Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 5,409,165 times
Reputation: 10105

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
I think over 1 million americans who lost their homes to foreclosure would disagree.

They didn't "lose" their homes because they didn't own them yet. Hence why I said no one can take your (deed) from you. You aren't the deed holder until you have a fulfillment of obligation and the Courts hand you over your deed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:17 PM
 
106,242 posts, read 108,237,907 times
Reputation: 79786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
This is a reason to diversify, not a reason to avoid stocks.
The biggest failure points are not having the pucker factor for the allocations chosen and not having a plan to follow and stick to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:18 PM
 
577 posts, read 1,000,048 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Never2L8 View Post
My question is, how many of that 31% did have retirement savings before the crash of 2008 gutted it? (assuming that "savings" encompasses any type of product: savings account, IRA, 401K, pension plan) How many of that 31% lost their jobs during the worst of the recession and have not been able to replace that level of income, thus having to draw on and erode their original retirement savings either mostly or completely?

What I'd like to see is what percentage of that 31% did have retirement savings AT ONE TIME but through factors other than irresponsible spending they no longer do. Versus what percentage of the 31% never bothered to address their retirement income needs at all.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations View Post
But the market has now recovered from those lows. Unless you sold completely at the bottom, you'd most likely be fine.
Agreed, I know it was a scary time back in 2007-2009 in the market, and no doubt scariest for those just on the brink of retiring because they probably had to relook a their plan. But as long as they didn't sell completely at the bottom, they would be doing better than they were before the recession, at least in terms of the market.

For those of us still many years from retirement and putting in a percentage of our income every month, 2007-2009 was a great time to be putting money into the market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryska View Post
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?
No if you consistently invest you will come out far ahead because you are investing in the troughs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:20 PM
 
1,979 posts, read 2,377,535 times
Reputation: 1263
Quote:
Originally Posted by msdmoney View Post
For those of us still many years from retirement and putting in a percentage of our income every month, 2007-2009 was a great time to be putting money into the market.
This is true. FIRE SALE!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:25 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth View Post
They didn't "lose" their homes because they didn't own them yet. Hence why I said no one can take your (deed) from you. You aren't the deed holder until you have a fulfillment of obligation and the Courts hand you over your deed.
This is kinda true. However, it doesn't mean you can't lose money in your home. When the bubble popped in my area, values plunged 70% over about 3 years. That's far worse than what stocks did, and home values will likely not recover for many years to come.

No investment is truly risk free, which is why it makes sense to spread your money around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:28 PM
 
106,242 posts, read 108,237,907 times
Reputation: 79786
Current research is showing that the old method of getting more and more conservative as you age was doing more harm then good.

Current data suggests you tone down equities a few years prior to retiring and glide down to 25-35% equities.

That protects you from being hurt to badly from bad markets and sequences early on but you dollar cost average back in at the rate of 1% a year increasing equities .

The higher equity positions make up down the road for poor markets early on and the 25-35% will add enough ooomph to grow the portfolio just fine if early on markets are up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:29 PM
 
106,242 posts, read 108,237,907 times
Reputation: 79786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
This is kinda true. However, it doesn't mean you can't lose money in your home. When the bubble popped in my area, values plunged 70% over about 3 years. That's far worse than what stocks did, and home values will likely not recover for many years to come.

No investment is truly risk free, which is why it makes sense to spread your money around.
True true and true
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 5,409,165 times
Reputation: 10105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
This is kinda true. However, it doesn't mean you can't lose money in your home. When the bubble popped in my area, values plunged 70% over about 3 years. That's far worse than what stocks did, and home values will likely not recover for many years to come.

No investment is truly risk free, which is why it makes sense to spread your money around.
Right but my point was you cant actually LOSE the home, it can decrease in value sure, but you still own an asset. In stocks, its quite possible to lose everything and be left with nothing but a bitter taste in your mouth. I had a friend that worked for Winn Dixie and owned a sizeable amount of shares in them through their purchasing plan. They filed bankruptcy and restructured under a different name, this leaving him holding worthless paper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:34 PM
 
106,242 posts, read 108,237,907 times
Reputation: 79786
Speculating in stocks by trying to pick just the right company , at just the right time ,in just the right sector ,in just the right market sentiment,yes they can fail.

Investing in a broad based stock fund ,impossible to lose everything unless the country fails. In which case your real estate would be just as crushed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2014, 02:36 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth View Post
Right but my point was you cant actually LOSE the home, it can decrease in value sure, but you still own an asset. In stocks, its quite possible to lose everything and be left with nothing but a bitter taste in your mouth. I had a friend that worked for Winn Dixie and owned a sizeable amount of shares in them through their purchasing plan. They filed bankruptcy and restructured under a different name, this leaving him holding worthless paper.
Yes, bankruptcies can happen. Again, this is why you diversify. Myself, I hold only broad market index funds. The only way I can lose everything is if we experience a complete global economic collapse.

Edit: Said another way, holding a large portion of one's net worth in a single stock is very risky. It is far riskier than holding a broadly diversified portfolio.

Last edited by Petunia 100; 08-13-2014 at 02:45 PM..
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 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