Search results

Interesting. Those of us born in the mid 70s all seem to aspire to 100k pa passive income via a 3mil net asset base. Must be a generational issue.

Hopefully girlfriends / wife leads on to kids otherwise, he may as well be clapping with one hand.

Yes I agree with these numbers and the rationale behind them. I think that an indexed 100k p.a. does require a capital base of 3m in unencumbered holdings of shares, IPs, bonds and cash. Plus fully paid off PPOR. And hopefully, one doesnt have to downgrade the PPOR at the point of retirement...

I would have thought that being single would be seen as advantageous by lenders. Without dependents, you have far less liabilities and less constraints on cash flow.

I just like a solid defined standard to reach. Just like some may aspire to run a marathon, run in the 100m at the Olympics or sail around the world wherein only x number of people or x percentage of people can do or have done.

Thank you. I could not have expressed it more eloquently.

Agree. I was talking about a 5% gross yield - which I believe is a conservative measure of net invested funds required to generate a certain passive pre-tax income.

At a conservative 5% yield $5m gives about 250k a year - not really a sum that is designed for large families to fly first class every year. Probably business class once a year for the family.

At a conservative 5% yield, income of 365k per annum would mean about 7.3 mil of unencumbered invested assets or equivalent. Combined with a PPOR, you would be in the top 0.1% of net worth in this country.

Seems like most people want about 100k passive income per year - must be the magic number for retirement.

Goals 1. To have 100k-150k passive income per year, indexed to inflation as soon as possible. 2. to be in the top one percent of net worth Method/ Strategy -1. buy shares with cash -direct share purchases -2. buy - indexed funds AFI, VAS with cash -3. work hard, save hard...