FIRE Discussion and Resources

[Lex]

15 minutes ago, coprolite said:

If you live in a cheaper, bought, house you have less returns on your property.

If you're sure that the stock market will continue to outperform real estate that makes sense but putting all your eggs in the stocks basket seems risky, no? 

If you have your own stocks directly you can hold your nerve and not sell. But that graph suggests returns from trackers, not individual stocks, which get there value from trading. I'd suggest that if you'd bought £1000 of each stock in the 500 at 1982 you'd have lost, after inflation, by now. If you have a tracker you are more diversified but at greater risk of the fund manager folding with your cash in a crash. 

Yep a lot of people are well into property. Not for me personally, it's a lot of hard work and i'm much too lazy for that, but if that's your bag go for it. The S&P has  out performed inflation since 1982:

I have never and will never own an individual stock, much too risky and i've never traded in my life, wouldn't have the first idea how to.  If you have a fund manager get rid of them and manage it yourself, and by manage it i mean put it in a low cost tracker and do absolutely nothing. You'll save the fund managers wages right off the bat, and you'll probably get a better return too. Beware false prophets and high fee superstar fund managers, google Neil Woodford for a pertinent recent example of that. 

[coprolite]

3 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Depending who you ask and what you're investing for the stock market won't necessarily outperform real estate.

https://www.moneynest.co.uk/property-vs-shares/

There are no definitive answers here to what people with disposable income should be investing in.  There are also no guarantees.

That was kind of my point. It's not obvious that it's better to move your wealth from property to stocks. 

This is mostly hypothetical for me personally. 

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, Lex said:

Yep a lot of people are well into property. Not for me personally, it's a lot of hard work and i'm much too lazy for that, but if that's your bag go for it. The S&P has  out performed inflation since 1982:

I have never and will never own an individual stock, much too risky and i've never traded in my life, wouldn't have the first idea how to.  If you have a fund manager get rid of them and manage it yourself, and by manage it i mean put it in a low cost tracker and do absolutely nothing. You'll save the fund managers wages right off the bat, and you'll probably get a better return too. Beware false prophets and high fee superstar fund managers, google Neil Woodford for a pertinent recent example of that. 

Totally agree on fund managers. A lot of them will be able to demonstrate better than average performance. Exactly half of them in fact.  But that only proves how stats work. 

[The_Kincardine]

25 minutes ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

I'm not an old guy but that's nice advice. 

My three are all at Uni - with my eldest doing her MA.  They are all a bit stressy about what happens after.

At 60+ I can say with all seriousness, "Don't fret.  You have several bites at the cherry"

[beefybake]

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

If you live in a cheaper, bought, house you have less returns on your property.

If you're sure that the stock market will continue to outperform real estate that makes sense but putting all your eggs in the stocks basket seems risky, no? 

If you have your own stocks directly you can hold your nerve and not sell. But that graph suggests returns from trackers, not individual stocks, which get there value from trading. I'd suggest that if you'd bought £1000 of each stock in the 500 at 1982 you'd have lost, after inflation, by now. If you have a tracker you are more diversified but at greater risk of the fund manager folding with your cash in a crash. 

Individual companies do go bust, decline, get taken over...

The composition of, for example the US S&P 500 index is hardly recognisable from that of say ... 1990.

And growing companies come in to the index to replace them. That's why the S&P 500 is the 500 biggest companies in the US.

The average annualized return of the S&P 500 index since its creation in 1957 ... through to Dec. 31, 2021, is 10.67%.

That includes ups, down, crashes,   the lot.

 

You appear to have missed the point about shares v trackers. All of the FIRE stuff I've read advises NOT to buy shares in individual companies. Tracking an index spreads the risk.

As for the fund manager going bust, even if they do, you are still the owner of your shares. 

And anyway outfits like BlackRock, and Vanguard are massive, in the Trillions.   The latter, Vanguard, was set up by John Bogle , the inventor of index funds specifically becuase he saw that investors were receiving a raw deal in terms of fees from  existing ways of buying and owning shares.

Edited March 17, 2022 by beefybake

[SuperSaints1877]

49 minutes ago, beefybake said:

John Bogle , the inventor of index funds.

Not quite true.

The first index fund was created in the early 1970s by John McQuown at Wells Fargo bank.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-01/-anarchist-mac-mcquown-started-an-index-revolution-50-years-ago

In 1976 John Bogle created the first index fund that was available to individual investors. 

Even Warren Buffett has said that when he dies his shareholdings will be moved into index funds. 

Instead of stock picking, Buffett suggested investing in a low-cost index fund. “I recommend the S&P 500 index fund,” Buffett said, which holds 500 of the largest companies in the U.S., “and have for a long, long time to people.”

Buffett said it’s the reason he has instructed the trustee in charge of his estate to invest 90% of his money into the S&P 500, and 10% in treasury bills, for his wife after he dies. “I just think that the best thing to do is buy 90% in S&P 500 index fund.”

So who would you take advice from? Warren Buffett or @oaksoft.

 

[SuperSaints1877]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Totally agree on fund managers. A lot of them will be able to demonstrate better than average performance. Exactly half of them in fact.  But that only proves how stats work. 

 

This is Neil Woodford. A superstar for many years. You might want to check him out.

In 2019, for instance, 71% of large-cap U.S. actively managed equity funds underperformed the S&P 500, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices' SPIVA (S&P Indices Versus Active) Scorecard, a measure of the performance of actively managed funds against their relevant S&P index benchmarks.

And over the past five years? Almost 81% of large-cap, active U.S. equity funds underperformed their benchmarks.

When all goes well, active investing can deliver better performance over time. But when it doesn't, an active fund's performance can lag that of its benchmark index. Either way, you'll pay more for an active fund than for a passive fund. 

 

[SuperSaints1877]

From JL Collins.

To buy the index is to accept “average.” People have trouble seeing themselves or anything in their life as average.

But in this context “average” is not in the middle, it is the performance of the all the stocks in an index.  Professional managers are measured against how well they do against this return. In any given year, and of course this varies year to year, 80% of actively managed funds underperform their index.  This means just buying the index guarantees you’ll be in the top performance tier.  Year after year. Not bad for accepting “average.”  I can live (and prosper) with that kind of “average.”

Rest of his article here. https://jlcollinsnh.com/2012/01/06/index-funds/

His book although US based provides a great understanding of “set and forget” passive investing.

I still dabble with some individual stock picking (<5% of total investments) mainly through work discounted share schemes, but everything else is passive index investing. 

 

[Thorongil]

3 hours ago, strichener said:

If you are 42 just now you won't be accessing your pension at 55 (not without punitive tax charges).  The age for pension freedoms is rising to 57 in 2028 which will affect both you and your wife.

Lovely stuff.  

[strichener]

5 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Lovely stuff.  

My exact thoughts when I found this out as I was planning on retiring at 55 as well.  I had never heard of this FIRE stuff until this thread appeared.  

Edited March 17, 2022 by strichener

[Satoshi]

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

It's scare mongering and it's not even a balanced argument.

There is significant risk involved in what you are doing as well but you're not really being open about that.

A stock market crash or poorly performing investments, an early death or a major health problem (I seem to remember a figure of an average of 48 years of age of normal good health being banded about) and everything you have spent your entire life obsessing over and all the sacrifices will have potentially been for nothing.

You don't have your shit together any more than anyone else but for some weird reason you seem keen to give out the impression that you do.

Hardly scare mongering to say the state pension age will increase given it has done so repeatedly. Or that the triple lock may eventually no longer be in place (given it's an incredibly generous policy).

And of course there is a significant risk involved investing in ETFs. Over the long run it has proven to be incredibly lucrative to everyone, but there is certainly short term volatility. As you get nearer to retirement age there is a lot of discussion as to how you should set your stock vs bond percentages to mitigate your risk. If youa re 10+ years from retirement probably best keeping all in equities, they will be plenty of up and downs in that period though.

Re. early death, that's why balance is crucial. Nobody is suggesting you have a shit life to achieve FIRE, have a good life - enjoy yourself, and try and save and invest to have control over your retirement. There are some sacrifices of course, but there are sacrifices to do anything.

My advice is to neither die young, nor have any major health problems. Fullproof. (And a more sensible suggestion is having critical life cover in place - I do not, but I would if I had dependents). You're right that you shouldn't live a miserable life in the hope things might get better in future, that's really not what FIRE is about though. People can actually be happier spending less, the less you want the more you have. And as someone who moves frequently, I do get the feeling sometimes possessions own you more than you own them.

As for the last statement, I expect I probably have my shit together less than most people. I don't view having savings or investments as making me any better or worse as a person, nobody cares and rightly so. It's something that I try to achieve to give me more options on my working life in future (as I've outlined on the thread).

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

This falls into the category of "it's always risen so it always will rise" logical fallacy. It's also the "hindsight" fallacy. In 2008, there was no guarantee that things would have recovered any time soon. You're also making the mistake of looking at averages. Many individual stocks crashed and burned without recovering. Some people lost everything in 2008 and didn't get it back again.

Finally, the market only needs to dip significantly around the time you need to withdraw your investments or start living off the interest.

So that's 5 major flaws in your thinking in one post. Congratulations. That has to be a new record.

You're trying to paint investment as relatively risk-free.

You're wrong to do so.

Who lost everything in 2008 and didn't get it back again? Not anyone investing in passive trackers as everyone has recommended on this thread. Indeed, they made incredible bank.

There is a good documentary on the BBC at the moment - the decade the rich won. It's very unlikely that 2020-2030 will be anywhere near as good as 2010-2020 which was an incredible bull run (and not un-coincidentally when FIRE became more mainstream). It's going to be a decade with lower returns, I'm fairly confident of that.

But still only a small proportion of the overall world has any investments, there is still a lot of space for equity markets to grow. We are living in a more gloablised world and there is much easier access to equity investing which helps too.

Nobody thinks that investments are relatively risk free, of course they are risky, I've lost 5 figures in the last year through my ETF investments (and in crypto FWIW). I never even considered selling. C'est la vie, I'm confident it will still work on in the long term and in the meantime my lifestyle and spending don't change whether the market is up or down.

11 hours ago, coprolite said:

If you live in a cheaper, bought, house you have less returns on your property.

If you're sure that the stock market will continue to outperform real estate that makes sense but putting all your eggs in the stocks basket seems risky, no? 

If you have your own stocks directly you can hold your nerve and not sell. But that graph suggests returns from trackers, not individual stocks, which get there value from trading. I'd suggest that if you'd bought £1000 of each stock in the 500 at 1982 you'd have lost, after inflation, by now. If you have a tracker you are more diversified but at greater risk of the fund manager folding with your cash in a crash. 

The property vs. stock market is an interesting question and you're right it's one without a definitive answer (as is stock vs. vintage wine, classic cars or crypto).

Like someone else posted, it's a lot of hassle and I'm far too lazy. If you invest in a ETF you will own companies with huge property portfolios so theoretically you would benefit from rising house prices (other financial companies in a ETF will benefit from this too).

But if you like flipping houses this won't be a bad option, especially if you do your market research and like plastering.

On property ownership, my personal preference would be to rent until I buy my 'forever home'. The costs of moving are quite prohibitive.

This is ideal though, won't necessarily happen. But I do like the flexibility of renting and investing any excess cash.

On the fund manager folding, think for the likes of Vanguard this is very unlikely, but if you own the ETF you own shares in that ETF not equity in Vanguard. Think that could probably be expressed better.

11 hours ago, Left Back said:

Depending who you ask and what you're investing for the stock market won't necessarily outperform real estate.

https://www.moneynest.co.uk/property-vs-shares/

There are no definitive answers here to what people with disposable income should be investing in.  There are also no guarantees.

Agreed, no guarantess on anything (market falls are closer to guarantees than market rises). What I would say that is that virtually every powerful person in the world will have money in equity (as well as all major pension funds), if it crashes or massively underperforms something has gone seriously wrong. From what I have seen over the past few decades, governments around the world will do anything to prop up stock markets - the alternative is hardly worth thinking about for them. And if it has a terrible crash, your money won't be safe no matter where it is.

Don't want to be accused of scaremongering again, so will happily predict the above won't happen. There will be many crashes to come, and they will be followed by a bigger rebound. As has continuously happened since the stock market came into existence.

10 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Do you not appreciate that if everyone does this the whole system will fall apart?

The big difference these days is that computers are increasingly being used to buy and sell.

If we're all using the same algorithms, then when the algorithm detects a problem with a stock and decides to sell it for one person, everyone's algorithm (becaue it's the same algorithm) will also sell causing a massive crash in that stock.

If you're investing in "averages", whatever that means, you'd still lose out.

It's like pyramid selling. It only seriously works for early adopters who then bail before the bubble bursts. Once everyone starts doing it becomes much more risky with much less reward.

For that reason you can't compare with what has happened over the last 50 years. It's a totally different world now.

You are right that, at least theoretically, the more people who do passive investing the easier it will be for active managers to do outpeform the market.

So far hasn't really borne out in reality, but it does make sense and may become true eventually. But even at that point you will still face the qunadry of picking the right asset manager given many will continue to underperform the market. 

But overall, it sounds like you're against stock market and passive investing. And if so - fine, don't do it. Nobody is making you. You sound like more of a NFT guy to me anyway.

But equally, you're probably not going to convince people on this thread to stop passive investing - it's not just Warren Buffet or Albert Einstein who advocates investing in the stock market - pretty much everyone does. And I don't think it's particularly likely that everyone else is wrong and you are right. And if you are going to invest in it, you might as well do it in the cheapest and most efficient way possible and avoid shysters like St. James Place. There is abundant evidence on how damaging Asset Manager fees can be to your long term finances.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Satoshi

[Shandon Par]

16 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Simple advice from a twice-divorced 60-something who had a brilliant trip to central Europe and Turkey in Feb and who plans to do a TEFL trip to Cebu in May is that this is utter bollocks.  Seriously silly stuff from you.

If you think life peaks at 40 then you have f**k all to do with the next 40 years and how pathetic is that?

Aged 40 I was a first-time father with all the stresses that entails.  Aged 62 I have 3 adult kids who are absolutely brilliant and a daily joy.

Life is hugely better in my 60's than it ever was in my 40's - as is my social life.

Next time you’re up this way why not bring a gumshield and I’ll give you a few rounds then you can decide if 60s beats 40s! 

[beefybake]

15 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Do you not appreciate that if everyone does this the whole system will fall apart?

The big difference these days is that computers are increasingly being used to buy and sell.

If we're all using the same algorithms, then when the algorithm detects a problem with a stock and decides to sell it for one person, everyone's algorithm (becaue it's the same algorithm) will also sell causing a massive crash in that stock.

If you're investing in "averages", whatever that means, you'd still lose out.

It's like pyramid selling. It only seriously works for early adopters who then bail before the bubble bursts. Once everyone starts doing it becomes much more risky with much less reward.

For that reason you can't compare with what has happened over the last 50 years. It's a totally different world now.

Drivel.  You're either completely ignorant  or just a troll.   It's not even banter.

Edited March 18, 2022 by beefybake

[SuperSaints1877]

2 hours ago, beefybake said:

Drivel.  You're either completely ignorant  or just a troll.   It's not even banter.

On financial subjects he’s certainly both. 

[Satoshi]

Looks like Ash Barty has decided to follow FIRE at the age of 25. With career earnings pf $23m she will be able to live comfortably*, not sure how successful his golfer fiance is but it doesn't really affect things either way.

It's always intrigued me as to why Andy Murray (prize money $62m) keeps playing despite having nothing to prove, not being able to perform at the levels he used to, and most importantly of all risking his long term health. Top level athletes have to be incredibly driven and focused, I do wonder to what extent this comes at the expense of having a life outside of sport. The very best struggle to let go, consider Tiger Woods, Ronaldo, Tom Brady, Lance Armstrong etc.

I think I would be more inclined to be a Phillip Lahm or Zinedine Zidane and retire at the top. But not quite like Ronaldinho and Bale where I chuck it but keep pretending to play. Given the huge sums on offer very few footabllers now will keep dropping down the leagues like Lee Sharp or Charlie Miller of old. I think Rooney only played Championship football for the (potential) coaching opportunity. 

Although there has been plenty of shock to Bartys announcement, I think it will become more common in top level sport for a few reasons:

• Those at the elite level in many sports are paid enough to retire comfortably whilst still young
• The physical demands of most sport is ever increasing, with football and tennis become incredibly more physical demanding in the last two decades. This trend is likely to only continue. 30 years ago top level footballers could enjoy a reasonable normal diet and binge drinking sessions but this is certainly not the case now (and if they do, they'll flame out young like Rooney).
• Linked to the above, enhanced understanding of the long term health effects of elite sport. Tim Vickery summarised it well when he said he's met many former footballers and that very few of them can even still walk properly (instead they shuffle around). This is even more pronounced in boxing where a longer career clearly leads to a shorter life, and reduced quality of life.
• Social media heaps more pressure on all athletes leading to increased mental strain

And for most professionals it's not that fun (which isn't new of course), I wasn't surprised when Phelps chucked it, waking up at 5am to go swimming for hours isn't anyones idea of fun. I was more surprised he chose to go back, but there must be some guilt at having an incredible talent and not being able (or willing) to make the most of it.

This is Bartys second semi retirement, she may go back again in a few years.

Also attaching the link to the Reddit Fire UK Page - https://www.reddit.com/r/FIREUK/ 

*Not accounting for costs, but for simiplicty let's assume that and sponsorship cancel each other out.

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Satoshi

[Leith Green]

On 14/03/2022 at 11:20, VincentGuerin said:

More than one of my mates' dads have dropped dead within a few months of retirement. Live while you're here.

If it means stopping work on the friday and doing f**k all from the monday, I dont think thats healthy (and there are a fair few stories like yours above).

If below is TLDR, basically my thoughts are..........if you can afford it, get off the corporate hamster wheel and do something you enjoy, even if its just part time.

I saw your other post about what happened after your wifes car crash - its certainly too easy, and unhealthy, to "put your feet up" all the time.

I worked a redundancy deal in 2017 and decided to take some time off (full disclosure, my dad was terminal so decided to take the time and help out etc). I was lucky, my redundancy and pension pot meant we were basically financially secure but I was only 49 so doing nothing wasnt ever an option - I could access my pension from 50, but didnt want to start taking money too early.

After my dad died in early 2018, I just farted about for another year - skiing, cycling, hillwalking with my son etc. We went to New Zealand for a month and I decided on the flight back that I was bored and needed something solid to do after 18 months. My wife has her own business, wfh, which pays the bills so there wasnt any real financial stress.

I started a small home improvement business (its beer money really, but good for fitness - cheaper than a gym membership) and get to meet a lot of good people - it means I  pick and choose jobs to suit what we are doing for fun - yesterday I went to Glencoe to ski, today going to an exhibition with my wife.

As you say in your final line - life is for living.

[The Moonster]

5 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Looks like Ash Barty has decided to follow FIRE at the age of 25. With career earnings pf $23m she will be able to live comfortably*, not sure how successful his golfer fiance is but it doesn't really affect things either way.

It's always intrigued me as to why Andy Murray (prize money $62m) keeps playing despite having nothing to prove, not being able to perform at the levels he used to, and most importantly of all risking his long term health. Top level athletes have to be incredibly driven and focused, I do wonder to what extent this comes at the expense of having a life outside of sport. The very best struggle to let go, consider Tiger Woods, Ronaldo, Tom Brady, Lance Armstrong etc.

I think I would be more inclined to be a Phillip Lahm or Zinedine Zidane and retire at the top. But not quite like Ronaldinho and Bale where I chuck it but keep pretending to play. Given the huge sums on offer very few footabllers now will keep dropping down the leagues like Lee Sharp or Charlie Miller of old. I think Rooney only played Championship football for the (potential) coaching opportunity. 

Although there has been plenty of shock to Bartys announcement, I think it will become more common in top level sport for a few reasons:

• Those at the elite level in many sports are paid enough to retire comfortably whilst still young
• The physical demands of most sport is ever increasing, with football and tennis become incredibly more physical demanding in the last two decades. This trend is likely to only continue. 30 years ago top level footballers could enjoy a reasonable normal diet and binge drinking sessions but this is certainly not the case now (and if they do, they'll flame out young like Rooney).
• Linked to the above, enhanced understanding of the long term health effects of elite sport. Tim Vickery summarised it well when he said he's met many former footballers and that very few of them can even still walk properly (instead they shuffle around). This is even more pronounced in boxing where a longer career clearly leads to a shorter life, and reduced quality of life.
• Social media heaps more pressure on all athletes leading to increased mental strain

And for most professionals it's not that fun (which isn't new of course), I wasn't surprised when Phelps chucked it, waking up at 5am to go swimming for hours isn't anyones idea of fun. I was more surprised he chose to go back, but there must be some guilt at having an incredible talent and not being able (or willing) to make the most of it.

This is Bartys second semi retirement, she may go back again in a few years.

Also attaching the link to the Reddit Fire UK Page - https://www.reddit.com/r/FIREUK/ 

*Not accounting for costs, but for simiplicty let's assume that and sponsorship cancel each other out.

 

She's retired from tennis but she doesn't say she's retired from working, she in fact states she wants to chase other dreams. Doesn't sound like she's just putting the slippers on for the next 50 years. I think it's a bit of a stretch to include elite sportspeople in this anyway, it's not like they make the decision to save their money and retire early, they make obscene amounts of money that are nigh on impossible to blow unless you lose your fucking head. 

[Satoshi]

23 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

She's retired from tennis but she doesn't say she's retired from working, she in fact states she wants to chase other dreams. Doesn't sound like she's just putting the slippers on for the next 50 years. I think it's a bit of a stretch to include elite sportspeople in this anyway, it's not like they make the decision to save their money and retire early, they make obscene amounts of money that are nigh on impossible to blow unless you lose your fucking head. 

That's the whole point of FIRE though, retiring early from your current career and having the option to dedicate your time to other things. Nobody has suggested retiring at 30 and putting your slippers on for 50 years.

And I think FIRE is relevant to professional sports people for the following reasons:

1. Many are relatively financially illiterate
2. Partly as a result of 1, they tend to be surrounded by shysters
3. As a result of 1 and 2, many of them do go bankrupt. There's plenty of examples in all sports, and it's frighteningly high in the likes of boxing and NFL (ESPN makes a good doc on why it happens in the latter). Boris Becker is an obvious example of an oustanding tennis player who quickly went bankrupt.
4. Even for those who do save their money, you still face the other challenges of FIRE, i.e. if you retire at 40, what do you do? How do you stay relevant in a world so dedicated towards work? Not all footballers can become pundits or coaches, many will face the challenge on how to define the next stage of their life (and many atheletes really struggle with it leading to mental health problems, and increased risk of suicide).

The two main differences are that it will be easier for elite athletes to save a big propotion of their pay check and, unlike most professions, their skills will cease to be relevant when they reach around 40 (making FIRE less of a choice!).

I do fear that in some sports, athletes are manipulated to stay in the game for the financial benefit of their entourage even if they are clearly finished - plenty of old boxers will go out for a beating from a man half their age when they really shouldn't need to.

[The Moonster]

34 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

That's the whole point of FIRE though, retiring early from your current career and having the option to dedicate your time to other things. Nobody has suggested retiring at 30 and putting your slippers on for 50 years.

We seem to have different definitions of the word retire. Ash Barty has stopped playing tennis. There is nothing she's said that states she's retired from working altogether, she might well go and set up a business of her own from here - would you deem her retired then? I just think you pointing to millionaire sportspeople and saying "look it's popular" is bit disingenuous. Anyone with £20 million in the bank is able to do what they like with their life and I don't think there is any parallels the average joe can take from it. 

[Satoshi]

49 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

We seem to have different definitions of the word retire. Ash Barty has stopped playing tennis. There is nothing she's said that states she's retired from working altogether, she might well go and set up a business of her own from here - would you deem her retired then? I just think you pointing to millionaire sportspeople and saying "look it's popular" is bit disingenuous. Anyone with £20 million in the bank is able to do what they like with their life and I don't think there is any parallels the average joe can take from it. 

She used the word retirement in her statement! 

But you seem to have this notion that FIRE is about stopping work early, and never doing anything ever again.

It can be, but that's very much a minority view. You have the choice to do anything you want, including starting a business or getting into playing cricket. Exactly what she has done.

It would have been a pretty weird statement for her to say she has retired from work altogether, but she's retired from the only career she has had.

As for what parallels to take, obviously most people are not millionaire athletes, but I think it's credit to someone who spent her youth getting to the pinnacle of her sport and is choosing to step back in her prime because she thinks it's best for her. It's courageous. And if you're 50 and want to retire from your long standing career to do something else - go for it! People half your age are doing it too.