You've Saved $2 Million for Retirement. So Why Are You Still Working?

Intel hit a 26-year high. Nvidia retook $5 trillion. The semiconductor index gained for the 18th straight day. Records again.

The quick scan: Intel surged nearly 24% to a record not seen since 2000, Nvidia retook the $5 trillion market cap crown, and the semiconductor index extended its winning streak to 18 sessions. The S&P 500 and NASDAQ closed at new all-time records. The DOJ dropped its investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Iran's foreign minister headed to Islamabad for ceasefire talks, with Witkoff and Kushner flying in Saturday. AI earnings and Iran diplomacy converged into a fourth consecutive winning week.

S&P 500: +0.80% to 7,165.08 – new all-time record; fourth consecutive weekly gain, longest streak since Q4 2024; Q1 earnings growth now tracking at 16.1%, up from 14.4% at the start of the month
Dow Jones: -0.16% to 49,230.71 – session outlier; Merck (–2.42%), Verizon (–1.61%) and Walmart (–1.60%) weighed; Nvidia (+4.30%), Amazon (+3.47%) and Salesforce (+2.83%) offset; the Dow snapped its three-week winning streak
NASDAQ: +1.63% to 24,836.60 – new all-time record; Intel's 26-year high set the tone; semiconductor sector has added over $3 trillion in market value in 17 trading days.

What's driving it: Three forces converged. Intel's earnings resolved the market's central question about AI capex returns – the numbers said yes. The DOJ dropping the Powell probe removes a central bank leadership risk and revives rate-cut expectations. The Iran diplomatic signals suggest the war is approaching a negotiated end. Against all that, the University of Michigan's final April consumer sentiment reading of 49.8 – lowest on record, below the financial crisis, COVID and the 2022 inflation spike – is the number the market didn't want to look at.

Bottom line: The S&P 500 is up 13.4% from its war-period low. Records on a Friday, diplomatic progress over the weekend, a Fed leadership transition in motion. Staying invested through geopolitical noise, as today's article argues about time, produces outcomes that market-timing almost never does.

The Millionaire Who Can't Stop Working

The scoop: Here's a scenario that is more common than it sounds.

Someone in their early 60s has, through decades of disciplined saving and careful investing, accumulated $2 million in retirement savings. They are, by any objective financial measure, in an excellent position. They are also still working. Still setting the alarm. Still planning for "just a little more" before they make the call.

A new analysis from Moneywise, published this week on Yahoo Finance, asks the question directly: if you have $2 million saved, are you sacrificing for nothing?

The answer, it turns out, depends less on the maths than on the psychology.

The numbers case.

Under the 4% rule – $2 million generates $80,000 a year. With Social Security or pension income on top, the number becomes more comfortable still. At a more generous $125,000 per year with zero investment returns, your $2 million lasts sixteen years. With a 5% real return, it doesn't deplete at all at $80,000 per year.

Americans typically reach millionaire status in their 50s and 60s (Empower). If you're in your mid-60s with $2 million, actuarial tables suggest roughly two decades of remaining life expectancy. The maths, in most scenarios, works.

The health argument is harder to ignore.

The World Health Organisation reports two life expectancy figures. Average US life expectancy: 76.4 years. Health-adjusted life expectancy: 63.9 years.

That 12.5-year gap is the space between being alive and being well.

What this means in practice is significant. If you retire at 60, you may have, on average, fewer than four years of life in full health before the typical onset of chronic conditions or functional limitations. Beyond that point, you may gradually lose energy, mobility, or the desire to do the things you've been telling yourself you're saving retirement for – the travel, the active grandparenting, the experiences that require a functional body and genuine energy.

This connects directly to last Monday's issue on Bill Perkins' Die With Zero and the "net satisfaction" argument. The health data provides the biological clock that makes the philosophical point urgent. It's not just that you should prioritise experience over accumulation. It's that the window for high-functioning experience is narrower than most retirement plans assume.

The psychology of "one more year."

If the maths supports retirement and the health argument makes waiting costly, why do so many people with $2 million keep working?

The Moneywise analysis identifies two drivers.

The first is the fear of running out of money. This fear is persistent, understandable, and – at the $2 million level – often disproportionate to the actual risk. The same psychological research that shows people fear losses twice as much as they value equivalent gains applies here: the prospect of outliving your savings looms larger than the actuarial probability of it happening warrants.

The second is identity. We covered this ground two weeks ago with Marlene Martin's retirement identity piece – the retired teacher who discovered her sense of self had belonged to her institution, not to her. The person who keeps working at 63 with $2 million in the bank is often not staying for the money. They're staying because work provides structure, status, and daily proof of relevance that nothing else in their life has yet replaced.

Both are real. Neither is irrational. But it's worth being honest about which one is actually driving the decision.

The inheritance complication.

Many people with significant assets want to leave something behind. Legitimate goal. But as last week's Die With Zero piece argued, money given to children in their 30s or 40s creates far more practical value than a bequest that arrives when they may already be financially established. Keeping working to leave a larger estate may, in practice, be optimising for the wrong variable.

What the article concludes.

With $2 million saved, the financial case for continued sacrifice is weak. The legitimate reasons to keep working are personal, not financial: you love the work, it provides purpose you haven't replaced, you have specific future goals. Those are valid – but they should be named honestly, not dressed up as financial prudence when the numbers don't require it.

The money was always meant to serve your life. Not the other way around.

Actionable takeaways for L-Plate Retirees:

• Run the actual maths on your own situation, not the cultural average. The $1.28 million "magic number" from Schroders, or the $2 million threshold in this article, are averages. Your number depends on your actual projected spending, your other income sources, your location, your health, and what you want retirement to look like. The calculation is worth doing properly – not gesturing at a round number.

• Factor health-adjusted life expectancy into your timeline, not just average life expectancy. At 63.9 years on average in the US, the window of full-health retirement is shorter than most people plan for. If you're 60 and still working, every additional year of "one more year" is a year subtracted from the highest-functioning period of your retirement.

• Name the real reason you're still working. Is it the maths? Run the numbers honestly. Is it identity – the structure, status, and relevance that work provides? That's a problem to solve with your retirement planning, not by staying at work. Is it genuine love of the job? That's a different conversation. But know which one it is.

• The fear of outliving your money is real but worth calibrating. At $2 million, the actuarial and financial probability of genuine poverty in retirement is low. The fear, however, often doesn't track the probability. Consider running a stress-test with a financial advisor – not to be told it's fine, but to actually see the scenarios. Most people find the downside cases less frightening when they're modelled than when they're imagined.

• If inheritance is part of the plan, think about timing. Money given to children when they need it – in their 30s and 40s – is worth more than money left to them when they're already financially established. If you're working extra years to build a larger estate, consider whether earlier giving might create more actual value for the people you're trying to help.

• The connection between stopping work and losing yourself is a planning problem. The "one more year" trap often isn't about money – it's about not having built a retirement identity yet. The most useful thing you can do before you retire is not financial planning. It's working out who you will be, what will structure your days, and where your sense of relevance will come from when the job is gone.

Your Turn:
If you have a number in mind – the figure at which you'd feel genuinely ready to retire – where did that number come from? Is it based on your actual projected costs, or something vaguer?
The health-adjusted life expectancy gap – 76.4 years alive versus 63.9 years healthy – is a number that doesn't feature in most retirement planning conversations. Does it change how you think about the timing of your retirement?
Last Monday's issue was about net satisfaction versus net worth, and the risk of over-optimising for accumulation. This week's piece makes the same argument from a different angle. Is there a version of "one more year" thinking in your own life – and if so, what's actually driving it?

👉 Hit reply and share your thoughts – your answers could inspire fellow readers in future issues.

☕ If today's issue made you think differently about your number, consider supporting L-Plate Retiree on Ko-fi.

Resources:

Super Investors’ Club (SIC) – monthly membership subscription that aims to
make learning about investing more hands-on and accessible to individuals on a mission to become financially free. Join here.

* * * * *

The IRIS Stock Sniper Masterclass is a complete, systematic education for the stock market. It’s built on a foundation of proprietary analysis methods that help you filter out noise and spot only the best setups.

Inside, you’ll learn advanced charting techniques, position sizing for risk control , and a rule-based approach to trading that eliminates emotion. This is the definition of structured trading education designed for consistency.

See exactly how this program can transform your approach to stocks. See what’s included:
👉 Explore the Stock Sniper webinar

* * * * *

The Next Level Options (NLOMBA) course is a solid, all-in-one roadmap for mastering options investing. You’ll learn what options really are, how to invest in different market conditions, and how to pick strong companies using Buffett-inspired fundamentals.

Inside, the lessons walk you step-by-step through strategies like BOSS and Strategy X, so you’re not guessing – you’re following a proven structure that helps you invest with clarity and confidence.

What to see everything that’s included?
👉 Check out the Options Workshop