upvote

points

by GMoromisato5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby questionableans50 minutes ago|
next
[-]
You probably mean a level or three above Staff at FAANG.
reply
upvoteby jebarker4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I know these are just spit-balled numbers but getting to $25M in 10 years even with $2M annual comp would require pretty risky investment I think. Assuming you spent $300K per year and paid US taxes you’d have about $900K left over. 7% average returns would mean you’d have about $13M saved after 10 years. Getting more than 7% on the whole portfolio is going to require significant risk.
reply
upvoteby throwaway77832 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Hindsight is perfect in stock markets,but with 100k in initial investment in 2010 in VUG, and a 40k/mo recurring investment until now (little more than half the savings), it would be worth 33M+ now.

Obviously this means one has to be earning that much for 15+ years.

reply
upvoteby GMoromisato4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Fair enough--I didn't do the math. Looks like you'd hit $25M after 15 years or so. And I grant that 7% is aggressive.

Still, if you reach staff-level at 40 years old, you could have $25M at 55. That's pretty amazing. But that requires lots of luck. Most people never make it to staff-level. I never did.

reply
upvoteby jebarker4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It is incredible. Sustaining 15 years at staff level will cost you a lot in other ways though!
reply
upvoteby GMoromisato4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yup! Depends on the company and the person, of course.

Another thing: People at FAANGs usually ride the stock up and get way more than 7% per year. I'm embarrassed to say that I sold a lot of MSFT stock at $30 in 2011. Today (~15 years later) it is trading at $530.

reply
upvoteby malfist2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Never be embarrassed about diversification. In 2012 Microsoft could have been found to be cooking the books and $30 would be a lot. Or they could have hit a hard patch, lost stock value and laid you off and you'd be out income and savings.
reply
upvoteby jebarker2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Most helpful way I know to think about this is: if you’d been given that stock as cash would you have bought the stock. Breaks the cognitive bias of already holding the stock.
reply
upvoteby GMoromisato2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You're right about that! Remember that in 2011, Microsoft was considered a zombie-company. No one expected it to grow in value.
reply
upvoteby spwa44 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Sustaining 15 years at staff level is near-impossible and will extract a heavy toll for the vast majority of people. Plus at 55? Not saying you'll be dinged purely for your age but it's not like it has no influence ...
reply
upvoteby joshuamorton3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> When I was at Microsoft, partner-level engineers were making $1 million per year; now it's probably $2 million.

This seems...high. The levels.fyi data for 68/69 shows them maybe crossing 1M, and the highest available data point at a bit under 1.5 mil. Staff engineers at FAANG are not making 1M a year except in cases of significant stock growth. 700-800K is more reasonable. The AI labs pay a significant premium, yes (2-3x!).

My math on it was basically "I can work for 10-15 more years and retire meeting my financial goals, or work until my 4 year grant at an AI lab finishes and meet all the same goals, with more interesting work".

reply
upvoteby spwa45 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Beyond that, you probably do need a startup or some other significant ownership stake.

That would be what I'm trying to avoid.

reply