The path to retirement is paved with numbers, rules of thumb, and more than a few sleepless nights spent wondering if you’ve saved enough. For one couple featured on the “Money Guy Show,” hosted by Brian Preston and Bo Hanson, that journey led to a specific target: $3 million—a figure that sparked a broader conversation about how Americans should actually think about their retirement goals.
The Magic Number and How They Got There
According to the “Money Guy Show,” the couple initially considered a range between $2.5 million and $3 million before settling on the higher figure. The calculation wasn’t pulled from thin air—it was anchored in one of personal finance’s most enduring guidelines: the 4% rule.
Don’t Miss:
Here’s how the math worked: The couple wanted to withdraw $100,000 annually in retirement. Using the 4% rule, which suggests limiting annual withdrawals to 4% of total savings to ensure the portfolio can sustain itself, they arrived at $2.5 million ($100,000 represents 4% of $2.5 million). But they ultimately bumped their target to $3 million, which would support $120,000 in annual withdrawals.
The reasoning behind the increase? They expect to be mortgage-free by retirement. That freed-up housing payment could then flow into their general living expenses, justifying the higher withdrawal amount, Preston and Hanson explained.
Living Off the Interest—Or So the Theory Goes
The philosophy underpinning the 4% rule is elegantly simple: withdraw only 4% each year, and your account should replenish itself through investment returns. It’s the modern equivalent of “living off the interest,” though as Hanson noted, that 4% figure isn’t set in stone.
Trending: If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it?
Some financial advisers recommend a more conservative 3% withdrawal rate, particularly in low-return environments or for those worried about longevity risk. Others, like personal finance guru Dave Ramsey, suggest you might safely go slightly higher depending on your circumstances and risk tolerance.
The Inflation Question That Changes Everything
But here’s where the couple’s plan hits a potential snag—one that trips up countless Americans planning for retirement. When they talk about wanting $120,000 a year, are they referring to today’s dollars or the purchasing power they’ll need when they actually retire?
This distinction matters enormously. If $120,000 represents what that amount can buy today, they’ll need substantially more in actual dollars decades from now due to inflation. Preston and Hanson acknowledged this as a significant area of confusion in applying the 4% rule, particularly when factoring in estimated inflation over time.
Consider this: at a modest 3% annual inflation rate, $120,000 in today’s dollars would require roughly $217,000 in actual dollars 20 years from now to maintain the same purchasing power. That would push their required nest egg from $3 million to over $5.4 million—a dramatic difference that fundamentally reshapes the retirement planning equation.
See Also: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation.
What This Means for Your Own Planning
The couple’s journey illustrates a crucial lesson for anyone building a retirement strategy: the numbers only tell part of the story. The 4% rule provides a useful framework, but it requires careful consideration of variables like inflation expectations, planned housing costs, and whether your projections reflect current or future purchasing power.
Before you lock in your own retirement number, clarify whether you’re thinking in today’s dollars or nominal future dollars. Run multiple scenarios with different withdrawal rates and inflation assumptions. And remember that conservative planning—even if it means working a few extra years or saving more aggressively—beats running out of money in your 80s.
The $3 million target might be right for this couple. But the real value in their story isn’t the specific number—it’s the reminder that retirement planning demands both mathematical precision and honest reckoning with the assumptions underlying those calculations.
Read Next: Microsoft’s Climate Innovation Fund Just Backed This Farmland Manager — Accredited Investors Can Join the Same Fund
Image: Shutterstock
