> She had 15 years of saving 26% of $250k to only have $250k??? But that part is just... wrong. We don't know what the savings rate was before her "mid 50s" -

> She had 15 years of saving 26% of $250k to only have $250k??? But that part is just... wrong. We don't know what the savings rate was before her "mid 50s" - clearly it was LESS than 26% of $250k, and yes, that is bananas. But GGP's text does not match what the article says. In reality, she started with $250k around 55, and then saved (up to) 26% of $250k for 10 years, retiring at 65 with about $1 million saved.