What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

PBS Frontline : The Retirement Gamble, sorta Must See (1 Viewer)

Ok it would be nice for schools to teach finance, but I think we all know that won't happen in our lifetimes.  I can only imagine how  much money credit card companies are throwing out there to pay off schools to NOT teach this stuff. 

So I guess that begs the question, how do WE capitalize on the rest of the country being financial idiots?  Even with my stupid late start I still want to retire at 55 (60 at the absolute latest).  How do I make this happen?  Will maxing out a 403b from ages 32-55 along with a small-ish pension be enough?

 
I don't believe teaching personal finance in school is going to have a profound effect on the majority. The best comparison I can find is sex ed. High school kids continue to have unprotected sex. My kids were all home schooled. They had one formal semester on Personal Financial Literacy and we developed independent exercises to supplement that. (had them run the family budget for three months, made mock investments, and had full access to our retirement allocations. Each of my three kids have different opinions about money. But, they all understand the ramifications of overspending and under saving. I know our situation is unique since we took the time to home school our kids. As someone mentioned, it isn't always what a parent knows, but how much time they are willing to invest. Too many parents are expecting the village to raise their children. We need to change this.

 
Face it people, the last thing wall street wants in financially educated people.   They are much harder to fleece when educated.   

 
I don't believe teaching personal finance in school is going to have a profound effect on the majority. The best comparison I can find is sex ed. High school kids continue to have unprotected sex. My kids were all home schooled. They had one formal semester on Personal Financial Literacy and we developed independent exercises to supplement that. (had them run the family budget for three months, made mock investments, and had full access to our retirement allocations. Each of my three kids have different opinions about money. But, they all understand the ramifications of overspending and under saving. I know our situation is unique since we took the time to home school our kids. As someone mentioned, it isn't always what a parent knows, but how much time they are willing to invest. Too many parents are expecting the village to raise their children. We need to change this.
Don't they teach nutrition in school as well?   That seems to be working well. :no:   

 
You just said the problem is the dumb parents.  I agree.  The dumb financial parents breed the  dumb financial kids.

Yet you are arguing against breaking the cycle.  What?? 


Not dumb parents.  Bad parents.  Parents that fail to teach their children.   Parents have 20+ years of real life personal finance experience before their kids leave the house and yet so little of that is passed along to their children. That's the biggest problem.  They know neither of those decisions I presented are wise yet tens of thousands of kids still wind up in them.  In many ways, they allow it to happen b/c of their failure to parent.


There are enough parents that don't help teach their kid to read much less math or finance and investing.

 
Armed With An Index Fund, Warren Buffett Is On Track To Win Hedge Fund Bet

Eight years ago, Warren Buffett made a $1 million bet with some hedge fund managers. We learn what the bet tells us about one of the most important questions in investing.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

Now we have the story of a $1 million bet. It's over one of the biggest questions in investing. And it involves one of the biggest names in business. If you have any money invested in the stock market, you have taken a side in this bet, whether you know it or not. Jacob Goldstein of NPR's Planet Money podcast reports.

JACOB GOLDSTEIN, BYLINE: On one side of the bet, Warren Buffett, third richest person on the planet. Back in 2006, Buffett was speaking in front of an audience of thousands of people when the subject of hedge funds came up. Hedge funds are not open to ordinary investors, and they're often seen as elite. But, Buffett said, most hedge funds just are not worth the fees they charge. In fact, he said, I'm willing to make a bet. I can pick a simple, boring investment that will beat any bunch of big hedge funds. Ted Seides works in the hedge fund world. He and his partners decided to accept Buffett's challenge.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

TED SEIDES: I thought I had a rare chance to catch somebody like Warren potentially being the patsy at the poker table.

GOLDSTEIN: I'm sorry. You said to catch him being what?

SEIDES: The patsy at the poker table.

GOLDSTEIN: The $1 million bet started on January 1, 2008. The winner will be the side whose investments grow the most by December 31, 2017. The money will go to a charity of the winner's choice. The bet gets at this really big long-standing question in investing. Is it possible to predict which investments are likely to do better than the market as a whole? Or, are people who beat the market just getting lucky? Ted Seides and his partners bet on beating the market. They carefully selected a bunch of hedge funds. Buffett bet against beating the market. For his side of the bet, he picked an index fund. The index fund is super simple. It just tries to match the performance of big U.S. stocks. So if the stock market goes up, the index fund goes up. Stock market goes down, fund goes down. John Bogle, the man who invented the index fund back in the '70s, says it was designed to be dull.

JOHN BOGLE: If you're in investing for excitement, you are a damn fool. You're watching the market every day - up and down, 100-point - 200, 300, 400-point swings, day after day. It's exciting, but it's meaningless.

GOLDSTEIN: What matters, Bogle says, is how investors do over the long run. And over the long run, almost no one beats the market. So where do things stand with that bet? The hedge funds are up 22 percent, but the index fund Buffett bet on is up much more - 66 percent. Even Ted Seides who bet on the hedge fund says he is likely to lose the bet. My colleague David Kestenbaum asked him about this.

DAVID KESTENBAUM: Are you bummed about probably having lost this best?

SEIDES: A little bit. Sure.

KESTENBAUM: Yeah, you had a chance to beat Warren Buffett.

SEIDES: Yeah - with the odds in my favor. And it didn't play out the way I thought it would.

KESTENBAUM: You thought the odds were in your favor.

SEIDES: (Laughter) I still think the odds were in my favor.

GOLDSTEIN: Seides says he would take the bet again if he could. He thinks it's a fluke that the stock market - and, with it, the index fund - has done as well as it has over the past 8 years.

KESTENBAUM: Isn't it also possible that it is just very, very hard to beat the market?

SEIDES: Oh, it's not possible. That's a truth.

KESTENBAUM: What's your advice to ordinary people who do not have a lot of money but want to put some of the money in the stock market?

SEIDES: I think they should index.

KESTENBAUM: (Laughter).

GOLDSTEIN: Seides says there are some people who can do better than the stock market over the long run, but it is very, very hard to find them. One big reason - people who beat the market in the past are not especially likely to beat it in the future. Warren Buffett, who is one of the most famous investors of all time, seems to share this view. Almost all of the money he's leaving to his wife in his will is to be invested in an index fund. Jacob Goldstein, NPR News.

 
Armed With An Index Fund, Warren Buffett Is On Track To Win Hedge Fund Bet

Eight years ago, Warren Buffett made a $1 million bet with some hedge fund managers. We learn what the bet tells us about one of the most important questions in investing.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

Now we have the story of a $1 million bet. It's over one of the biggest questions in investing. And it involves one of the biggest names in business. If you have any money invested in the stock market, you have taken a side in this bet, whether you know it or not. Jacob Goldstein of NPR's Planet Money podcast reports.

JACOB GOLDSTEIN, BYLINE: On one side of the bet, Warren Buffett, third richest person on the planet. Back in 2006, Buffett was speaking in front of an audience of thousands of people when the subject of hedge funds came up. Hedge funds are not open to ordinary investors, and they're often seen as elite. But, Buffett said, most hedge funds just are not worth the fees they charge. In fact, he said, I'm willing to make a bet. I can pick a simple, boring investment that will beat any bunch of big hedge funds. Ted Seides works in the hedge fund world. He and his partners decided to accept Buffett's challenge.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

TED SEIDES: I thought I had a rare chance to catch somebody like Warren potentially being the patsy at the poker table.

GOLDSTEIN: I'm sorry. You said to catch him being what?

SEIDES: The patsy at the poker table.

GOLDSTEIN: The $1 million bet started on January 1, 2008. The winner will be the side whose investments grow the most by December 31, 2017. The money will go to a charity of the winner's choice. The bet gets at this really big long-standing question in investing. Is it possible to predict which investments are likely to do better than the market as a whole? Or, are people who beat the market just getting lucky? Ted Seides and his partners bet on beating the market. They carefully selected a bunch of hedge funds. Buffett bet against beating the market. For his side of the bet, he picked an index fund. The index fund is super simple. It just tries to match the performance of big U.S. stocks. So if the stock market goes up, the index fund goes up. Stock market goes down, fund goes down. John Bogle, the man who invented the index fund back in the '70s, says it was designed to be dull.

JOHN BOGLE: If you're in investing for excitement, you are a damn fool. You're watching the market every day - up and down, 100-point - 200, 300, 400-point swings, day after day. It's exciting, but it's meaningless.

GOLDSTEIN: What matters, Bogle says, is how investors do over the long run. And over the long run, almost no one beats the market. So where do things stand with that bet? The hedge funds are up 22 percent, but the index fund Buffett bet on is up much more - 66 percent. Even Ted Seides who bet on the hedge fund says he is likely to lose the bet. My colleague David Kestenbaum asked him about this.

DAVID KESTENBAUM: Are you bummed about probably having lost this best?

SEIDES: A little bit. Sure.

KESTENBAUM: Yeah, you had a chance to beat Warren Buffett.

SEIDES: Yeah - with the odds in my favor. And it didn't play out the way I thought it would.

KESTENBAUM: You thought the odds were in your favor.

SEIDES: (Laughter) I still think the odds were in my favor.

GOLDSTEIN: Seides says he would take the bet again if he could. He thinks it's a fluke that the stock market - and, with it, the index fund - has done as well as it has over the past 8 years.

KESTENBAUM: Isn't it also possible that it is just very, very hard to beat the market?

SEIDES: Oh, it's not possible. That's a truth.

KESTENBAUM: What's your advice to ordinary people who do not have a lot of money but want to put some of the money in the stock market?

SEIDES: I think they should index.

KESTENBAUM: (Laughter).

GOLDSTEIN: Seides says there are some people who can do better than the stock market over the long run, but it is very, very hard to find them. One big reason - people who beat the market in the past are not especially likely to beat it in the future. Warren Buffett, who is one of the most famous investors of all time, seems to share this view. Almost all of the money he's leaving to his wife in his will is to be invested in an index fund. Jacob Goldstein, NPR News.
:lmao:

Awesome.

 
McConnell Chides Administration for Final Fiduciary Rule

RYAN RAINEY   |   APRIL 6, 2016

The Obama administration’s new regulation aimed at curbing conflicts of interest in the retirement advice sector “sounds a lot like Obamacare,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday.

“Like Obamacare, it threatens to upend an entire industry, threatens to increase cost and decrease access, and threatens to hurt the very people it’s aimed at helping,” McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor. “This regulation could have the effect of discouraging investment advisers from taking on clients with smaller accounts.”

The administration releases the final rule today.

While McConnell noted that the final version contains changes from the proposed one, he said “the fundamentals are likely to remain the same.”

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has indicated that the House will take action to pre-empt the fiduciary rule as soon as it’s released. McConnell did not hint at legislative action in the Senate.

“America’s middle class deserves responsible solutions, not far-reaching regulations that could jeopardize the retirement security of the very people it purports to help,” McConnell said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Ryan and McConnell are supporting the industry that caused the housing bubble and the biggest recession in the past 80 years. The lack of the fiduciary rule hurts rich, middle class and the poor because most should be invested in Index Funds. If that rule was in place, at least it would make illegal a lot of the unethical practices currently in the industry. 

McConnell was also pushing the point of blocking any fiduciary regulation on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago. Wants it to be his legacy, was essentially what he said. I really hate that guy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
McConnell Chides Administration for Final Fiduciary Rule

RYAN RAINEY   |   APRIL 6, 2016

The Obama administration’s new regulation aimed at curbing conflicts of interest in the retirement advice sector “sounds a lot like Obamacare,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday.

“Like Obamacare, it threatens to upend an entire industry, threatens to increase cost and decrease access, and threatens to hurt the very people it’s aimed at helping,” McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor. “This regulation could have the effect of discouraging investment advisers from taking on clients with smaller accounts.”

The administration releases the final rule today.

While McConnell noted that the final version contains changes from the proposed one, he said “the fundamentals are likely to remain the same.”

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has indicated that the House will take action to pre-empt the fiduciary rule as soon as it’s released. McConnell did not hint at legislative action in the Senate.

“America’s middle class deserves responsible solutions, not far-reaching regulations that could jeopardize the retirement security of the very people it purports to help,” McConnell said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Ryan and McConnell are supporting the industry that caused the housing bubble and the biggest recession in the past 80 years. The lack of the fiduciary rule hurts rich, middle class and the poor because most should be invested in Index Funds. If that rule was in place, at least it would make illegal a lot of the unethical practices currently in the industry. 

McConnell was also pushing the point of blocking any fiduciary regulation on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago. Wants it to be his legacy, was essentially what he said. I really hate that guy.
While well intentioned, the Fiduciary rule is not perfect.  It will discourage advisors from working with people with smaller accounts.  It may also force advisors to place clients on fee based accounts in scenarios where that may not be what is in the clients best interest.  McConnell makes a lot of great points.  I will say this, the amended version is much better than the original but it still could be better.

 
Can't we just mail everybody an index card with some basic investing advice?  Stock index fund.  Bond index fund.  120-age is the % percentage of your accounts in the fomer; the rest in the latter.

 
Can't we just mail everybody an index card with some basic investing advice?  Stock index fund.  Bond index fund.  120-age is the % percentage of your accounts in the fomer; the rest in the latter.
Sure, the problem is that I don't think 8/10 people know what an index fund is, how to get one, or even why it matters.

I mean let's be real,  expense ratios aren't the reason people either are or are not going to be able to retire.

It comes down to discipline.    Active Management/Passive Management... expense ratios...    these are like top 20-25% types of problems.

And beyond discipline it also comes down to taking risk....   I've got employees who if I could just convince to invest at all in ANY fund it would be an improvement over 100% money market guarantee 1% 4 life!!!!! ZOMG!

And if people's work plans suck...  who cares...  how many people really invest up to reach the match,  then max a Roth IRA, then actually have enough money to dip back into the 401k...  5%?  

The real issue is that most people simply don't care, and don't care to learn...   but then by the time they decide it might be a good time to start caring, they are 50+ and by then passive vs. active management doesn't even matter...   you're screwed and doomed to a craptirement.

 
Sure, the problem is that I don't think 8/10 people know what an index fund is, how to get one, or even why it matters.

I mean let's be real,  expense ratios aren't the reason people either are or are not going to be able to retire.

It comes down to discipline.    Active Management/Passive Management... expense ratios...    these are like top 20-25% types of problems.

And beyond discipline it also comes down to taking risk....   I've got employees who if I could just convince to invest at all in ANY fund it would be an improvement over 100% money market guarantee 1% 4 life!!!!! ZOMG!

And if people's work plans suck...  who cares...  how many people really invest up to reach the match,  then max a Roth IRA, then actually have enough money to dip back into the 401k...  5%?  

The real issue is that most people simply don't care, and don't care to learn...   but then by the time they decide it might be a good time to start caring, they are 50+ and by then passive vs. active management doesn't even matter...   you're screwed and doomed to a craptirement.
I agree.  I mean for the people that are getting fleeced by advisors which are the people that this law is intended to protect.  If you're not saving, doesn't really matter.  I personally don't care if they save or not.  As long as SS is solvent, these people will have that to get by on and their retirement will blow.   

 
The real issue is that most people simply don't care, and don't care to learn...   but then by the time they decide it might be a good time to start caring, they are 50+ and by then passive vs. active management doesn't even matter...   you're screwed and doomed to a craptirement.
This is very true.  The thing is, the percentage of people who fall into this category is so high that you have to look at "why"?  Is it simply because people are stupid, lazy, and generally just do not care about their future?

I am pretty sure the "why" has to do with the lack of (really no) emphasis on educating people about their financial future.  Sure we hear the blanket statements like "save money", and "plan for your future", but those are just empty phrases when there is no education involved in the who, what, where, when, and why of finances. 

 
This is very true.  The thing is, the percentage of people who fall into this category is so high that you have to look at "why"?  Is it simply because people are stupid, lazy, and generally just do not care about their future?

I am pretty sure the "why" has to do with the lack of (really no) emphasis on educating people about their financial future.  Sure we hear the blanket statements like "save money", and "plan for your future", but those are just empty phrases when there is no education involved in the who, what, where, when, and why of finances. 
First, most Americans really don't have tons of disposable income.  Life is expensive these days and saying to forego cable tv and cell phones is becoming less and less palatable.  Do we really expect people to just walk around outside, read, whatever else is free or cheap?  And it's really not a newsflash that most Americans are very short-sighted and want instant gratification.  This is unlikely to change anytime soon.

The responsibility for retirement has largely been uncoupled from employers and passed to the employee.  The employee is supposed to cover this with stagnant wages and hugely increasing healthcare, education, and food costs?   When faced with choices, families simply choose to pay their current bills and their future bill (retirement) has to wait.  The only ones getting enriched in this system are the corporations and their executives.

 
This thread seems more concerned with what other people are doing instead of just discussing good retirement practices.   Is this to make yourself feel superior?   Feed your ego?   Outside the employees that my decisions direct impact, I don't see the point of wasting all this energy on what Tweedledee and Tweedledum are doing.   Just a really odd focus in here. 

 
While well intentioned, the Fiduciary rule is not perfect.  It will discourage advisors from working with people with smaller accounts.  It may also force advisors to place clients on fee based accounts in scenarios where that may not be what is in the clients best interest.  McConnell makes a lot of great points.  I will say this, the amended version is much better than the original but it still could be better.
Most likely those people with the smaller accounts should be investing in Index Funds. That being the case, they probably wouldn't have an adviser because there isn't as much profit in fees from the Index Fund. 

Business owners, their HR or whomever they have discussing the companie's 401k with the employees need to be trained on the important points. And it would help if that training was from someone working in the best interest of the employees. I've been in those meetings where they break it down to being a choice of high, medium, and low risk. They give the impression that the high risk one has the best chance of growth. That's misleading.

Index Funds have out performed the managed funds in the high, medium and low risk; and they are the least riskiest. But they usually don't explain that or if they do, they make it so complicated that the employee chooses the one of the three risks. Employees need to know that Index Funds are their best option, the results over several decades proves that. 

Now would the Fiduciary Rule do something about Moody's and Standard& Poors, padding credit ratings so the banks will keep doing business with them?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most people spend every dime they make. They have no ability to save let alone learn what it would mean to them. They also love to get a big refund check come tax time, even after I tell them that the gov't held their $ for a year with zero interest. Then they blow it on something like a new iphone and some other ripoffs. I man, you cannot be dumber than that. I always pay around $600. #### 'em. They get the $ after I am done with it.

 
This thread seems more concerned with what other people are doing instead of just discussing good retirement practices.   Is this to make yourself feel superior?   Feed your ego?   Outside the employees that my decisions direct impact, I don't see the point of wasting all this energy on what Tweedledee and Tweedledum are doing.   Just a really odd focus in here. 
BREAKING: EIGHTY PAGE INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD THREAD DEVIATES INTO "ODD" TERRITORY

 
I agree.  I mean for the people that are getting fleeced by advisors which are the people that this law is intended to protect.  If you're not saving, doesn't really matter.  I personally don't care if they save or not.  As long as SS is solvent, these people will have that to get by on and their retirement will blow.   
I think part of the solution is to end the fleecing. Then overtime, with the retirement industry being seen as more fair, safe and transparent, people may be more inclined to invest. 

 
Most people spend every dime they make. They have no ability to save let alone learn what it would mean to them. They also love to get a big refund check come tax time, even after I tell them that the gov't held their $ for a year with zero interest. Then they blow it on something like a new iphone and some other ripoffs. I man, you cannot be dumber than that. I always pay around $600. #### 'em. They get the $ after I am done with it.
Yeah, but I tend to think that if people got more money throughout the year and less of a refund the majority of those people would be worse off.  They would just be blowing that extra money on smaller crap throughout the year rather than something big once a year.  At least the bigger stuff they buy has some sort of usefulness to them.

I actually do this myself.  I know I am giving the government an interest free loan, but that is better than being tempted to waste extra money throughout the year.  Then when I do get my refund I put the money on something that needs to be done.  For me personally it has been an easy way to save for things I end up needing.  I know it's not the "correct" use of my money, but it's what is best for me in the longrun. 

 
Yeah, but I tend to think that if people got more money throughout the year and less of a refund the majority of those people would be worse off.  They would just be blowing that extra money on smaller crap throughout the year rather than something big once a year.  At least the bigger stuff they buy has some sort of usefulness to them.

I actually do this myself.  I know I am giving the government an interest free loan, but that is better than being tempted to waste extra money throughout the year.  Then when I do get my refund I put the money on something that needs to be done.  For me personally it has been an easy way to save for things I end up needing.  I know it's not the "correct" use of my money, but it's what is best for me in the longrun. 
Same thing my friends say that do this. They don't have the discipline to save the $ throughout the year so they let the gov't save it for them. It's weird.

In my mind, if you got a check for $2000, the gov't stole $200 from you because you should bee able to earn 10% in the market. Even more over the past 8 years. This year's a little tougher. I'm only up about 4%.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is very true.  The thing is, the percentage of people who fall into this category is so high that you have to look at "why"?  Is it simply because people are stupid, lazy, and generally just do not care about their future?

I am pretty sure the "why" has to do with the lack of (really no) emphasis on educating people about their financial future.  Sure we hear the blanket statements like "save money", and "plan for your future", but those are just empty phrases when there is no education involved in the who, what, where, when, and why of finances. 
I agree. And then when education is provided, the wrong advice is often presented simply, Index Funds aren't explained. Then there is so much small type that never gets read and only serves to discourage people.

 
Same thing my friends say that do this. They don't have the discipline to save the $ throughout the year so they let the gov't save it for them. It's weird.

In my mind, if you got a check for $2000, the gov't stole $200 from you because you should bee able to earn 10% in the market. Even more over the past 8 years. This year's a little tougher. I'm only up about 4%.
Its like people that don't have the discipline to not overspend with a credit card so they pass up on getting 1.5%+ of free money and instead pay with check or cash.  This is my wife. 

 
Most likely those people with the smaller accounts should be investing in Index Funds. That being the case, they probably wouldn't have an adviser because there isn't as much profit in fees from the Index Fund. 

Business owners, their HR or whomever they have discussing the companie's 401k with the employees need to be trained on the important points. And it would help if that training was from someone working in the best interest of the employees. I've been in those meetings where they break it down to being a choice of high, medium, and low risk. They give the impression that the high risk one has the best chance of growth. That's misleading.

Index Funds have out performed the managed funds in the high, medium and low risk; and they are the least riskiest. But they usually don't explain that or if they do, they make it so complicated that the employee chooses the one of the three risks. Employees need to know that Index Funds are their best option, the results over several decades proves that. 

Now would the Fiduciary Rule do something about Moody's and Standard& Poors, padding credit ratings so the banks will keep doing business with them?
Totally agree that individuals with smaller accounts would be best suited in index funds.  The scenario which will be tricky is when a couple has a large brokerage account and some smaller IRA accounts.  The Fiduciary rule may require advisors to switch these smaller IRA accounts to fee based accounts when it may not be in the client's best interest.  

Not sure on your question regarding banks and credit ratings.

 
Yeah, but I tend to think that if people got more money throughout the year and less of a refund the majority of those people would be worse off.  They would just be blowing that extra money on smaller crap throughout the year rather than something big once a year.  At least the bigger stuff they buy has some sort of usefulness to them.

I actually do this myself.  I know I am giving the government an interest free loan, but that is better than being tempted to waste extra money throughout the year.  Then when I do get my refund I put the money on something that needs to be done.  For me personally it has been an easy way to save for things I end up needing.  I know it's not the "correct" use of my money, but it's what is best for me in the longrun. 
:thumbup:  It used to be that the wisest thing was to keep the return as low as possible because you weren't earning interest on that money the government was holding. Now a days, with how low interest rates are for checking and savings accounts are, it isn't that important to have a low return. For some, that don't save it's a means of saving money. Also people like that tend to benefit by having more withheld because they can be sure that they won't owe anything. Owing on their taxes could be devastating for someone living check to check. 

 
BREAKING: EIGHTY PAGE INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD THREAD DEVIATES INTO "ODD" TERRITORY
Yeah I get it.   It is also odd how miserable people are in here and have no perspective on reality.   It is inconceivable to them that someone on SSI only could be happy.  Hell, if you have less than 5 million you will never be happy.   It is just pathetic.   Their whole worth seems tied to a dollar.   I feel sad for them because if they happen to live to retirement it won't matter how much money they have because they will still be miserable human beings.  

 
Yeah I get it.   It is also odd how miserable people are in here and have no perspective on reality.   It is inconceivable to them that someone on SSI only could be happy.  Hell, if you have less than 5 million you will never be happy.   It is just pathetic.   Their whole worth seems tied to a dollar.   I feel sad for them because if they happen to live to retirement it won't matter how much money they have because they will still be miserable human beings.  
:mellow:  

 
Yeah I get it.   It is also odd how miserable people are in here and have no perspective on reality.   It is inconceivable to them that someone on SSI only could be happy.  Hell, if you have less than 5 million you will never be happy.   It is just pathetic.   Their whole worth seems tied to a dollar.   I feel sad for them because if they happen to live to retirement it won't matter how much money they have because they will still be miserable human beings.  
You know, if you didn't spend so much money at Home Depot on your enormous broad brush, you'd be able to retire a couple days earlier. 

 
This thread seems more concerned with what other people are doing instead of just discussing good retirement practices.   Is this to make yourself feel superior?   Feed your ego?   Outside the employees that my decisions direct impact, I don't see the point of wasting all this energy on what Tweedledee and Tweedledum are doing.   Just a really odd focus in here. 
There has been good advice in here.

Basically somewhere around 90-99% of Americans should have their in Index funds with fees at .5% or lower. Have withdrawn at the very least enough from each paycheck to meet the employers match. There is benefit to having more than the employer's match taken out, because it;s the compound interest that you're looking to build up.

What I've seen advised is that those in their teens and twenties should have 7-12% put into their 401k. 30's 10-18%, 40's 15-25%, 50's 30-50%. The more you can put in the better. 

If your tax bracket now is lower than it will be when you are 65, put $5,500 into a Roth IRA. The taxes are taken out now at the lower rate and you pay no taxes when you take the money out.

The other discussions come in because if the market weren't rigged, investors would have more safe options to invest in and wouldn't be getting steered towards crap. The financial industry hides behind the complexity by saying "Everyone's situation is different." True, but not significantly different to warrant the complexity and lack of transparency with fees. And the shouldn't be allowed to offer you stuff they know is crap under the guise of giving you a wide range of products to choose from.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Same thing my friends say that do this. They don't have the discipline to save the $ throughout the year so they let the gov't save it for them. It's weird.

In my mind, if you got a check for $2000, the gov't stole $200 from you because you should bee able to earn 10% in the market. Even more over the past 8 years. This year's a little tougher. I'm only up about 4%.
It's more of a way to keep my wife/family from spending it.  It's easier for me to take one refund amount and do something positive with it rather than piss and moan about a few bucks here and there all the time throughout the year. As long as you are maxing out your tax advantaged accounts that is.

 
First, most Americans really don't have tons of disposable income. Life is expensive these days and saying to forego cable tv and cell phones is becoming less and less palatable.  Do we really expect people to just walk around outside, read, whatever else is free or cheap?  And it's really not a newsflash that most Americans are very short-sighted and want instant gratification.  This is unlikely to change anytime soon.

The responsibility for retirement has largely been uncoupled from employers and passed to the employee.  The employee is supposed to cover this with stagnant wages and hugely increasing healthcare, education, and food costs?   When faced with choices, families simply choose to pay their current bills and their future bill (retirement) has to wait.  The only ones getting enriched in this system are the corporations and their executives.
Bull - Americans have more disposable income now than almost anywhere at any time in history.  Most just choose to spend it instead of saving. 

As for the responsibility falling on the individual, that's exactly where it should be placed.  We should educate people but in the end it's their choices to make. 

I don't begrudge people their choices, but let's call it as it is (which you mostly do) it's their priorities and choices. 

Yeah I get it.   It is also odd how miserable people are in here and have no perspective on reality.   It is inconceivable to them that someone on SSI only could be happy.  Hell, if you have less than 5 million you will never be happy.   It is just pathetic.   Their whole worth seems tied to a dollar.   I feel sad for them because if they happen to live to retirement it won't matter how much money they have because they will still be miserable human beings.  
If they're happy on SSI only, cool.  If their family takes care of them, great. I just object to the individual who complains that they just can't get ahead while texting on their new iPhone.

 
Most likely those people with the smaller accounts should be investing in Index Funds. That being the case, they probably wouldn't have an adviser because there isn't as much profit in fees from the Index Fund. 

Business owners, their HR or whomever they have discussing the companie's 401k with the employees need to be trained on the important points. And it would help if that training was from someone working in the best interest of the employees. I've been in those meetings where they break it down to being a choice of high, medium, and low risk. They give the impression that the high risk one has the best chance of growth. That's misleading.

Index Funds have out performed the managed funds in the high, medium and low risk; and they are the least riskiest. But they usually don't explain that or if they do, they make it so complicated that the employee chooses the one of the three risks. Employees need to know that Index Funds are their best option, the results over several decades proves that. 

Now would the Fiduciary Rule do something about Moody's and Standard& Poors, padding credit ratings so the banks will keep doing business with them?
I am exactly this and this thread and especially wilked helped me change our 401K to index funds and fire our "financial advisor".   We now use a fiduciary that costs half of what the other did.   Definitely good stuff in here, just always scratch my head with some of the other stuff.

 
It's more of a way to keep my wife/family from spending it.  It's easier for me to take one refund amount and do something positive with it rather than piss and moan about a few bucks here and there all the time throughout the year. As long as you are maxing out your tax advantaged accounts that is.
Yeah, that's a whole different issue. 

 
Yeah I get it.   It is also odd how miserable people are in here and have no perspective on reality.   It is inconceivable to them that someone on SSI only could be happy.  Hell, if you have less than 5 million you will never be happy.   It is just pathetic.   Their whole worth seems tied to a dollar.   I feel sad for them because if they happen to live to retirement it won't matter how much money they have because they will still be miserable human beings.  
It's a thread about finances and retirement.  What did you expect to read about, birthday parties?  Vacations?  A fun night out on the town last night?  Seeing your kid's first step?

I agree with the people saying that people living on nothing but social security will have a ####ty time.  I see it first hand from the dozens of people that I know that are living that way right now.  But you are taking what is being spoken about in a financial retirement thread as though no other conversation exists.  THAT is pathetic.

 
Its like people that don't have the discipline to not overspend with a credit card so they pass up on getting 1.5%+ of free money and instead pay with check or cash.  This is my wife. 
Never thought about that angle with the credit card. So you buy stuff and pay interest on it, then when you get your IRS refund, you pay off the credit card. That's even worse. You not only get zero interest, you pay interest. :lmao:

 
It's a thread about finances and retirement.  What did you expect to read about, birthday parties?  Vacations?  A fun night out on the town last night?  Seeing your kid's first step?

I agree with the people saying that people living on nothing but social security will have a ####ty time.  I see it first hand from the dozens of people that I know that are living that way right now.  But you are taking what is being spoken about in a financial retirement thread as though no other conversation exists.  THAT is pathetic.
:coffee:

 
Yeah, that's a whole different issue. 
yeah, I have to do a whole bunch of crap she doesnt know about, cause if she did..........................................bad news.  Mostly small stuff, but that is the #### women tend to blow up about, and I don't need that on a daily basis.   We don't argue much about anything at all, and I would like to keep it that way. 

 
This thread seems more concerned with what other people are doing instead of just discussing good retirement practices.   Is this to make yourself feel superior?   Feed your ego?   Outside the employees that my decisions direct impact, I don't see the point of wasting all this energy on what Tweedledee and Tweedledum are doing.   Just a really odd focus in here. 
I think the concern by me and others surround the possibility that when millions upon millions of people are faced with a craptirement that those masses may shove some legislation through that would punish those who had worked so hard to delay gratification and do things correctly.

 
Bull - Americans have more disposable income now than almost anywhere at any time in history.  Most just choose to spend it instead of saving. 

As for the responsibility falling on the individual, that's exactly where it should be placed.  We should educate people but in the end it's their choices to make. 

I don't begrudge people their choices, but let's call it as it is (which you mostly do) it's their priorities and choices. 

If they're happy on SSI only, cool.  If their family takes care of them, great. I just object to the individual who complains that they just can't get ahead while texting on their new iPhone.
You sure about this?  Few companies fund retirement, massive cost increases, stagnant wages.  I call BS on this.

Most families need 2 earners to make ends meet these days.

 
 Not sure on your question regarding banks and credit ratings.
I was thinking about securities and CDO's ranked by Moody's and S&P. The AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B ratings etc. For instance prior to the housing bubble bursting, the defaults on mortgages were going up. But Moody's and S&P kept those ranked high as low risk investments because if they didn't the big banks would stop doing business with them.

 
I think the concern by me and others surround the possibility that when millions upon millions of people are faced with a craptirement that those masses may shove some legislation through that would punish those who had worked so hard to delay gratification and do things correctly.
We will be retired if that happens.   I can't see anything they do that could punish the ones that are ahead of the game but I can see them passing stuff that puts us in an even better position.

 
Bull - Americans have more disposable income now than almost anywhere at any time in history.  Most just choose to spend it instead of saving. 

As for the responsibility falling on the individual, that's exactly where it should be placed.  We should educate people but in the end it's their choices to make. 

I don't begrudge people their choices, but let's call it as it is (which you mostly do) it's their priorities and choices. 

If they're happy on SSI only, cool.  If their family takes care of them, great. I just object to the individual who complains that they just can't get ahead while texting on their new iPhone.
Is that so?  Now if people were to put into retirement the equivalent of what they used to be receiving in pensions, would that still be the case?  Does this also take into account the rise in healthcare costs or is that already accounted for when determing disposable income? 

I just look at the average household income of ~52k per year and I ask how the hell is that household expected to save enough for retirement for 2 people.

 
I think the concern by me and others surround the possibility that when millions upon millions of people are faced with a craptirement that those masses may shove some legislation through that would punish those who had worked so hard to delay gratification and do things correctly.
Agree.  You just know the Democrats will be pushing for means tested social security down the road which would be a crock of ####.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top