In recent history, we saw a 10% correction in 2018, a 13% correction in 2016, a 12.4% correction in 2015, a 20% correction in 2011, a 16% correction in 2010, and a -57% correction in 2009.

Whenever the stock market goes through a rapid retrenchment after long periods of stable growth, it always feels bad. Although it’s never fun to lose money, it’s good to face the situation head on and focus on the positives and what we can learn. 

One of my biggest concerns about early retirement was running out of money. What if there was another massive correction in the stock market? What if my rental properties went vacant for an extended period of time? What if Financial Samurai died? What if I accrued unexpected medical expenses? What if I underestimated how much I needed to be happy? Such worrisome thoughts can paralyze even the best of us.

Whether you decide to retire in your 60s or in your 30s, I’m here to say the fear of running out of money in retirement is overblown. The media, money managers, and government officials, most of whom are still working, have fear mongered the general population long enough!

As someone who left the working world in 2012 at the age of 34, let me explain why your retirement life will probably be just fine.

Thanks to the unrelenting rise in the stock market since 2009, there’s now a trend on social media to share your 401(k) balance, especially if it’s over a million bucks. Despite the distastefulness of bragging, just the fact that more people are talking about saving for retirement via their 401(k) is a good thing.

Make no doubt about it, being a 401(k) millionaire is very impressive given the maximum contribution limit has never been higher than 2018’s contribution limit of $18,500. When I was first able to contribute to a 401(k) in 1999, the maximum contribution limit was only $10,000. Check out the chart below for details.

Congratulations for being retired or having enough money to never work again! Don’t listen to the naysayers who tell you retirement life is boring. Be assured that only boring people get bored. One question you should consider thinking about, however, is exactly how much investment risk should you be taking.

In 2012, I retired from the salt mines because I thought I had enough to provide a humble life for a family of up to four in San Francisco. But once I stopped receiving a bi-weekly paycheck, reality hit home that maybe my passive income and side hustle income wouldn’t be enough. The fact that I tried to sell my primary residence in 2012 to live in an apartment 65% smaller and cheaper shows that I had reservations about whether it was wise to leave a healthy paycheck at 34. But I was determined to provide a free life for my wife and I both before the age of 35.

In early retirement, I concluded that I needed to take the least amount of risk necessary to maximize my chances of never having to go back to work full-time again. At the same time, I was still pretty young and it looked like the economy was recovering so I ended up constructing a 60%-70% stock and 30% – 40% bond portfolio with the hopes of achieving a 4% – 6% rate of return each year. Doubling my investments by the age of 50 seemed like a good enough goal to have.

But thanks to a bull market in stocks and bonds, my public investment portfolio returned more. And thanks to a strong recovery in San Francisco real estate, everything has turned out fine so far. I wasn’t smart, I just stuck to an investment framework that fit my risk profile.

One of the common beliefs I’d like to overturn is the idea that one shouldn’t count their primary residence as part of their net worth. This belief is propagated by some in the wealth management industry because wealth managers only earn fees based on your liquid net worth. Ideally, some wealth managers would also like you to believe that your 401k, IRA, and any tax advantageous retirement account are not part of your net worth either.

Interestingly, the other group of people that believes a primary residence shouldn’t be included in one’s net worth is the socialist who looks to protect the feelings of renters who don’t own any property. Their logic is: if renters can’t include their place as part of their net worth, neither should anyone who perhaps saved for years to come up with a down payment and took some risk to buy. In the socialist’s mind, it’s OK to discount completely a $200,000 down payment or a 100% increase in home equity.

Let’s analyze a simple example to illustrate my contention that all savings and equity you’ve accumulated in your lifetime should count towards your net worth.