2 ms·

(Edit: never mind. I think there's some mistake in your chronology that renders my numbers invalid. Died at 84 in 2017 == born in 1933. Retired in 1988 at ag

(Edit: never mind. I think there's some mistake in your chronology that renders my numbers invalid. Died at 84 in 2017 == born in 1933. Retired in 1988 at age 55, probably not after 60 years at XOM, more like 30; or retired after 60 years, probably more like 1933+18+60=2011. Guessing maybe he retired at age 60 in 1993? Got sick at 72 in 2005? Died at 84? The numbers change a bit--missed out some big gains in 1988 and 1989, hit the flat 2000s, and probably got creamed by having to cash a lot out during 2008 crash.) What I was going to post based on your original report of retiring in 1988 with $3M (keeping it for illustrative purposes): He must have sold the stock when he retired to buy that house and those cars. Had he kept it in XOM, his $3 million would have been worth $22 million today, with a dividend that would have covered his expenses and that kept pace with inflation. Not that keeping your nest egg in a single stock would have been advisable, but the S&P return for that would have been comparable.

awkwardtortoise 9y ago
> Had he kept it in XOM, his $3 million would have been worth $22 million today, with a dividend that would have covered his expenses and that kept pace with inflation. His house value probably rose at a higher rate than XOM's did. Also, what's your point? His shares would be worth $22 million today and he'd still be dead.
- firebones 9y ago
  The point is that his surviving wife wouldn't have to scrape by on social security, and that he wouldn't have had to have burned through his entire nest egg even if he was buying a house, cars, and spending $100K/yr + 12 years of medical expenses and long-term care. But that's moot--the edit I made was because the $22M was based on a chronology problem in the original post. The ten year difference in retirement date from 1988 to 1998 is a much better explanation of the facts, and fits the OP's premise better.

awkwardtortoise 9y ago

> Had he kept it in XOM, his $3 million would have been worth $22 million today, with a dividend that would have covered his expenses and that kept pace with inflation. His house value probably rose at a higher rate than XOM's did. Also, what's your point? His shares would be worth $22 million today and he'd still be dead.

firebones 9y ago
The point is that his surviving wife wouldn't have to scrape by on social security, and that he wouldn't have had to have burned through his entire nest egg even if he was buying a house, cars, and spending $100K/yr + 12 years of medical expenses and long-term care. But that's moot--the edit I made was because the $22M was based on a chronology problem in the original post. The ten year difference in retirement date from 1988 to 1998 is a much better explanation of the facts, and fits the OP's premise better.