Well, regarding bitmover I think it's clear that we have a different vision of how things are and it's not worth going deeper into our differences.
It is good that we attempt to air out these kinds of concerns, and even if there might be some practices that are objectively better than others, there can also be some competing kinds of personal factors that any member might either have difficulties articulating or don't want to specify certain granular levels of some finances and/or psychological factors that are contributing to their portfolio management and where they might want to be at certain points in their lives.
Surely there can be guys that miscalculate in both directions in terms of dying with too much capital or overspending their capital, so they outlive their portfolio - there can be some subjectivity in terms of where any of us might want to be, yet sometimes the mistakes cannot really be known or realized until 10 or 20 years down the road (whether that is overspending or underspending), and by the time, the mistake(s) are realized, the clock cannot be turned back to "do over."
Many of us likely know people who are living in struggles based on their levels of over-consumption during their younger years when they should have had been stacking away a bit more capital to provide themselves a buffer for their elderly times, since many folks will lose several of their abilities to perform manual labor as early as into their 50s, yet it gets more and more challenging, even though there are some old farts who are ready, willing and able to physically keep up with the younger whimper-snappers. Guys might be able to continue to perform work that is less physical and more mental in nature, to the extent to which their ideas are still marketable or that they might be in positions of influence within their respective organizations, yet abilities to continue in income generating work may not even be within the control of such person who is becoming more elderly, so if he has not promoted towards the top of his organization, he might find himself with job insecurity in his 50s and 60s and with difficulties finding lucrative and/or satisfying work in those elderly years, so would ONLY have options to say fuck you to those demotions in status (and/or pay) by having had made sure that he has sufficiently built and maintained an investment portfolio rather than spending too much of it too soon (merely because he wanted to "have fun" in his younger years).
Each of us is in charge of figuring how what rises to the level of abundance or over abundance and the extent to which we might want to shave our investment portfolio size down.
That's right.
I will say that I know people who live quite well, and they have multiples (if not magnitudes) more than the amount that they need for completely living off of the income from their investments, so surely there sometimes could be challenges to figure out what kinds of ways to spend more money, and I am not necessarily going to blame them for doing something wrong merely because they have wealth levels that go way beyond their income needs (or lifestyle needs).
Yes, I also know people with a lot of money and spending more to die with nothing, they don't even think about it. Of course we are not going to blame them for it, just like we are not going to blame bitmover or others for doing with their money what they want.
Let's say that a person (I am going to use a western life-style example) had believed that his entry-level fuck you status was $1 million prior to 2020 (which would be being able to withdraw at $3,333 per month under traditional 4% withdrawal levels), and after 2020, he adjusted upwardly his entry-level fuck you status to $2 million after 2020 based on seemingly obvious monetary debasement happenings around that time (so that doubling/updated level would be being able to withdraw at $6,666 per month under traditional 4% withdrawal levels). If the guy had thought that he was making progress towards reaching such status right around the beginning of 2020 (since the goal was ONLY $1million rather than $2million), he still might have some sense of confidence based on his understanding of the soundness of BTC as a money, so maybe by early 2020 he has ONLY gotten to 50 BTC, and so therefore he feels that he has to keep stacking BTC - since
in early 2020, 50 BTC would ONLY be worth about $250k at the 200-WMA, and $350k at the then BTC spot prices.
So, he keeps stacking sats and keeping his head down. Maybe he could be in his 30s, 40s or 50s, and I am not sure if the age matters so much, except that Bitmover suggests that he is going to be getting much more pleasures out of spending some of his money if he is younger, yet still from my own perspective, it would be potentially problematic to start spending from the 50 BTC too soon, yet also with bitcoin, we likely realize that it has tended to appreciate in value faster than other assets, so even if the guy decides to stop stacking BTC in early 2020, and he feels that 50 BTC is enough, he still could start living better off of whatever other income that he has, since he is no longer having to put away 10% into bitcoin, and instead he has given himself a 10% spending raise by his deciding to spend from his income rather than continuing to put that extra value into BTC, and he may well even be optimistic that the 50 BTC is going to have good chances of appreciating in value sufficiently enough in the next 2-5 years that 50 BTC will be enough or more than enough.. but still he has to decide within the timeline of early 2020, and he is not really going to know for sure.
And so if he considers that he could stack away an additional $200 per week for the next 5-ish years, or he could have that $200 per week for spending on his life-enjoyment matters, and we ONLY end up seeing in retrospect how that additional $200 per week would have had performed by continuing to invest into bitcoin. In retrospect, we can see that an investment of
$200 per week for the past 5 years would have caused the guy to invest an additional $52.25k into bitcoin, and would have had gotten such guy about an additional 2.25 BTC, so instead of having 50 BTC, he would have 52.25 BTC right now, which is right around a 4.5% increase in the size of his BTC, yet much more of an increase in the value of the BTC, as compared with the amount that he put in.
In any event, this guy really might be at a point of having had not ONLY accumulated enough, but getting to a sense of feeling that he has accumulated way more than enough which is a real improvement of his today status as compared to his early 2020 status, and no matter how he calculates the value of his current BTC stash and how he is going to start to withdraw from it, he finds himself in a status of overabundance and likely able to spend even beyond his earlier expectations and his BTC value will likely continue to grow, even if he is ONLY planning to spend from the BTC's appreciation rather than feeling any kind of a need to spend to deplete its principle.
Look at it. Currently,
52.25 BTC gets a guy to a 200-WMA valuation of $2.2 million and a BTC spot price valuation of $4.8 million, and even withdrawing conservatively with a 4% withdrawal rate, he could withdraw around 0.175 BTC per month (which is about $16k per month.. which is nearly 3x his goal of $6,666 per month), and several times I had suggested that he could potentially start to withdraw at up to 10% (so long as he is taking some other precautions of making sure that the BTC price is at least 25% above the 200-WMA and some other potential precautions of withdrawing based on the 200-WMA dollar value rather than strictly withdrawing based on the BTC quantity.
Withdrawing 10% annual based on the BTC quantity would allow right around 0.435 BTC withdrawn per month, which is currently right around $40k per month.. which surely is right around 6x higher than the earlier aspirational amounts of $6,666 per month.
Even though the tool does not quite show how to calculate the dollar valuation from a 10% withdrawal rate, I will quickly describe that the rate would be slightly less than basing the withdrawal rate on the BTC quantity, so since the 200-WMA of 52.25 BTC shows $2.2 million valuation, we could multiply that amount by 10% and we get $220k annual, and then if we divide that by 12 months, then we get a $18,333 monthly withdrawal rate which is less than half of what would have been allowed when using the BTC quantity as the tool does, so at some point we might need to fix those calculations in the tool, since I think using the dollar valuation based on the 200-WMA is a more sustainable and conservative approach, even though in back-testing the tool, the 10% rate based on the BTC valuation and the various downward adjustments in the tool that start to kick in once the BTC spot price is lower than 25% above the 200-WMA, even the 10% withdrawal rate has been back-tested to have had been sustainable - while at the same time, many of us likely recognize and appreciate that past performance does not guarantee future results, so in that sense, we still may well want to aim towards making sure that we are not overly depleting our BTC stash during BTC spot price dippening periods.
It seems that holding a decent amount of value in bitcoin can contribute to such actual overabundance, since many of us may well employ conservative spending styles in accordance with traditional investment portfolio management, but then find that our bitcoin holdings are appreciating in value way faster than we are able to spend it.
Not only bitcoin holdings, that can happen in general with investments but obviously to the regulars of this forum the most normal thing is that our main source of wealth in the future will be bitcoin.
Sure. There are some other assets that have outperformed bitcoin, and likely will have periods of outperforming bitcoin in the future, yet I doubt that it is a good idea to be pumping those other assets in a bitcoin thread, and I am not even sure that we can really figure out how to have confidence (in broad-scale kinds of ways) that any other assets are worthy of diversifying into, even though surely I am not even opposed to the idea of having some diversification in our various assets besides how we are managing bitcoin and/or dollars (or other fiat that we might have in our country or our bills are denominated in).
In front of us it seems that we have (and have been having and likely to continue to have) one of the greatest (if not the greatest) wealth transfers in the history of mankind from no coiners to coiners, so I see no reason to get too distracted into other possible assets that might possibly exceed bitcoin's performance in short-term kinds of ways.
Sure in bitcoin we have some enthusiasts who are gobbling up a lot of the bitcoin, yet we have an overwhelming majority of the world's population, no matter if we are referring to individuals, institutions and/or governments who are way underallocated to bitcoin by being either no coiners or low coiners relative to their wealth.
Bitcoin seems to continue to be where to be, even if we cannot exactly know the future, yet bitcoin still seems to be a quite lopsided asymmetric bet to the upside.. that we can figure out our allocation and figure out how much of it to hold and figure out to what extent we want to start to live off of it to the extent that we may or may not have enough of it to really justify transitioning from accumulation stage to maintenance stage and then potentially prematurely putting ourselves in liquidation phase.. which yeah, guys surely not going to be correct in their decisions, even if they might have had advantages of having had been able to accumulate bitcoin for many years as compared to folks who are more recently coming into bitcoin.
But the fact that our wealth continues to grow means that we will be able to spend more and more, as well as invest and donate more if we want to, while not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, but letting it get bigger and bigger. And if we are lucky, with increasing institutional and state adoption in the next few years, our holdings can appreciate quite a bit.
Personally, I think that is the sweet spot that most of us should be attempting to be finding, and surely not all of us are going to end up coming to the correct conclusions in terms of how to make sure that we balance these matters well, even in terms of our knowing our own circumstances way better than others know our circumstances, we still may end up coming to conclusions that end up NOT being correctly tailored to our future self- whether that is 5-10 years down the road or some further out timeline.
Do you think he is regretting not having spent more when he was young on experiences? He has had a pretty frugal life, especially compared to the wealth he has.
Buffet is one of the richests guy on earth. You won't reach him, comparing yourself with him will only lead to frustration.
It's not really necessary to reach him because there is simply no point. Okay, you became a billionaire (1 Billion), why the hell do you need to become the owner of 147 billion dollars? I believe that one billion is more than enough to fulfill every dream that human has (I don't mean dreams like owning a bank like JP Morgan, I mean dreams like private jet, yacht and so on).
Also, we don't need to put limit on ourselves.
You won't reach is a bad approach to my mind.
Over the years, I have been in plenty of these kinds of forum conversations that attempt to figure out what level of wealth might constitute fuck you status versus something like filthy rich status, and perhaps if there might exist some other kinds of motivations (like status and/or control) that might motivate folks who seem to have even gone beyond fuck you status into filthy rich status and even multiples of filthy rich status.
For western-life style, currently, I am considering $2 million as entry-level fuck you status and $100 million as entry-level filthy rich status. Surely folks will have differing assessments regarding those levels, that could be adjusted upwardly or downwardly based on geography and even sometimes a younger person might aspire to have a higher cushion or even consider himself/herself to still be actively growing his/her wealth based on higher levels of energy based on age/health types of considerations.
You are judging the book by its title.
Die with zero isn't selfish.
You can make charity with your money when you are alive, not dead.
You can give your money to your kids when they are young and they need money, at 30s-40s, not when you die and they are about 70s and already rich. Or even worse, your kids may die before you.
You are just wrong about the concepts of the book. Criticizing without reading .
I think that when people talk abotu die with zero, they mean a selfish human being, who spent every money for himself instead of taking care of family members and relatives. In this case, what you said above, you are absolutely right.
It does seem to be a bit of a stretch to presume that die on zero has to be a self-centered type of an assessment - even though, it could well be the case if someone with a die on zero kind of a mentality might end up having to be more self-centered with his aspirations if he ends up spending way too much too soon... yet it is also difficult to generalize where any particular person might end up or if he might have ended up miscalculating how to exhaust his wealth without contributing to him having way too much stress in his more elderly years based on having had spent too much too soon.
In Buffet's case, it doesn't seem to be due to childhood trauma. Although it may be hard to believe, there are people who are happy without spending money on bullshit.
Besides the YOLO, the “Die with 0” and all the variants end up in many cases like what you say about McGregor, in rehab clinics or worse, dying of overdose.
No, it doesn't seem hard to believe because there are billions of people and the chance of someone being very unusual is very high.
There are billions of people, and an overwhelming majority (perhaps 95% or more - kind of guessing out of my ass on this one) never even come close to reaching entry-level fuck you status, even if they might end up wrongly presuming themselves to having had gotten to such a status... and entry-level fuck you status merely suggests an ability to completely live off of your investments and not having to work or count on various kinds of government or private sector benefits that might dry up.
Surely, some value can be attached to any income that normies get from government benefits and/or pensions, yet there should also be an attempt to account for the possibility that some of those kinds of benefits could completely dry up and they do tend to not keep up very well with the debasement of the dollar (or other fiat debasement that has historically tended to vary through time and from region to region)... and surely there are some folks who have ended up being able to live a fairly dignified elderly time with government benefits and/or other privatized benefits that were able to sustain them within their aspired standard of living circumstances.
We have also discussed that some poor folks might not have a lot of financial investment kinds of opportunities (whether bitcoin or otherwise), so historically, they may well end up contributing to their own old-age life security, sustenance and meaning by investing into their off-spring who are able to ensure the financial and psychological well-being of the elder in their older years, which also might end up being all that any normal person might want to have when they are in their last decade or so of life.
By the way, I wouldn't call bullshit to things that you mean in this conversation. It's not bullshit to buy latest model of iPhone, Lamborghini, Rolex watch, etc.
Yes, in many cases they end up like McGregor and Maradona, that's true too and it hurts me to see talents ruining their life this way. I'm glad Messi and Ronaldo didn't follow their path. These guys are role models for many people (there is also a place for Elon Musk).
I am a bit confused why you are bringing up McGregor and/or Madonna since they seem to be examples of folks who achieved such great levels of networth that even if they might employ an over-exuberant lifestyle, they have gotten to a place in which it becomes quite difficult to spend the quantity of money (wealth) that they had accumulated. Maybe you guys are mentioning those two for those kinds of illustrations, yet for me they seem to be quite atypical kinds of cases that don't really say too much of anything in regards to more likely grapplings that an overwhelming majority of normies have to figure out and strive to get success within their own talent (and/or luck) circumstances.
