U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
 
Old 08-13-2014, 01:59 PM
 
71,525 posts, read 71,712,424 times
Reputation: 49105

Advertisements

As much as you think it leaves things to chance the markets still have never lost money over any 15 year time frame ever. Also no retiree to date going back to 1926 ever would have had a retirement fell even if they had the nerve to go 100% equities.

Yep drawing 3.50% and inflation adjusting every year would have had a 100% success rate every rolling 30 year period.

Now the past may not predict the future but being cash instruments the asset considered the safest failed 75% of every time frame.

If i had to pick one guess which i would call the safest investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:00 PM
 
1,979 posts, read 1,790,270 times
Reputation: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth View Post
Right and it doesn't have to just be stocks. You can also invest in real estate, hedges, bonds, precious metals, etc. There are quite a few people I work with that mortgage cheaper homes in my area and rent them out. The tenants are in effect buying them a home by paying rent. Once family I know has 6 of these houses and only had to put in a downpayment.

You have to be creative in times like these. In general I agree with you though, its a sad state of affairs.

Yeah - real estate is on the radar still working on that lump sum to make that happen - cascading CDs, Bonds as well. This is one of those areas where low interest rates really don't help things. lol

Really I think as you said being a landlord would be the best and safest bet. (although again, depends on the area. My best friends Dad was a landlord. In Detroit - got all his properties and maintained them through 60, 70s, and 80s. By the time the kids went to cash out the estate (because the actual rentals were running at a loss, I think they wound up owing the lawyer. lol)

Honestly - at this point I'm resigned. I do all "the right things" anyway, but if I were to die at 60 I'd be satisfied with the life I've led. Don't know that I'd want to linger into my 90s though. 43 is tough enough with the new aches and pains I wake up with every morning. Can't even imagine quality of life at 90-something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:02 PM
 
1,979 posts, read 1,790,270 times
Reputation: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
As much as you think it leaves things to chance the markets still have never lost money over any 15 year time frame ever. Also no retiree to date going back to 1926 ever would have had a retirement fell even if they had the nerve to go 100% equities.

Yep drawing 3.50% and inflationvadjusting every year would have had a 100% success rate every rolling 30 year period.

Now the past may not predixct the future but being cash instruments the asset considered the safest pidk failed 75% of every time frame.

If i had to pick one guess which i would call the safest investment.
I don't know - I've heard too many horror stories of people on the verge of retirement or newly retired when the bottom fell out in 2007. of course, I don't know how many of those folks had switched over fully to bonds by that time. Might have offered some protection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 4,274,812 times
Reputation: 10055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryska View Post
Yeah - real estate is on the radar still working on that lump sum to make that happen - cascading CDs, Bonds as well. This is one of those areas where low interest rates really don't help things. lol

Really I think as you said being a landlord would be the best and safest bet. (although again, depends on the area. My best friends Dad was a landlord. In Detroit - got all his properties and maintained them through 60, 70s, and 80s. By the time the kids went to cash out the estate (because the actual rentals were running at a loss, I think they wound up owing the lawyer. lol)

Honestly - at this point I'm resigned. I do all "the right things" anyway, but if I were to die at 60 I'd be satisfied with the life I've led. Don't know that I'd want to linger into my 90s though. 43 is tough enough with the new aches and pains I wake up with every morning. Can't even imagine quality of life at 90-something.

The beauty of real estate is it cant be truly lost in the way that stocks can. A company can go bankrupt and you literally lose everything you had. However no one can take your deed from you (unless you don't pay taxes).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:07 PM
 
71,525 posts, read 71,712,424 times
Reputation: 49105
If they had their retirement fail because equities took a temporary drop they had no plan in place,poor planning skills and they comitted their own financial suicide not the markets.

You need to prepare and have a plan going in. Even at 65 there is money that will not be used to eat for 20-30 years. That is still long term money and can ride out anything.

They took short term money and threw it ln longterm investments and worse had not the pucker factor to stay the course and they paid the price.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,579 posts, read 17,561,360 times
Reputation: 27650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryska View Post
I don't know - I've heard too many horror stories of people on the verge of retirement or newly retired when the bottom fell out in 2007. of course, I don't know how many of those folks had switched over fully to bonds by that time. Might have offered some protection.
But the market has now recovered from those lows. Unless you sold completely at the bottom, you'd most likely be fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:10 PM
 
71,525 posts, read 71,712,424 times
Reputation: 49105
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth View Post
The beauty of real estate is it cant be truly lost in the way that stocks can. A company can go bankrupt and you literally lose everything you had. However no one can take your deed from you (unless you don't pay taxes).
I think over 1 million americans who lost their homes to foreclosure would disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:14 PM
 
8,842 posts, read 5,126,299 times
Reputation: 10106
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth View Post
The beauty of real estate is it cant be truly lost in the way that stocks can. A company can go bankrupt and you literally lose everything you had. However no one can take your deed from you (unless you don't pay taxes).
This is a reason to diversify, not a reason to avoid stocks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,579 posts, read 17,561,360 times
Reputation: 27650
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth View Post
The beauty of real estate is it cant be truly lost in the way that stocks can. A company can go bankrupt and you literally lose everything you had. However no one can take your deed from you (unless you don't pay taxes).
These Floridians would not agree.

Condo owners losing homes as investors buy up Florida complexes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:15 PM
 
1,979 posts, read 1,790,270 times
Reputation: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
I think over 1 million americans who lost their homes to foreclosure would disagree.

To be fair, you don't get the deed til the mortgage is paid off.

And I do agree on both previous points - that those who lost it all hadn't planned correctly, and that the market is bouncing back.

But that doesn't mean it can't happen again and again in the next 50 years.

If you gain and lose your gains and gain and lose your gains - would it not be worth it to just go the Jumbo CD or long term bond route, even if it is only 3.50?

I would actually go the Jumbo CD, so you can cascade it and gather the additional interest to put back in.

Not sure. I am a dividends and fundamentals investor with my non-retirement money, and an aggressive growth + age-managed fund investor in my retirement vehicles.
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 > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top