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.
I am trying to compare those who were in the age bracket to be able to take full risk of equities vs those nearing retirement age who had to go very conservative. I am sure some were even mostly in bonds. Some in savings. So say they turned 60 in 2008 and lost 52% of their portfolio in the meltdown, would said 60 year old now go 100% equities? Of course not, they will allocate conservative based on age and that is what they have done. My point is that they were not able to recoup their losses to any substantial extent due to bad luck with their timing.
So much about getting wealth is purely based on timing... I know people who bought their homes dirt cheap in the LA area even though incomes those days were very strong. Now incomes are the same but the homes are 4X the price and going higher. It's just bad timing for new buyers because they can't even afford to get into one of the wealth building tools of home ownership.
What was easily attainable by the middle class just 15 years ago is virtually impossible today unless you are born rich. We are becoming more like countries such as Brazil and India where it's increasingly difficult to come out of your socio-economic class, if you are born rich you get richer.
who cares? this is the investing forum. all of us are here to maximize our personal net worth. if i want to waste time on philosophical economic discussions ill go to a different forum.
Beats me. My success has come more from living below my means than it has from ridiculous market returns, over time. In other words, most people that have two good incomes - my wife and I - would have bought a house worth 40% - 60% more than what we have, would still be paying a big mortgage, and would have car loans. Big cell phone bills (my cell bill is $125 a year) Etc. Big houses mean bigger heat bills, bigger electric & utility bills. I put the $$ in the market instead.
I've done ok with stocks.... the part that the professionals have run for me, over the past 20 years, has done very well - probably 8% to 9% per year. The part I've run myself - maybe 5% a year over time. I had HDGE in my portfolio for a couple of years (2013 and 2014) which cost me quite a bit off my return, and so did some Sears puts that I wrote about on these boards. I've done well over past year trading stocks - Facebook, Cisco, Intel, Google, AT&T, IBM, and most recently UPS. Made money on every one of them.
I only pay $80/year for my cell phone plan. Tracfone byod (bring your own device). 1 year card discounted and I mostly use wifi so I make the data last for 12 months. Plus, using google voice is free and no limit on texts or minutes. Booyah!
Market has a lot more left in the tank. Tax reform just gave corps a 14% boost that goes straight into profitability, that is not even taking into account regulation reform. Consumer and business confidence are still heading up.
Market has a lot more left in the tank. Tax reform just gave corps a 14% boost that goes straight into profitability, that is not even taking into account regulation reform. Consumer and business confidence are still heading up.
I disagree. OP could use a balanced fund or one that is easier on the nerves (like Wellesley or Wellington). Wellington returns an average of nearly 8% per year. There are many flavors to investing and it doesn't have to be all high risk/high reward.
As usual, Moxie and I could be quoting each other.
I am trying to compare those who were in the age bracket to be able to take full risk of equities vs those nearing retirement age who had to go very conservative. I am sure some were even mostly in bonds. Some in savings. So say they turned 60 in 2008 and lost 52% of their portfolio in the meltdown, would said 60 year old now go 100% equities? Of course not, they will allocate conservative based on age and that is what they have done. My point is that they were not able to recoup their losses to any substantial extent due to bad luck with their timing.
So much about getting wealth is purely based on timing... I know people who bought their homes dirt cheap in the LA area even though incomes those days were very strong. Now incomes are the same but the homes are 4X the price and going higher. It's just bad timing for new buyers because they can't even afford to get into one of the wealth building tools of home ownership.
What was easily attainable by the middle class just 15 years ago is virtually impossible today unless you are born rich. We are becoming more like countries such as Brazil and India where it's increasingly difficult to come out of your socio-economic class, if you are born rich you get richer.
if anyone does not have the fortitude to stay put in down turns they should not be in equities ,end of story .
markets did not lose any ones money , poor investor behavior did .
even at 65 you have 20-30 years before needing some of your money , that is still long term money .
there has NEVER been a 20-30 year time frame diversified stock funds lost a penny because of markets .
in fact pick any 30 year periods you like and they all are within 2% of each other .,
most of what you posted is not fact , it is mis-information and sure as heck will hurt you
I have an old style phone with T Mobile, and prepaid service - $25 a quarter which may need one extra re-fill a year if my minutes get low. It makes calls and that's all it does.
i have a flip phone and i put 100 bucks a year on it . we use my wife's smart phone as our main phone .
we have a home phone that came with triple play because it was a better deal .we use it for out going calls only . it is more comfortable than the small phones . we do not give the number to anyone , not even our kids . that way we never have to answer it because it gets so many junk calls .
Market has a lot more left in the tank. Tax reform just gave corps a 14% boost that goes straight into profitability, that is not even taking into account regulation reform. Consumer and business confidence are still heading up.
It was well known that there was a lot of money outside the market "in waiting" during Obama's terms. I think the health care situation had a lot do with it. Now that there's certainty that the current regime will "blow-up/let implode" the Affordable Care Act, the money is being invested. Also read recently a large number of individual investors' dollars are still sitting on the sidelines - so who knows if this is a bubble.....some say to expect a market correction or two in the coming year.
Sorry if anyone has been sitting on the sidelines during the past year - lesson learned - don't try to time the market.
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.
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.
