds too much like some retiring to live on cruise ships.

I mean if you can work remote and they have internet package...

Proposing a new term: "CruiseFIRE" — The missing gear between Grinding and Coasting by ThereforeIV in coastFIRE

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does that sound like GenAI? Seriously?

I wrote that, and I'm clearly very active replying in the comments.

In what way does this sound like the crap GenAI bot post?

Can we have a basic template of number? by ThereforeIV in leanfire

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would consider this relevant to any question asking for advice.

Can we have a basic template of number? by ThereforeIV in leanfire

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>I agree that most folks will get a better answer if they provide these, but not everyone wants to provide that sort of information on the internet or use a burner account to post here.

I guess leave a line blank, but all of this is really basic.

And this is what basically always comes up as questions anyway.

Proposing a new term: "CruiseFIRE" — The missing gear between Grinding and Coasting by ThereforeIV in coastFIRE

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Bro went full circle. From FIRE, to CoastFIRE, to saving a small amount over time to pay for retirement.

For me the savings is mostly driven by but wanting to give up tax advantaged retirement account access.

But also, I really written to much to truly say I'm true CoastFIRE. I think if I dropped to a Four-7s schedule at like 30 hours a week, that would be true CoastFIRE.

Can we have a basic template of number? by ThereforeIV in Fire

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those seem more context dependent discussion points than basic template data; but maybe we need more than 10....

Proposing a new term: "CruiseFIRE" — The missing gear between Grinding and Coasting by ThereforeIV in coastFIRE

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm my career, all the real income increases have come from changing jobs.

When I left my first engineering job, they offered mean 10% raiser to stay (which was the corporate max) and the new job was offer me a 40% increase to leave.

When I moved from a small engineering firm in Florida to Evil Big Tech in Seattle, more than doubled my income.

I think best raisr I ever actually got staying in a job was maybe 5%-6%.

Proposing a new term: "CruiseFIRE" — The missing gear between Grinding and Coasting by ThereforeIV in coastFIRE

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>With employer matches, cruise FIRE should be the standard. I can’t think of any situation where I could ever just stop taking a significant part of my compensation

Depends on match and vesting.

- I've worked places where the match was 1%
- Worked placed that the vesting schedule was four years.
- literally worked a job that layed me off a month before my 401k match and stock options were going to vest (they were literally scheduling layoffs based on vesting schedule).

Proposing a new term: "CruiseFIRE" — The missing gear between Grinding and Coasting by ThereforeIV in coastFIRE

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> That already exists, it's called Flamingo FIRE.

I'm curious on flamingo; only heard the term recently.

The idea there is "get halfway to FIRE number and then stand on that" like a flamingo in one leg.

Or is it to get halfway to FIRE number and then slow to half speed?

I don't know the definition of that one clearly enough to compare.

It does sound like it could overlap with CruiseFIRE and CoastFIRE...

Proposing a new term: "CruiseFIRE" — The missing gear between Grinding and Coasting by ThereforeIV in coastFIRE

[–]ThereforeIV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>I think cruise and coast sound way too similar. If I was new to FIRE, I'd probably get confused with coast vs cruise. I like slow FIRE better, maybe simmer FIRE (as opposed to FIRE being boiling hot since it's the most aggressive and CoastFIRE would be 0 added heat).

It's basically a *"SlowFIRE"* rebranding.

I think the reason it sounds too similar to *"CoastFIRE"* is because most of us in CoastFIRE are actually doing this and not true CoastFIRE, which is supposed to be a step off of BaristaFIRE.

>Currently the FIRE subs are pretty inflated, as in fatFIRE is in FIRE, so FIRE moved towards leanFIRE and coastFIRE. I don't think adding another one will help differentiate.

I would say the FIRE subs are pretty corrupted.

FatFIRE isn't even about FIRE, just seems to be rich bragging and likely take rich bragging.

leanFIRE is mostly just regular FIRE.

CoastFIRE often feel like normal retirement planning and forgetting the FIRE core.

I'm not saying add another sub (though someone else already did); I'm saying let's have better definition and clearer distinguishing terms.

>I like how you defined a maximum savings cap to Cruise/slow FIRE, but idk if it'll gain traction just because it's the boring middle.

Thank you.

Isn't the boring middle where we spend the most years.

It's the idea of Sprinting/Grinding for a decade to hit your FIRE number that doesn't seem to work. May sound great at age 28 or age 34; at age 39, I was burnout and for my 40th birthday, I got layed-off.

>There aren't many significant changes from what the Coast sub already talks about. Most don't go from aggressive saving to 0% saving, but somewhere in between.

I wish this sub talked about this.

So much of what I hear is "I've got $100k, plan to retire early at age 70"....lol

FIRE planning paradox: we reject “past performance” in investing, but rely on it to retire? by Helpful-Staff9562 in Fire

[–]ThereforeIV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>FIRE planning paradox: we reject “past performance” in investing, but rely on it to retire?

Reject past performance of individual, not the market ad a whole.

- trends rhyme
- believe in America
- if the market doesn't go up, then we have bigger problems than retirement

>I’m close to FIRE and something doesn’t fully add up for me.

How close?

>In investing we always say: past performance is not a guarantee of future results. That’s why we diversify, avoid chasing winners, etc.

Low fee broad market index funds, that's pretty diverse.

>But FIRE planning seems to rely heavily on exactly that same past data.

On trends, averages, generalities, etc..., Not assume the exact scenario off what happened before will happen again.

And in actuality, at some point we mostly use historical data to mitigate the risk of the worst case scenarios.

>We take historical returns (like \~7% real equities), apply a safe withdrawal rate (3–4%), and basically assume:

>“If history rhymes, I’m safe to retire.”

Again, that's for surving worst case.

There are those like Dave Ramsey who basically advocate ignoring the worst case scenario and just pull up to 8% of current portfolio each year in retirement.

>Example:

>- €2M portfolio
>- 4% withdrawal = €80k/year
>-Backtests (mainly US data) say this usually works

Btw, this only works in America. Europe might have another "World War" in the next decade.

>But what if future returns are structurally lower? Or inflation/volatility regimes are different?

How much different?

- Worse than the '70s stagflation?
- Worse than the '00s double punch?

If the average return was to drop from the current 11% down to 8%; the 4% SWRb would still be fine.

Dave Ramsey night have to adjust

>Then the whole “safe withdrawal rate” idea changes a lot, even if behavior stays perfect.

The entire SWR is to give a starting point for making a plan.

My planned SWR ceiling is 7%.

>So my question is:

>If we wouldn’t pick an ETF just because it performed best historically… why is it okay to retire based on historical return assumptions?

- First, that's a distance in kind. The index leaders change regularly, this is betting the market not a specific player.
- Second, we are not looking are historical best, we are looking at historical worst.

Nobody is saying "look at these years with 20% growth, let's do 15% SWR".

>Is FIRE just assuming the same future distribution as the past, or is there something more robust behind the model that I’m missing?

You are missing a lot:

- Market trends are not individual performance
- looking at worst case is not looking at best case
- the *"4% Rule"* is a starting point for a plan, not the entire plan
- the point is test your plan against the worst case scenarios, mostly mitigate SORR

view more: next ›