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.
It's still tons of good looking men on the site. I do ok but still would rather go to a site that isn't free which would give me a better chance of connecting with someone
12% long term would be more risk than most of us would want to take on ,especially today with cash and bonds producing very little .
markets have averaged 9% or so the last 10 yrs,20 years and 30 years with the worst 20 year period over the last 40 years returning 7%.
If you are going to retire at age 67 which is the full retirement age then there is no need to be less aggressive till like age 55. You would have enough time to recover and more shares. From 18 to 67 is 59 years investing.
The Depression/Recession is an economic term and does not apply to everyone. For a lot, its an opportunity as it was for me in the Stock market. There were people who bailed out due to fair but I kept buying the shares for cheap.
Wages depend on what you do for a living.
ER trip/illness, car, home repair should all be part of the rainy day fund,
Big difference between living within your means and below your means.
If you have a job loss then you should have 6+ months of rainy day fund.
Kid(s) should also be planned with the rainy day fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays
I believe before the depression I would agree with you but with the cost of everything going up and wages stagnant its simply not the case anymore for most people.
All it takes is one trip to the ER or one illness or a major breakdown with your car, home repair etc and your SOL.
The recession has forced many people to cut corners but you can only cut so much.
I myslef have always lived within my means and i am thankful I have a job and so does my wife.
Kids are out of the house
If you had a job loss and children mixed in with any of the scenario's above you would be in for.
i have been doing this along time and 12 % average return over decades is extremely hard going forward, about the best we did historically was 1987 to 2003 at 13.5%.... but long term even that fell back to 9% or so..
to tell you the truth i hardley doubt anyone of us myself included could pull that off for 20 years or more even if i wanted to do it.
i just dont believe that to be reality ,it wasnt in the past and it wont be in the future in my opinion. even bill miller couldnt do it long term. if you can ,well god bless ya.
i have been doing this along time and 12 % average return over decades is extremely hard going forward, about the best we did historically was 1987 to 2003 at 13.5%.... but long term even that fell back to 9% or so..
to tell you the truth i hardley doubt anyone of us myself included could pull that off for 20 years or more even if i wanted to do it.
i just dont believe that to be reality ,it wasnt in the past and it wont be in the future in my opinion. even bill miller couldnt do it long term. if you can ,well god bless ya.
Even with a low percentage. They key is to start early.
Let's face it, "many", if not most people live in the NOW. They want instant gratification. If they come into any amount of money, they won't save it for a rainy day, because that "rainy day" may never come. And who's to blame them?
Let's face it, "many", if not most people live in the NOW. They want instant gratification. If they come into any amount of money, they won't save it for a rainy day, because that "rainy day" may never come. And who's to blame them?
Those of use who DO save, and who's taxes they live off of.
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.