Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Investing
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2016, 04:15 AM
 
Location: SoCal
20,160 posts, read 12,749,142 times
Reputation: 16993

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
that is why i said what i did about questioning that consultant as to why . the term expert consultant can be like jumbo shrimp , pretty ugly and happily married .
You are too funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2016, 11:17 AM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,630,968 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by mee9mee9 View Post
but what if the stock market never bounces back? loss after loss, plus automation is going to end alot of jobs and many people will not spend money in companies or services one may have invested in.
If that happens, it will be because corporations en masse cannot make a profit. Think about what it would take for that to happen. A meteor striking Earth perhaps. The zombie apocalypse. North Korea figuring out how to nuke the world.

If global corporations are never able to be profitable again, the return on your investments will no longer be a concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 08:11 AM
 
Location: WA
5,641 posts, read 24,943,221 times
Reputation: 6574
There is a line of expert thinking that the high returns of the last forty years will not continue and that we are moving into a period where average investment returns will average 3 - 4 % lower. Central banks and governments have taken actions that will depress fixed income instruments and financial, technology, demographics, etc. will impact equities in a similar manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
10,352 posts, read 7,976,389 times
Reputation: 27758
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdelena View Post
There is a line of expert thinking that the high returns of the last forty years will not continue and that we are moving into a period where average investment returns will average 3 - 4 % lower. Central banks and governments have taken actions that will depress fixed income instruments and financial, technology, demographics, etc. will impact equities in a similar manner.
True, but that's not a reason to avoid investing. It just means we have to adjust our expectation of what type of returns we're going to get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 02:41 PM
 
30,891 posts, read 36,934,424 times
Reputation: 34511
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
Just get a balanced fund like VWELX or VBINX and just add money to it a few times per year.
I second this. I wish I had figured out that investing in a balanced fund (mix of stocks and bonds) was the best way to go. If stocks do really well, balanced funds will do well enough, but will still do ok. If stocks tank, balanced funds hold up better. There are no guarantees, but they're pretty steady, sturdy vehicles. Both Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) and Vanguard Balanced Index (VBINX) are good funds, although I prefer VWELX, as it has better returns (although that may not be true in the future).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2016, 09:36 PM
 
13,811 posts, read 27,430,946 times
Reputation: 14250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
True, but that's not a reason to avoid investing. It just means we have to adjust our expectation of what type of returns we're going to get.
Or change what you invest in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 12:40 AM
 
Location: moved
13,641 posts, read 9,696,571 times
Reputation: 23447
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdelena View Post
There is a line of expert thinking that the high returns of the last forty years will not continue and that we are moving into a period where average investment returns will average 3 - 4 % lower. Central banks and governments have taken actions that will depress fixed income instruments and financial, technology, demographics, etc. will impact equities in a similar manner.
The past 40 years can't be regarded as being monolithic. 1976-1982 was lousy. 1982-2000 was sublime and probably inimitable. 2000-2016 has been as lackluster as essentially an period in modern history.

If going forward we average merely 3%-4% lower than the entire period 1976-2016, then we'd not be doing too badly. If we average 3%-4% lower than 1982-2000, then we'd be doing spectacularly well. If we average 3%-4% lower than 2000-2016, then we might as well bury cash in underground containers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 04:22 AM
 
Location: SoCal
20,160 posts, read 12,749,142 times
Reputation: 16993
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
I second this. I wish I had figured out that investing in a balanced fund (mix of stocks and bonds) was the best way to go. If stocks do really well, balanced funds will do well enough, but will still do ok. If stocks tank, balanced funds hold up better. There are no guarantees, but they're pretty steady, sturdy vehicles. Both Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) and Vanguard Balanced Index (VBINX) are good funds, although I prefer VWELX, as it has better returns (although that may not be true in the future).
I like Wellesley better than Wellington. I think even this year, Wellesley did better than Wellington, something like 4.75% vs 3.39% YTD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 10:08 AM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,630,968 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
I second this. I wish I had figured out that investing in a balanced fund (mix of stocks and bonds) was the best way to go. If stocks do really well, balanced funds will do well enough, but will still do ok. If stocks tank, balanced funds hold up better. There are no guarantees, but they're pretty steady, sturdy vehicles. Both Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) and Vanguard Balanced Index (VBINX) are good funds, although I prefer VWELX, as it has better returns (although that may not be true in the future).
Holding both stocks and bonds and rebalancing works out the same way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 09:36 AM
 
2,008 posts, read 1,207,249 times
Reputation: 3747
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
Just get a balanced fund like VWELX or VBINX and just add money to it a few times per year.
wow..those ETF's have done really well...almost as well as pure equity ETFs like SPY....how is that possible?
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 $104,000 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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top