U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Investing
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 01-05-2012, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Chicago
7,748 posts, read 4,368,528 times
Reputation: 6993
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
or huge loses if we trend down and stay down. you need to have enough time to wait it all out. the typical 5 or 6 years we used to think is the time frame needed for market cycles to do their magic is now going into its 12th year.

not everyone has endless amounts of time or money as a long term view of things seems to grow longer and longer.
Who says the markets will automatically zoom up in a decade anyways? What everyone seems to ignore... The market experienced tremendous gains while credit was being pumped into the hands of consumers, thus pumping the markets. Was that normal? Could those gains be viewed as natural? I'm talking about the tremendous gains experienced in the 90's and early 2000's. The market gains directly followed the heels of consumer debt. Maybe the market now is naturally stuck at 1990's levels until further notice

I don't see why everyone believes the market will just suddenly decide to return to 2006 levels. Those were not normal or natural levels as far as I am concerned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 01-05-2012, 07:34 PM
 
12,673 posts, read 11,704,726 times
Reputation: 2478
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
or huge loses if we trend down and stay down. you need to have enough time to wait it all out. the typical 5 or 6 years we used to think is the time frame needed for market cycles to do their magic is now going into its 12th year.

not everyone has endless amounts of time or money as a long term view of things seems to grow longer and longer.
If its 10 year or less into retirement then my strategy will be more conservative.

If you got 20+ years into retirement then its a great opportunity to gain more later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-05-2012, 07:35 PM
 
12,673 posts, read 11,704,726 times
Reputation: 2478
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire View Post
Who says the markets will automatically zoom up in a decade anyways? What everyone seems to ignore... The market experienced tremendous gains while credit was being pumped into the hands of consumers, thus pumping the markets. Was that normal? Could those gains be viewed as natural? I'm talking about the tremendous gains experienced in the 90's and early 2000's. The market gains directly followed the heels of consumer debt. Maybe the market now is naturally stuck at 1990's levels until further notice

I don't see why everyone believes the market will just suddenly decide to return to 2006 levels. Those were not normal or natural levels as far as I am concerned.
The market has recovered all the losses for 2008 crash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-05-2012, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Warwick, RI
1,686 posts, read 1,865,773 times
Reputation: 2278
I was down 4.4% for 2011, invested in 100% equity mutual funds with 25+ years to retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-05-2012, 08:18 PM
 
12,673 posts, read 11,704,726 times
Reputation: 2478
Quote:
Originally Posted by treasurekidd View Post
I was down 4.4% for 2011, invested in 100% equity mutual funds with 25+ years to retirement.
Pretty much everyone was around that ballpark number for 90-100% Stocks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-05-2012, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago
7,748 posts, read 4,368,528 times
Reputation: 6993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas User View Post
The market has recovered all the losses for 2008 crash.
Question is, will they maintain the current level. Seems to be a bit shy of a complete recovery, with some turbulence expected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-05-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Wilkinsburg
1,661 posts, read 1,058,670 times
Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
my thinking is that

a. If I want to take risks, I'll do it outside of my 401k

b. If I want to take risks, I'll start a business, or invest heavily in one or two stocks at a given time (which is impossible in my 401k). I don't see the point of ratcheting up the risk via mutual funds.
Yes. I think that's perfectly sound logic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-06-2012, 01:21 AM
 
12,728 posts, read 9,695,112 times
Reputation: 8563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas User View Post
How did you all do for 401K in 2011?

Your rate of return?

Percentage of funds in Stocks and Bonds?
Crappy. My returns were: -.32%

Here were the funds in my plan:

(PRBLX) 45% Parnassus Equity Income: This one did ok. It beat the S&P 500.

(TPINX) 25% Templeton Global Bond: This top notch fund had rock bottom returns for it's category in 2011 and it lost money. Very disappointing, but I'm sticking with it.

(ODMAX) 10% Oppenheimer Developing Markets: This fund did better than average compared to developing markets funds, but it still got clobberred with double digit percentage losses.

(IVRIX) 10%. ING Clarion Real Estate: This one did well in a category that also did well.

(JSCVX) 10% Janus Perkins Small Cap Value T: This one did well compared to other small cap funds, but it still lost money.


Good news for me for 2012. We got a lower cost share class of Templeton Global Bond....so the expense ratio is going from .88% to .55%. Woo Hoo.

We also got a lower cost share class of Oppenheimer Developing Markets (new class is ODVYX). Expense ratio dropped from 1.3% to 1.00%. Woo Hoo.

I have my plan set up so that it rebalances every quarter.

Dollar cost averaging and auto-rebalancing means my returns were 5 basis points higher (.05%) than the published returns of these funds individually. Not much, but I'll take it.

Here's to hoping 2012 will be better!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-06-2012, 01:39 AM
 
12,728 posts, read 9,695,112 times
Reputation: 8563
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
why just a 401k? a good plan only uses a 401k for the income generating stuff, everything else should be in vehicles they do best in . equities do better outside the 401k where you get taxed at only a max of 15% and can write off loses.
The bulk of my assets (68%) are in the 401k, but here's how the rest of my funds did:

Roth IRA: Dodge & Cox Global Stock (DODWX). This fund did crappy in a category that did crappy. It lost 11.35%. Dodge and Cox's funds have had crappy performance the last 5 years. I am starting to wonder if they are worth it, but am hanging in there for now.


Regular IRA: Parnassus Equity Income: 3.13%. Not exciting, but it made money...and I added some extra cash to it when it was underwater, so my actual returns were better than the published ones, athough not buy a huge margin. I like this fund . It has held up well in both the 2000-2002 and the 2008 bear markets.

Taxable accounts:

Loomis Sayles Bond (LSBRX) Not exciting, but it returned 3.48%. This is racy for a bond fund. It can be volatile, but so far it has bounced back quicky after down periods.

Northeast Investors Trust (NTHEX). This is a crap fund. I wish I hadn't bought it. It's a junk bond fund. When I bought it, it had great 10 year trailing returns, but then it became mediocre, and now it's crap. It had a terrible year in 2008 that it hasn't fully recovered from. I think junk bond funds are the toughest funds for predicting future returns (both relative and abolute). Fortunately, only 1.5% of my total assets are in this fund.

Icon Health Care: This fund did well after quite a few crappy years. It returned more than 11%. Can't say I'd highly recommend it, though. It's about 1% of my total assets.

Third Avenue Real Esate Value: Global real estate funds got smacked this year and this fund did worse than average. It lost over 12%. I think it's a fundamentally good fund and I'd put more money in it, but they only let you add $1K at a time and I don't have that kind of $$ to shell out all at one time.
I wouldn't recommend this fund to people who don't already have it, though. They jacked up the expense ratio to new investors to rip off levels.

I-bonds...I don't know what my I-bonds returned this year, but they were a heck of a lot better than most of my mutual funds (except for the health care fund). I bought them back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I wish I'd bought more. They make up about 3% of my total assets.

Mathjak, any suggestions?????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-06-2012, 01:43 AM
 
12,728 posts, read 9,695,112 times
Reputation: 8563
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
same here, the internationals killed me. -14%.

he will have to tell us what fidelity international fund is up? . i dont know of one fidelity international up at all for the year so im not believing his claim..
Yep, same here. Dodge & Cox Global & Oppenheimer Developing Markets killed me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Investing
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:51 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top