Personal Finance Advice and Education! (4 Viewers)

[Dentist]

The lesson I learned from my car accident. I always expected that since I have health insurance that I really did not need coverage for medical expenses in auto, so I always had it at a smaller amount- mostly to cover my health insurance deductable.

Not so much.

Apparently your health insurance (or at least mine?) does not cover it because you have auto insurance. ????

Long story short, it was a costly lesson for me.

Really? So you're telling me my health insurance wouldn't cover me in the case of an injury during an auto accident?

This just doesn't compute.

 

[Gamma1210]

The lesson I learned from my car accident. I always expected that since I have health insurance that I really did not need coverage for medical expenses in auto, so I always had it at a smaller amount- mostly to cover my health insurance deductable.

Not so much.

Apparently your health insurance (or at least mine?) does not cover it because you have auto insurance. ????

Long story short, it was a costly lesson for me.

Really? So you're telling me my health insurance wouldn't cover me in the case of an injury during an auto accident?

This just doesn't compute.

Depends on the insurance. My wife's does cover us so we were able to take that off our auto policy and save a ton.

 

[Chadstroma]

The lesson I learned from my car accident. I always expected that since I have health insurance that I really did not need coverage for medical expenses in auto, so I always had it at a smaller amount- mostly to cover my health insurance deductable.

Not so much.

Apparently your health insurance (or at least mine?) does not cover it because you have auto insurance. ????

Long story short, it was a costly lesson for me.

Really? So you're telling me my health insurance wouldn't cover me in the case of an injury during an auto accident?

This just doesn't compute.

Yup. I put everything in as 1st insurance being the car insurance and the 2nd being the health insurance. I had claims declined by the health insurance because it was a result of car accident.

 

[mquinnjr]

The lesson I learned from my car accident. I always expected that since I have health insurance that I really did not need coverage for medical expenses in auto, so I always had it at a smaller amount- mostly to cover my health insurance deductable.

Not so much.

Apparently your health insurance (or at least mine?) does not cover it because you have auto insurance. ????

Long story short, it was a costly lesson for me.

Really? So you're telling me my health insurance wouldn't cover me in the case of an injury during an auto accident?

This just doesn't compute.

Depends on the insurance. My wife's does cover us so we were able to take that off our auto policy and save a ton.

Sounds like a huge deal, kind of surprised this isn't a bigger discussion point in terms of buying car insurance.

This is a massive, potentially life ruining "gotcha" in a perfect storm of bad circumstances, even if you are responsible in terms of savings and insurance.

 

[Gamma1210]

The lesson I learned from my car accident. I always expected that since I have health insurance that I really did not need coverage for medical expenses in auto, so I always had it at a smaller amount- mostly to cover my health insurance deductable.

Not so much.

Apparently your health insurance (or at least mine?) does not cover it because you have auto insurance. ????

Long story short, it was a costly lesson for me.

Really? So you're telling me my health insurance wouldn't cover me in the case of an injury during an auto accident?

This just doesn't compute.

Depends on the insurance. My wife's does cover us so we were able to take that off our auto policy and save a ton.

Sounds like a huge deal, kind of surprised this isn't a bigger discussion point in terms of buying car insurance.

This is a massive, potentially life ruining "gotcha" in a perfect storm of bad circumstances, even if you are responsible in terms of savings and insurance.

The default on my state farm auto was to have the medical insurance on there. I spoke with our agent to try to get a better rate and he told us to ask our medical insurance if they would be the primary on an auto accident and they said they are so that allowed us to drop it from our state farm plan.

 

[No. 16]

The lesson I learned from my car accident. I always expected that since I have health insurance that I really did not need coverage for medical expenses in auto, so I always had it at a smaller amount- mostly to cover my health insurance deductable.

Not so much.

Apparently your health insurance (or at least mine?) does not cover it because you have auto insurance. ????

Long story short, it was a costly lesson for me.

Really? So you're telling me my health insurance wouldn't cover me in the case of an injury during an auto accident?

This just doesn't compute.

Depends on the insurance. My wife's does cover us so we were able to take that off our auto policy and save a ton.

Sounds like a huge deal, kind of surprised this isn't a bigger discussion point in terms of buying car insurance.

This is a massive, potentially life ruining "gotcha" in a perfect storm of bad circumstances, even if you are responsible in terms of savings and insurance.

It would hurt but it wouldn't be "life ruining" if you pass on it. Medical expense is capped at 5k so that's all you'll be out on by not having medical. For me it's about $50 per year for 5k medical, so if you claim the full amount just once in your life time it will be worth it. My health insurance is my primary in an auto accident so I'm thinking about dropping it.

 

[Chadstroma]

The lesson I learned from my car accident. I always expected that since I have health insurance that I really did not need coverage for medical expenses in auto, so I always had it at a smaller amount- mostly to cover my health insurance deductable.

Not so much.

Apparently your health insurance (or at least mine?) does not cover it because you have auto insurance. ????

Long story short, it was a costly lesson for me.

Really? So you're telling me my health insurance wouldn't cover me in the case of an injury during an auto accident?

This just doesn't compute.

Depends on the insurance. My wife's does cover us so we were able to take that off our auto policy and save a ton.

Sounds like a huge deal, kind of surprised this isn't a bigger discussion point in terms of buying car insurance.

This is a massive, potentially life ruining "gotcha" in a perfect storm of bad circumstances, even if you are responsible in terms of savings and insurance.

Yea, could have been a lot worst for me. It cost me more than I thought it would.... well, in fact, I thought I was smart in that I had my car insurance covering my health insurance deductable. Nope. Not so much.

I have always been one to think 'why pay for an agent' if I can get cheaper insurance somewhere... I guess this is where you want to pay for a good one that points this out to you and is not just an order taker.

Being in banking, I have conversations with people all day long and I can not tell you how many times I have people who think they know what they need to know (me with insurance) and won't listen to someone with more expertise, knowledge and experience than them. Valuable lesson for me not just in insurance but in all aspects.

The two things I definately have blind spots on when it comes to personal finance is insurance and taxes. Everything else I would rate out as expert to well informed. In these areas, I think I need to seek out good advice because I don't have time to read up and become well informed on insurance and taxes.

 

[The Tick]

I believe umbrella policies cover auto accidents. Just another reason to have one. And it may cost less than upping your auto limits.

If I remember correctly my insurance company, state farm, made me max out my auto before I could add an umbrella policy, not sure if that is standard or not, but of could you could look to hold the policy at a different company, so I'm sure there are other options, but just a comment on what I ran into.

It was a no brainier to do it anyways.

 

[ghostguy123]

Never in my life heard of someone with health insurance not covering them if hurt in an auto accident.

I can see it being expensive if you dont have good health insurance, but they just refuse coverage completely??? No, doesnt compute at all.

 

[Sand]

Question regarding the less risky investments upon retiring. For the sake of easy numbers lets say you have a million bucks in your account you hit 65, and you retire.

The conventional wisdom is to draw X number of dollars per month/year/whatever, while the money sits in stable (probably cash) investments.

Why not draw from half, and keep half in the volatile market investments?

Seems the calculations will give you a dollar figure for when you retire, but if you remain invested with the 6-7% or whatever returns, that money continues to compound, while drawing from a safer cash investment.

Say the 1/2 million you draw from lasts you 10 years. Woudlnt it make some sense to have had that other half million in higher risk investments up until (and probably past) your retirement date, then transitioned into the safer investments maybe a few years into retirement?

These are totally just round about figured I am throwing out, but just wanted to bring up the concept of having a large chuck of the pie continue to work for you DURING part of retirement.

Hey Ghost. This kind of analysis has been done - check out this article. That guy is super sharp, so well worth the read. Most times when a retirement path fails it is due to returns right at the start of retirement. His analysis showed being very conservative at the start of retirement and then opening up (though the chances of failure don't move by a huge amount).

Have a look - well worth a discussion in here, too.

I skimmed most of it, read portions in more depth. This seems to simply say lesser exposure to equities when they decline is better? IOW, it's a risk mitigation strategy based on timing the market.

One noteworthy line though - (It's worth noting that historically, a 60/40 portfolio has never actually failed)

Basically the common wisdom has been that approaching retirement and in retirement that you decrease equity exposure a lot. What this article computes is that it is somewhat (not a huge amount) better to raise equity exposure during retirement. Pretty cool and unintuitive result.

In the early days of online poker money was pretty easy. Dentist being well +EV surprises me not at all. I played until funding got shut off and then invested it. +EV to the point that it just paid for a 20% down payment on a new house today.

On another note, I figured my retirement calculator is in decent enough shape to share. The deterministic result works well, as does the historic. The graphing on the historic page isn't quite done yet and I haven't made up the Monte Carlo page yet. To come. I put in fake numbers just to show what it does. Anything in yellow is user enterable, though many of those spots the default is fine. One thing not taken into account in any other calculator was something to handle an inherited IRA, something I need to take into account. So I made this - link. Any comments welcome.

This is pretty slick. Thanks for sharing. One suggested addition would be to include a spot for expected pension income.

Good idea. That one is pretty easy to add.

 

[FUBAR]

Question regarding the less risky investments upon retiring. For the sake of easy numbers lets say you have a million bucks in your account you hit 65, and you retire.

The conventional wisdom is to draw X number of dollars per month/year/whatever, while the money sits in stable (probably cash) investments.

Why not draw from half, and keep half in the volatile market investments?

Seems the calculations will give you a dollar figure for when you retire, but if you remain invested with the 6-7% or whatever returns, that money continues to compound, while drawing from a safer cash investment.

Say the 1/2 million you draw from lasts you 10 years. Woudlnt it make some sense to have had that other half million in higher risk investments up until (and probably past) your retirement date, then transitioned into the safer investments maybe a few years into retirement?

These are totally just round about figured I am throwing out, but just wanted to bring up the concept of having a large chuck of the pie continue to work for you DURING part of retirement.

Hey Ghost. This kind of analysis has been done - check out this article. That guy is super sharp, so well worth the read. Most times when a retirement path fails it is due to returns right at the start of retirement. His analysis showed being very conservative at the start of retirement and then opening up (though the chances of failure don't move by a huge amount).

Have a look - well worth a discussion in here, too.

I skimmed most of it, read portions in more depth. This seems to simply say lesser exposure to equities when they decline is better? IOW, it's a risk mitigation strategy based on timing the market.

One noteworthy line though - (It's worth noting that historically, a 60/40 portfolio has never actually failed)

Basically the common wisdom has been that approaching retirement and in retirement that you decrease equity exposure a lot. What this article computes is that it is somewhat (not a huge amount) better to raise equity exposure during retirement. Pretty cool and unintuitive result

Is It necessarily better or just safer? Granted that could be the same thing.

 

[Sand]

Question regarding the less risky investments upon retiring. For the sake of easy numbers lets say you have a million bucks in your account you hit 65, and you retire.

The conventional wisdom is to draw X number of dollars per month/year/whatever, while the money sits in stable (probably cash) investments.

Why not draw from half, and keep half in the volatile market investments?

Seems the calculations will give you a dollar figure for when you retire, but if you remain invested with the 6-7% or whatever returns, that money continues to compound, while drawing from a safer cash investment.

Say the 1/2 million you draw from lasts you 10 years. Woudlnt it make some sense to have had that other half million in higher risk investments up until (and probably past) your retirement date, then transitioned into the safer investments maybe a few years into retirement?

These are totally just round about figured I am throwing out, but just wanted to bring up the concept of having a large chuck of the pie continue to work for you DURING part of retirement.

Hey Ghost. This kind of analysis has been done - check out this article. That guy is super sharp, so well worth the read. Most times when a retirement path fails it is due to returns right at the start of retirement. His analysis showed being very conservative at the start of retirement and then opening up (though the chances of failure don't move by a huge amount).

Have a look - well worth a discussion in here, too.

I skimmed most of it, read portions in more depth. This seems to simply say lesser exposure to equities when they decline is better? IOW, it's a risk mitigation strategy based on timing the market.

One noteworthy line though - (It's worth noting that historically, a 60/40 portfolio has never actually failed)

Basically the common wisdom has been that approaching retirement and in retirement that you decrease equity exposure a lot. What this article computes is that it is somewhat (not a huge amount) better to raise equity exposure during retirement. Pretty cool and unintuitive result

Is It necessarily better or just safer? Granted that could be the same thing.

I think standard deviation will be higher, but even with that a better statistical chance of having the money last.

 

[FUBAR]

Question regarding the less risky investments upon retiring. For the sake of easy numbers lets say you have a million bucks in your account you hit 65, and you retire.

The conventional wisdom is to draw X number of dollars per month/year/whatever, while the money sits in stable (probably cash) investments.

Why not draw from half, and keep half in the volatile market investments?

Seems the calculations will give you a dollar figure for when you retire, but if you remain invested with the 6-7% or whatever returns, that money continues to compound, while drawing from a safer cash investment.

Say the 1/2 million you draw from lasts you 10 years. Woudlnt it make some sense to have had that other half million in higher risk investments up until (and probably past) your retirement date, then transitioned into the safer investments maybe a few years into retirement?

These are totally just round about figured I am throwing out, but just wanted to bring up the concept of having a large chuck of the pie continue to work for you DURING part of retirement.

Hey Ghost. This kind of analysis has been done - check out this article. That guy is super sharp, so well worth the read. Most times when a retirement path fails it is due to returns right at the start of retirement. His analysis showed being very conservative at the start of retirement and then opening up (though the chances of failure don't move by a huge amount).

Have a look - well worth a discussion in here, too.

I skimmed most of it, read portions in more depth. This seems to simply say lesser exposure to equities when they decline is better? IOW, it's a risk mitigation strategy based on timing the market.

One noteworthy line though - (It's worth noting that historically, a 60/40 portfolio has never actually failed)

Basically the common wisdom has been that approaching retirement and in retirement that you decrease equity exposure a lot. What this article computes is that it is somewhat (not a huge amount) better to raise equity exposure during retirement. Pretty cool and unintuitive result

Is It necessarily better or just safer? Granted that could be the same thing.

I think standard deviation will be higher, but even with that a better statistical chance of having the money last.

Right, and I guess that's the main thing.

A. Better chance that your money lasts throughout retirement

B. Slightly worse chance that it lasts in the worst case scenario but probably better returns.

Completely understand that in retirement A is probably the wise / prudent choice.

 

[NutterButter]

Never in my life heard of someone with health insurance not covering them if hurt in an auto accident.

I can see it being expensive if you dont have good health insurance, but they just refuse coverage completely??? No, doesnt compute at all.

You better check your home owner's insurance as well in case you get hurt in your house.

 

[Random]

Question regarding the less risky investments upon retiring. For the sake of easy numbers lets say you have a million bucks in your account you hit 65, and you retire.

The conventional wisdom is to draw X number of dollars per month/year/whatever, while the money sits in stable (probably cash) investments.

Why not draw from half, and keep half in the volatile market investments?

Seems the calculations will give you a dollar figure for when you retire, but if you remain invested with the 6-7% or whatever returns, that money continues to compound, while drawing from a safer cash investment.

Say the 1/2 million you draw from lasts you 10 years. Woudlnt it make some sense to have had that other half million in higher risk investments up until (and probably past) your retirement date, then transitioned into the safer investments maybe a few years into retirement?

These are totally just round about figured I am throwing out, but just wanted to bring up the concept of having a large chuck of the pie continue to work for you DURING part of retirement.

Hey Ghost. This kind of analysis has been done - check out this article. That guy is super sharp, so well worth the read. Most times when a retirement path fails it is due to returns right at the start of retirement. His analysis showed being very conservative at the start of retirement and then opening up (though the chances of failure don't move by a huge amount).

Have a look - well worth a discussion in here, too.

I skimmed most of it, read portions in more depth. This seems to simply say lesser exposure to equities when they decline is better? IOW, it's a risk mitigation strategy based on timing the market.

One noteworthy line though - (It's worth noting that historically, a 60/40 portfolio has never actually failed)

Basically the common wisdom has been that approaching retirement and in retirement that you decrease equity exposure a lot. What this article computes is that it is somewhat (not a huge amount) better to raise equity exposure during retirement. Pretty cool and unintuitive result.

In the early days of online poker money was pretty easy. Dentist being well +EV surprises me not at all. I played until funding got shut off and then invested it. +EV to the point that it just paid for a 20% down payment on a new house today.

On another note, I figured my retirement calculator is in decent enough shape to share. The deterministic result works well, as does the historic. The graphing on the historic page isn't quite done yet and I haven't made up the Monte Carlo page yet. To come. I put in fake numbers just to show what it does. Anything in yellow is user enterable, though many of those spots the default is fine. One thing not taken into account in any other calculator was something to handle an inherited IRA, something I need to take into account. So I made this - link. Any comments welcome.

This is pretty slick. Thanks for sharing. One suggested addition would be to include a spot for expected pension income.

Good idea. That one is pretty easy to add.

Is there a place for rental income and the wife's pension?

 

[wilked]

Also a place for micro loan repayment

 

[ghostguy123]

Never in my life heard of someone with health insurance not covering them if hurt in an auto accident.

I can see it being expensive if you dont have good health insurance, but they just refuse coverage completely??? No, doesnt compute at all.

You better check your home owner's insurance as well in case you get hurt in your house.

Is this a state specific thing or something?

Look, I have been a registered Nurse for 10 years. In my own family and many others I know, people have gotten hurt at home or in car accidents, not to mention everything I have first hand seen and heard about in the hospital.

Never one time has anyone had to go through their auto insurance or home owners insurance to be treated or reimbursed. Never. Not one time. Never even heard of it being a possibility.

Unless someone just didnt have insurance, or their insurance sucked and they needed extra or extensive coverage. But never NOTHING from the health insurance. Never.

 

[Chadstroma]

Never in my life heard of someone with health insurance not covering them if hurt in an auto accident.

I can see it being expensive if you dont have good health insurance, but they just refuse coverage completely??? No, doesnt compute at all.

You better check your home owner's insurance as well in case you get hurt in your house.

Is this a state specific thing or something?

Look, I have been a registered Nurse for 10 years. In my own family and many others I know, people have gotten hurt at home or in car accidents, not to mention everything I have first hand seen and heard about in the hospital.

Never one time has anyone had to go through their auto insurance or home owners insurance to be treated or reimbursed. Never. Not one time. Never even heard of it being a possibility.

Unless someone just didnt have insurance, or their insurance sucked and they needed extra or extensive coverage. But never NOTHING from the health insurance. Never.

You no longer can say never. Never one time. Anymore.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Buy gold coins from a TV commercial.

 

[FUBAR]

Buy gold coins from a TV commercial.

That was a one time offer!

 

[Tiger Fan]

For guys looking to retire prior to 59, how are you planning on cover expenses since you won't be able to tap into your IRA/401k yet? Based on my projections, I could theoretically retire at 50, but if I continue maxing out my 401k, most of my retirement money will be in that. I'll have money in a brokerage account, but not enough to cover 9 years of expenses. I don't know of any other option other than to stop funding the 401k at some point and fund the brokerage account instead.

If you retire in the calendar year you turn 55, you can start pulling out of your 401k that year with no penalty. Could be a very smart strategy given that you'll be forced to make withdrawls once you hit 70. You can even tax that money and put it into Roth IRA (or backdoor if you're over the income limit

http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2012/05/09/did-you-know-you-can-access-your-401k-penalty-free-at-age-55/

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Buy gold coins from a TV commercial.

That was a one time offer!

 

[wilked]

Sand, thanks for that workbook, I am meeting with my father in law for retirement planning and I think we will be using it...

 

[NutterButter]

Never in my life heard of someone with health insurance not covering them if hurt in an auto accident.

I can see it being expensive if you dont have good health insurance, but they just refuse coverage completely??? No, doesnt compute at all.

You better check your home owner's insurance as well in case you get hurt in your house.

Is this a state specific thing or something?

Look, I have been a registered Nurse for 10 years. In my own family and many others I know, people have gotten hurt at home or in car accidents, not to mention everything I have first hand seen and heard about in the hospital.

Never one time has anyone had to go through their auto insurance or home owners insurance to be treated or reimbursed. Never. Not one time. Never even heard of it being a possibility.

Unless someone just didnt have insurance, or their insurance sucked and they needed extra or extensive coverage. But never NOTHING from the health insurance. Never.

Sorry, I was kidding. I'm with you.

 

[Sand]

Sand, thanks for that workbook, I am meeting with my father in law for retirement planning and I think we will be using it...

Always good to check it against something else. I'd recommend Firecalc. I've run a few things in both and they're pretty close.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

For guys looking to retire prior to 59, how are you planning on cover expenses since you won't be able to tap into your IRA/401k yet? Based on my projections, I could theoretically retire at 50, but if I continue maxing out my 401k, most of my retirement money will be in that. I'll have money in a brokerage account, but not enough to cover 9 years of expenses. I don't know of any other option other than to stop funding the 401k at some point and fund the brokerage account instead.

If you retire in the calendar year you turn 55, you can start pulling out of your 401k that year with no penalty. Could be a very smart strategy given that you'll be forced to make withdrawls once you hit 70. You can even tax that money and put it into Roth IRA (or backdoor if you're over the income limit

http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2012/05/09/did-you-know-you-can-access-your-401k-penalty-free-at-age-55/

There are rules about how much and when you are able to take money out. The amounts will not be big in terms of your percentage so don't plan on it as being a big percentage of your income. It also commits you to taking money out each year until you reach 59.5.

Its called rule 72T blah, blah, blah.

 

[fourd]

For guys looking to retire prior to 59, how are you planning on cover expenses since you won't be able to tap into your IRA/401k yet? Based on my projections, I could theoretically retire at 50, but if I continue maxing out my 401k, most of my retirement money will be in that. I'll have money in a brokerage account, but not enough to cover 9 years of expenses. I don't know of any other option other than to stop funding the 401k at some point and fund the brokerage account instead.

If you retire in the calendar year you turn 55, you can start pulling out of your 401k that year with no penalty. Could be a very smart strategy given that you'll be forced to make withdrawls once you hit 70. You can even tax that money and put it into Roth IRA (or backdoor if you're over the income limit

http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2012/05/09/did-you-know-you-can-access-your-401k-penalty-free-at-age-55/

There are rules about how much and when you are able to take money out. The amounts will not be big in terms of your percentage so don't plan on it as being a big percentage of your income. It also commits you to taking money out each year until you reach 59.5.

Its called rule 72T blah, blah, blah.

The separation from service at 55 is a little different than the 72T rule. You can take what you want from the 401k (not IRA) and avoid the penalty without following the 72T rules, which you really don't want to get wrong. However, if you plan on putting it into a Roth why not just do a rollover into a Roth? And in order to do the backdoor Roth you will need to abide by the contribution limits and needing earned income of at least the amount you want to contribute.

 

[KCitons]

DD (or any other TSP people), do you read/follow any of this guys advice. I've been following his twitter account for the past few years. Has some interesting thoughts and links specifically as it pertains to federal workers. (and it's dumbed down a bit, which helps me)

 

[Tiger Fan]

For guys looking to retire prior to 59, how are you planning on cover expenses since you won't be able to tap into your IRA/401k yet? Based on my projections, I could theoretically retire at 50, but if I continue maxing out my 401k, most of my retirement money will be in that. I'll have money in a brokerage account, but not enough to cover 9 years of expenses. I don't know of any other option other than to stop funding the 401k at some point and fund the brokerage account instead.

If you retire in the calendar year you turn 55, you can start pulling out of your 401k that year with no penalty. Could be a very smart strategy given that you'll be forced to make withdrawls once you hit 70. You can even tax that money and put it into Roth IRA (or backdoor if you're over the income limit

http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2012/05/09/did-you-know-you-can-access-your-401k-penalty-free-at-age-55/

There are rules about how much and when you are able to take money out. The amounts will not be big in terms of your percentage so don't plan on it as being a big percentage of your income. It also commits you to taking money out each year until you reach 59.5.

Its called rule 72T blah, blah, blah.

The separation from service at 55 is a little different than the 72T rule. You can take what you want from the 401k (not IRA) and avoid the penalty without following the 72T rules, which you really don't want to get wrong. However, if you plan on putting it into a Roth why not just do a rollover into a Roth? And in order to do the backdoor Roth you will need to abide by the contribution limits and needing earned income of at least the amount you want to contribute.

I guess my point was that air of people view 59.5 as the "end all be all". Just pointing out that 55 is still a good option without penalty

 

[Tom Hagen]

The 55 and separated from service rule can sometimes be a good reason not to convert your 401k to an IRA.

 

[Gawain]

Has anyone had an experience with the Online Trading Academy?

A family friend just started to date someone who works for this teaching day-trading and I'm curious if this is legit at all.

 

[Dentist]

Has anyone had an experience with the Online Trading Academy?

A family friend just started to date someone who works for this teaching day-trading and I'm curious if this is legit at all.

I looked into it.. looks ripe for scam, but i'm sure they make good money on the teaching end of things.

But if I was really good at day trading and had a choice between doing said day trading or teaching others how to do it.. i'd be far better off actually doing it.

 

[Gawain]

But if I was really good at day trading and had a choice between doing said day trading or teaching others how to do it.. i'd be far better off actually doing it.

That's about where I am and what I told my wife. If you are good enough to make a bunch of money doing X, why would you not do X and why would you create more competition by teaching others your method?

 

[Dentist]

But if I was really good at day trading and had a choice between doing said day trading or teaching others how to do it.. i'd be far better off actually doing it.

That's about where I am and what I told my wife. If you are good enough to make a bunch of money doing X, why would you not do X and why would you create more competition by teaching others your method?

I suppose to answer my own question in many ways.. it's like the guys who taught poker... there's no risk with the teaching... those checks come in with almost no chance of financial loss.

Less variance... there's bad beats in day trading just like in poker. no variance in instruction.

But it still seems really fishy and not like a long term career... although every day there's probably someone who watches their ad and who is effing sick of their job and is just hoping there's a way out.. and they're willing to pay for that chance.

But the people signing up for those courses just aren't smart people.. day trading without being like a quant trader as a massive firm is a losers game.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

DD (or any other TSP people), do you read/follow any of this guys advice. I've been following his twitter account for the past few years. Has some interesting thoughts and links specifically as it pertains to federal workers. (and it's dumbed down a bit, which helps me)

I don't believe in moving assets from 100% of one sector to 100% of the other. I think what he has to say is worth noting, but not following.

 

[KCitons]

DD (or any other TSP people), do you read/follow any of this guys advice. I've been following his twitter account for the past few years. Has some interesting thoughts and links specifically as it pertains to federal workers. (and it's dumbed down a bit, which helps me)

I don't believe in moving assets from 100% of one sector to 100% of the other. I think what he has to say is worth noting, but not following.

I agree somewhat. If you balance your portfolio through non TSP investments, then there may be times where you are 100% invested in one TSP fund.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Has anyone had an experience with the Online Trading Academy?

A family friend just started to date someone who works for this teaching day-trading and I'm curious if this is legit at all.

Is this a signal that the market has peaked again?

 

[Gawain]

Has anyone had an experience with the Online Trading Academy?

A family friend just started to date someone who works for this teaching day-trading and I'm curious if this is legit at all.

Is this a signal that the market has peaked again?

She is now day-trading from 8:00 am to 10:30am to augment her income.

I perused their website and it's all margin trading.

I saw her and him again last night and wanted to ask if she'd experienced a margin call yet and what her kids would eat when she did, but my wife's cranky enough with me already.

 

[Balco]

I have gone to a site that has a compound interest calculator. Stupid question, but the calculator would not include reinvested dividends, correct?

Is there a calculator for this? Trying to figure out if I can retire in 10 years at my current savings rate.

 

[Chadstroma]

I have gone to a site that has a compound interest calculator. Stupid question, but the calculator would not include reinvested dividends, correct?

Is there a calculator for this? Trying to figure out if I can retire in 10 years at my current savings rate.

I would think that would be pretty hard to add into a formula since dividends differ from stock to stock and even so fluctuate in the same stock.

 

[Balco]

I have gone to a site that has a compound interest calculator. Stupid question, but the calculator would not include reinvested dividends, correct?

Is there a calculator for this? Trying to figure out if I can retire in 10 years at my current savings rate.

I would think that would be pretty hard to add into a formula since dividends differ from stock to stock and even so fluctuate in the same stock.

Figured. Thanks.

Trying to map out a plan and it is so tough to figure out how much I will have. I plug in my current savings plus current yearly contributions and put interest rate at 7%. Would just love to know how much reinvested dividends will effect that end number. I am a 3 fund portfolio guy. Total Stock Market Index, Total International Stock Index, Total Bond Index. 85 % equities, 15 % bonds.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Has anyone had an experience with the Online Trading Academy?

A family friend just started to date someone who works for this teaching day-trading and I'm curious if this is legit at all.

Is this a signal that the market has peaked again?

She is now day-trading from 8:00 am to 10:30am to augment her income.

I perused their website and it's all margin trading.

I saw her and him again last night and wanted to ask if she'd experienced a margin call yet and what her kids would eat when she did, but my wife's cranky enough with me already.

Does she actually have any useful experience in day trading or just what she's learned from this Online Trading Academy? Because trying to day trade out of nowhere with no real experience seems like a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

[FUBAR]

DD (or any other TSP people), do you read/follow any of this guys advice. I've been following his twitter account for the past few years. Has some interesting thoughts and links specifically as it pertains to federal workers. (and it's dumbed down a bit, which helps me)

I don't believe in moving assets from 100% of one sector to 100% of the other. I think what he has to say is worth noting, but not following.

I agree somewhat. If you balance your portfolio through non TSP investments, then there may be times where you are 100% invested in one TSP fund.

I can sort of agree with that, though the TSP is over half of our retirement assets, so even then being all in one fund seems like a bad idea. Unless maybe it's the lifecycle (but I'm not sure we should include that as "one fund")

 

[Sand]

I have gone to a site that has a compound interest calculator. Stupid question, but the calculator would not include reinvested dividends, correct?

Is there a calculator for this? Trying to figure out if I can retire in 10 years at my current savings rate.

I would think that would be pretty hard to add into a formula since dividends differ from stock to stock and even so fluctuate in the same stock.

Figured. Thanks.

Trying to map out a plan and it is so tough to figure out how much I will have. I plug in my current savings plus current yearly contributions and put interest rate at 7%. Would just love to know how much reinvested dividends will effect that end number. I am a 3 fund portfolio guy. Total Stock Market Index, Total International Stock Index, Total Bond Index. 85 % equities, 15 % bonds.

That rolled up number is a big guess, anyway. 7% isn't a horrible assumption, though I'd bring it down to 5% real return after inflation for a bit of cushion.

 

[Chadstroma]

Sometimes I just get frustrated with people. Condensed version of a conversation today...

Me: I can save you well over $20K on your loan.

Nimrod: I don't want to pay $1,500 in closing costs.

Me: Are you planning on selling anytime soon?

Nimrod: No.

Me: So, you will make up that $1,500 plus save thousands and thousands more. That $1,500 does not come out of pocket, it can be rolled into the loan. Why would you not want to do that?

Nimrod: I don't want to pay $1,500.

Me:

 

[fred_1_15301]

Sometimes I just get frustrated with people. Condensed version of a conversation today...

Me: I can save you well over $20K on your loan.

Nimrod: I don't want to pay $1,500 in closing costs.

Me: Are you planning on selling anytime soon?

Nimrod: No.

Me: So, you will make up that $1,500 plus save thousands and thousands more. That $1,500 does not come out of pocket, it can be rolled into the loan. Why would you not want to do that?

Nimrod: I don't want to pay $1,500.

Me:

 

[RUSF18]

Sometimes I just get frustrated with people. Condensed version of a conversation today...

Me: I can save you well over $20K on your loan.

Nimrod: I don't want to pay $1,500 in closing costs.

Me: Are you planning on selling anytime soon?

Nimrod: No.

Me: So, you will make up that $1,500 plus save thousands and thousands more. That $1,500 does not come out of pocket, it can be rolled into the loan. Why would you not want to do that?

Nimrod: I don't want to pay $1,500.

Me:

Can I give you the $1500 and then you funnel me the $20K over the time period?

 

[ghostguy123]

Let's say I wanted to go ultra conservative for a while in my 403b.

Would FSIXX pretty much be as close to 100% secure as possible?

 

[Mario Kart]

Let's say I wanted to go ultra conservative for a while in my 403b.

Would FSIXX pretty much be as close to 100% secure as possible?

It'll be secure but you'll lose money over the long haul. The interest in the fund is lower than the inflation rate hence you losing money. Putting money into some dividend energy stock is "just as" secure but should do better in the interest range. There are many other options than the one you put above.

 

[ghostguy123]

Let's say I wanted to go ultra conservative for a while in my 403b.

Would FSIXX pretty much be as close to 100% secure as possible?

It'll be secure but you'll lose money over the long haul. The interest in the fund is lower than the inflation rate hence you losing money. Putting money into some dividend energy stock is "just as" secure but should do better in the interest range. There are many other options than the one you put above.

I am aware it's "losing money" over the long term, I am just wondering how secure it actually is if the market takes a giant ####

Say for example I put my money in there now and the market goes to #### like back in 2008. How would it be affected?