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.
My typo if I said 20,000, wait I went back. My bad you are saying you would need that much space, I need to wake up it is still early retired people time
It's pretty futile with the banks paying 1-2% on savings. It's that or get creamed in a 401K. These artificially low interest rates only help the banks
my portfolio (401k, iras and taxable account ) are up 1200% since 1987 in run of the mill nothing special fidelity funds. if thats getting creamed ill gladly take more. thats just what the funds gained over that time, not counting adding money. 100,000 in 1987 is 1.2 million as of right now
My typo if I said 20,000, wait I went back. My bad you are saying you would need that much space, I need to wake up it is still early retired people time
Have some coffee, enjoy the morning. My jokes are usually a little obtuse anyway.
my portfolio (401k, iras and taxable account ) are up 1200% since 1987 in run of the mill nothing special fidelity funds. if thats getting creamed ill gladly take more. thats just what the funds gained over that time, not counting adding money. 100,000 in 1987 is 1.2 million as of right now
Then you are one oof the lucky ones, 401Ks are why most people have less than $10K. See what you have when retirement time commes, Just a way for employers to avoid ERISA
thats baloney.... anyone who is investing in stock funds and is looking before at least a 15 year time frame is looking at money in investments that havent matured.... let them breakout how they did with money thats 15 years or older and i bet they did great.... the money we put in over the last decade will probley look good too in another 5 years so you can look back at least 15 years..
equities are a long term investment and anyone counting on seeing gains for sure before 12-15 years dosnt belong in equities. 10 years or less is iffy, 15 years out is almost a lock.
by the way my portfolio is nothing more then following a fidelity newsletter all that time , its not luck, its just time and diversified funds..
there are very similiar newsletters for fidelity funds and vanguard that did the same or better. basically all you had to do was stay put in even diversified index funds and you would have done the same. in fact i have some of the very same funds in our 401k and the others are very close in objective and performance.
the fact folks invest badely dosnt mean the vehichle is bad. they need an education thats all. they buy and sell like day traders most of them and do exactly the wrong things at the wrong times....they would have failed the same in their own ira's as well..
Last edited by mathjak107; 03-13-2010 at 08:26 AM..
thats baloney.... anyone who is investing in stock funds and is looking before at least a 15 year time frame is looking at money in investments that havent matured.... let them breakout how they did with money thats 15 years or older and i bet they did great.... the money we put in over the last decade will probley look good to in another 5 years so you cam look back at least 15 years..
equities are a long term investment and anyone counting on seeing gains befor 12-15 years dosnt belong in equities.
by the way my portfolio is nothing more then following a fidelity newsletter all that time , its not luck, its just time and diversified funds..
there are very similiar newsletters for fidelity funds and vanguard that did the same or better. basically all you had to do was stay put in even in diversified index funds and you would have done the same.
the fact folks invest badely dosnt mean the vehichle is bad. they need an education thats all. they buy and sell like day traders most of them and do exactly the wrong things at the wrong times....
Then why do 43% of Americans have less than $10,000 do tdollars for retirement. You sound like a professional who knows how to handle those investments, but obviously most people are not. In the end they will be dependent on the taxpayer and you will pay for them.
Also a 50% reduction in income is not the same for everyone. Going from 300K to 150K with no or little debt is a lot easier than a 50% reduction from 50K to 25K.
I agree with you TuborgP. We planned ahead for retirement, especially with no debt. Most months our income exceeds our needs. We live an active lifestyle, travel and have a few expensive hobbies. At this point there is no need to touch our savings. The only unknown is catastrophic illness.
Then why do 43% of Americans have less than $10,000 do tdollars for retirement. You sound like a professional who knows how to handle those investments, but obviously most people are not. In the end they will be dependent on the taxpayer and you will pay for them.
easy answer, they couldnt possibly have saved anything.... that 10,000 figure is sceptical anyway as to who they surveyed. they could have thrown it in a bank if they were saving a lifetime and had more... believe me theres more to that issue
Last edited by mathjak107; 03-13-2010 at 08:41 AM..
The last post is what I'd think. I certainly know many people over 40, well, over 50 who have saved virtually nothing (maybe some old little IRA of under $10K if anything).
I am not sure what they are thinking. Many expect/plan to inherit "something" from elders (who are likely living a long time, maybe having illness and needing every cent- it's not attractive to see a middle-aged person waiting for a parent to bestow financial security or head-starts on them).
The people at my job have an old-fashioned pension plan if they've been there for some time, which is quite sufficient. But they don't seem to understand how to handle the future money. They seem to think you just put it aside and draw it down, and have vaguely heard that "annuities" are terrible, without understand that a fixed immediate annuity is not the same as a variable or supposedly investment-type vehicle.
One can read any kind of personal finance column or web site and get pretty good info for the average person (not big-time investor).
One friend who bought a two-family house and inherited part of a Florida house (and bought out her sibs) didn't understand how paying extra on mortgage each month worked- she thought "it just cuts off a couple of months at the end."
Another co-worker thought that six of seven percent assured annual rate on our retirement money was "nothing" because he knew stocks went up 30 percent (that week, long ago).
There is so much good info around. Maybe people only hear what they want to hear.
And oh, the government is NOT going to take care of people any more than it is already obligated (Soc. Security).
I say again, people will do what they have to do, and it won't come from the taxpayers, certainly not from those of us who don't agree that "the government" should do more. Even if it could, it won't.
And I'm one of these beknighted baby boomers.
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.
I need to wake up it is still early retired people time
