Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Business & FinancePersonal Finance · 2 months ago

If someone has $50,000 saved when the turn 26, would you consider that as good, average, or bad?

18 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago

    The better figure of merit would be where the savings came from.  If it came from a regular savings contributions from every paycheck over the past 5 or more years, then it's good.  If the contributions were more than 10% of gross income, I'd say great.  If it was $50k that was inherited last year, and the person is slowly spending it down by $100 a month, that would be bad.

    At a young age, look at the trajectory of savings; the absolute amount is less important.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    I have read that to be on track to a solid retirement you should have invested assets equal to a year's salary by age 30. Sounds like a good benchmark. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    WELL above average,

    I woudl venture to guess the average 26 year old has around $4,000 saved, if that.

  • Don G
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    No one cares how much you have saved.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    $50,000 saved up is good, but there is always better amounts to have saved up.

    I think saving up more money at a faster rate if possible would be ideal.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Totally depends on where you live. East or west coast it would be a drop in the bucket.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Pearl
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    i think its pretty good, wish i had that type of money

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Bad. If you invest that at 5% per annum; 40 years later, when you retire, you'd have only $352,000 in the bank to live off in retirement. Assuming you'd live another 20 years while retired, that's not nearly enough to live on even if you end up drawing the maximum Social Security benefits for retirement.

    So you need to keep adding to that principle, the $50K, above and beyond what it's earning by interest. If you started saving $10K per year upon reaching 21 yo, you should keep that up. Keep saving $10K or even more as your earning power rises.

    Also, you've been earning I'm guessing for about five years. What were your annual expenses over those five years? You take that and project them out to age 65 to set your retirement goal expenses. That's the only way you can actually assess what you'll need in retirement to live on.

    Source(s): Retired in 2001 and living comfortably on my investments and Social Security.
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    It doesn't matter what someone considers it.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Depends on what they've been doing with eight years of adulthood.

    If they've completed a bachelor's degree and have been putting 12k into their 401k for the past three years (plus appreciation), yeah, that's fine.

    If they've been living rent free living in mummy's basement, haven't bothered to get an education, have no earning power and have been putting $250 from each McDonald's paycheck in the bank and spending the rest on a huge car loan, they're a moron.

    Whether 50k is good or not depends individual circumstances.   Context is everything and you've given zero.

    • curtis1 month agoReport

      Great answer!

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.