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 (3 Viewers)

Without reading this whole thread, what's the best strategy for going into warp speed saving mode after finishing off payments on loans from college. The only debt is my mortgage, on which I do have PMI right now. Could I get some advice on putting the following into highest-lowest priority?

-401k (currently contributing up to employer match max)

-Roth IRA (currently contributing nominal amount)

-HSA (currently contributing amount up to employer match max)

-Mortgage (would like to pay this down quickly to the point where I get rid of PMI)

-Emergency fund (none really right now)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without reading this whole thread, what's the best strategy for going into warp speed saving mode after finishing off payments on loans from college. The only debt is my mortgage, on which I do have PMI right now. Could I get some advice on putting the following into highest-lowest priority?

-401k (currently contributing up to employer match max)

-Roth IRA (currently contributing nominal amount)

-HSA (currently contributing amount up to employer match max)

-Mortgage (would like to pay this down quickly to the point where I get rid of PMI)

-Emergency fund (none really right now)
with respect to emergency fund....is your job at any risk? you married? if so, does your wife work too?

 
What is rate on pmi
Looking at the statement and calculating it I'm getting 1.12% per year of the original loan balance. I'm at like 10% equity in the place right now and the PMI is scheduled to expire in mid-2022 on normal payments.

 
Without reading this whole thread, what's the best strategy for going into warp speed saving mode after finishing off payments on loans from college. The only debt is my mortgage, on which I do have PMI right now. Could I get some advice on putting the following into highest-lowest priority?

-401k (currently contributing up to employer match max)

-Roth IRA (currently contributing nominal amount)

-HSA (currently contributing amount up to employer match max)

-Mortgage (would like to pay this down quickly to the point where I get rid of PMI)

-Emergency fund (none really right now)
with respect to emergency fund....is your job at any risk? you married? if so, does your wife work too?
Very stable job (investment accountant/CPA), have been here for 3 years. In my late 20s, not married but engaged within the next year and married within the next two years most likely.

I also have renters in my condo right now that cover the monthly mortgage payment. I rent myself with girlfriend.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is rate on pmi
Looking at the statement and calculating it I'm getting 1.12% per year of the original loan balance. I'm at like 10% equity in the place right now and the PMI is scheduled to expire in mid-2022 on normal paThe rate
The rate is calculated off the 'missing down payment' money, not total loan.

For instance, you buy a house with 5% down that cost $200,000. 20% would be $40K, you paid $10K at closing, meaning your PMI is based on the $30K.

PMI rates are typically ~ 6%

 
What is rate on pmi
Looking at the statement and calculating it I'm getting 1.12% per year of the original loan balance. I'm at like 10% equity in the place right now and the PMI is scheduled to expire in mid-2022 on normal paThe rate
The rate is calculated off the 'missing down payment' money, not total loan.

For instance, you buy a house with 5% down that cost $200,000. 20% would be $40K, you paid $10K at closing, meaning your PMI is based on the $30K.

PMI rates are typically ~ 6%
Got it. In that case I'm at 6.7%.

 
They changed the rules on PMI...it used to be that once you got your LTV > 80% the PMI disappeared. From what I understand (please verify) the PMI is a schedule-based repayment only - no accelerated payments. Check with your lender... it definitely makes sense to erase this 6.7% drag on your portfolio (note that the effective rate is less due to tax breaks, but still probably 5% or so).

You won't get a guaranteed 5-6% anywhere on the market so it's a no brainer to take it here

 
They changed the rules on PMI...it used to be that once you got your LTV > 80% the PMI disappeared. From what I understand (please verify) the PMI is a schedule-based repayment only - no accelerated payments. Check with your lender... it definitely makes sense to erase this 6.7% drag on your portfolio (note that the effective rate is less due to tax breaks, but still probably 5% or so).

You won't get a guaranteed 5-6% anywhere on the market so it's a no brainer to take it here
I refinanced before the new PMI rules too effect so it still goes away at 80% LTV for me. Looks like I'll put this as goal number one of the five.

 
They changed the rules on PMI...it used to be that once you got your LTV > 80% the PMI disappeared. From what I understand (please verify) the PMI is a schedule-based repayment only - no accelerated payments. Check with your lender... it definitely makes sense to erase this 6.7% drag on your portfolio (note that the effective rate is less due to tax breaks, but still probably 5% or so).

You won't get a guaranteed 5-6% anywhere on the market so it's a no brainer to take it here
I refinanced before the new PMI rules too effect so it still goes away at 80% LTV for me. Looks like I'll put this as goal number one of the five.
When did this happen?

 
What is rate on pmi
Mine is 6.1%, oof.

Bought my 1-bedroom apartment with 10% down on a 30-year fixed in May 2008. Fast forward to April 2015, and based upon a rough estimate of FMV vs. Remaining mortgage balance (I refinanced in Feb 2013 to 3.600% @ 30-yrs) + estimated real estate agent sale commission + recouping my original downpayment, I'm upside down 35% presently. I'm renting it out @ about break even vs. the mortgage + HOA fees due to a work move, after a 8% property manager cut monthly as I live out of state. From a tax perspective, I'm a few grand below the AGI threshold where you are phased out on taking rental losses, so I have a slight tax benefit on all the fees I pay on the rental (property taxes, mortgage insurance, homeowners insurance, HOA fees, property manager fees, etc.) and am at least not getting hit by the IRS on the rental income.

I know some will advise to sell the bad egg, but that would require basically a 20k+ check plus the opportunity cost of any possibility of recouping some of the downpayment over time. It's a thriving rental market where the property is located in Central NJ (short drive to NJ Transit Regional Rail), so there's no real risk of missed months if the tenant leaves (I think when I listed it I had about 10 people come to view in a 2 week timespan after listing, so I was choosing tenants). Honestly, I think there's more upside keeping the 20k+ check I'd have to write in the market vs. "removing the headache" and the PMI/other fees, which isn't really too terrible after all is said and done.

 
They changed the rules on PMI...it used to be that once you got your LTV > 80% the PMI disappeared. From what I understand (please verify) the PMI is a schedule-based repayment only - no accelerated payments. Check with your lender... it definitely makes sense to erase this 6.7% drag on your portfolio (note that the effective rate is less due to tax breaks, but still probably 5% or so).

You won't get a guaranteed 5-6% anywhere on the market so it's a no brainer to take it here
I refinanced before the new PMI rules too effect so it still goes away at 80% LTV for me. Looks like I'll put this as goal number one of the five.
When did this happen?
January of this year I believe.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/25/dont-be-fooled-by-the-new-fha-mortgage-insurance-p.aspx

They lowered the PMI rate, but now if you get an FHA loan the PMI stays for the life of the loan unless you refinance to conventional. The good news is that you can now get a conventional loan for 3% down with PMI but the PMI on conventional loans still goes away after you hit 20%. So it basically depends on whether or not you get an FHA or conventional loan from here on out.

 
Without reading this whole thread, what's the best strategy for going into warp speed saving mode after finishing off payments on loans from college. The only debt is my mortgage, on which I do have PMI right now. Could I get some advice on putting the following into highest-lowest priority?

-401k (currently contributing up to employer match max)

-Roth IRA (currently contributing nominal amount)

-HSA (currently contributing amount up to employer match max)

-Mortgage (would like to pay this down quickly to the point where I get rid of PMI)

-Emergency fund (none really right now)
with respect to emergency fund....is your job at any risk? you married? if so, does your wife work too?
So right now I'm thinking of the following:

1) Max out HSA

2) Max out Roth

3) Dump an extra amount into mortgage that will get me rid of PMI sometime in 2016

4) Pump up 401k to half of the max

5) Rest goes to emergency fund

Anything wrong with this train of thought?

 
Without reading this whole thread, what's the best strategy for going into warp speed saving mode after finishing off payments on loans from college. The only debt is my mortgage, on which I do have PMI right now. Could I get some advice on putting the following into highest-lowest priority?

-401k (currently contributing up to employer match max)

-Roth IRA (currently contributing nominal amount)

-HSA (currently contributing amount up to employer match max)

-Mortgage (would like to pay this down quickly to the point where I get rid of PMI)

-Emergency fund (none really right now)
with respect to emergency fund....is your job at any risk? you married? if so, does your wife work too?
So right now I'm thinking of the following:

1) Max out HSA

2) Max out Roth

3) Dump an extra amount into mortgage that will get me rid of PMI sometime in 2016

4) Pump up 401k to half of the max

5) Rest goes to emergency fund

Anything wrong with this train of thought?
Personally, I'd max the Roth before I max the HSA. I get that the HSA is the ultimate tax-free tool, but the flexibility of the Roth (being able to use it for anything, not just medical) outweighs the HSA tax treatment.

 
Steve Tasker said:
Harris said:
Without reading this whole thread, what's the best strategy for going into warp speed saving mode after finishing off payments on loans from college. The only debt is my mortgage, on which I do have PMI right now. Could I get some advice on putting the following into highest-lowest priority?

-401k (currently contributing up to employer match max)

-Roth IRA (currently contributing nominal amount)

-HSA (currently contributing amount up to employer match max)

-Mortgage (would like to pay this down quickly to the point where I get rid of PMI)

-Emergency fund (none really right now)
with respect to emergency fund....is your job at any risk? you married? if so, does your wife work too?
So right now I'm thinking of the following:

1) Max out HSA

2) Max out Roth

3) Dump an extra amount into mortgage that will get me rid of PMI sometime in 2016

4) Pump up 401k to half of the max

5) Rest goes to emergency fund

Anything wrong with this train of thought?
Personally, I'd max the Roth before I max the HSA. I get that the HSA is the ultimate tax-free tool, but the flexibility of the Roth (being able to use it for anything, not just medical) outweighs the HSA tax treatment.
It is probably a little bit more nuanced than this, but that flexibility has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, OP is able to hit #1 and #2 so you don't have to decide between them. Remember that HSAs can be taxed at ordinary income and used for any purpose after 65 (at this point - who knows if this is true in the future). Whereas with a Roth you can pull out $ amount up to aggregate contribution level at any point.

With regard to #3-#4, I might be missing something but think 401k might be better option in a lot of scenarios. In order to make that decision I would model out how many fewer months you would be paying PMI and multiply by monthly PMI, divide that by extra money money you would need to throw in to get out of PMI territory sooner. Once you have calculated that figure, compare to your marginal tax rate. In a lot of cases, think the marginal tax rate is going to be higher and funding the 401k would make more sense.

Depending on how you define emergency fund and your personal preferences, this might be priority #1 or #5. Think Dave Ramsey for example would say 3-6 month emergency fund would be more important than steps #1-#4. I would probably agree, but I am a huge fan of liquidity and the peace of mind of having readily available cash. But in terms of the mathematically correct answer, you might want to take advantage of tax savings rather than build this up. One advantage of the Roth is that you can use it as a de facto emergency fund since you can withdraw up to contribution level with no penalties - though you are subject to volatility of underlying investments. If you anticipate your income increasing above Roth threshold in the near future, one option could be to fund Roth and invest in mundane items now to use as de facto emergency fund but then switch over to more aggressive investments once you have a separate emergency fund.

 
Without reading this whole thread, what's the best strategy for going into warp speed saving mode after finishing off payments on loans from college. The only debt is my mortgage, on which I do have PMI right now. Could I get some advice on putting the following into highest-lowest priority?

-401k (currently contributing up to employer match max)

-Roth IRA (currently contributing nominal amount)

-HSA (currently contributing amount up to employer match max)

-Mortgage (would like to pay this down quickly to the point where I get rid of PMI)

-Emergency fund (none really right now)
with respect to emergency fund....is your job at any risk? you married? if so, does your wife work too?
So right now I'm thinking of the following:

1) Max out HSA

2) Max out Roth

3) Dump an extra amount into mortgage that will get me rid of PMI sometime in 2016

4) Pump up 401k to half of the max

5) Rest goes to emergency fund

Anything wrong with this train of thought?
Is your HSA one where you have to spend it all in that calendar year? If so, be careful b/c you want to make sure you only put what's necessary in there.

If your job and your fiance's job aren't at risk, I would think it's ok. If you have a true emergency and you need cash out right away, you can pull out the principal from the Roth penalty free. Obviously, this isn't ideal....but if your "emergency" risk is low than it's ok. I navigated like this for about 5 years.

 
Need some thoughts on options for my wife's 403b plan. She's a teacher, and up to now we didn't put too much in it, but we want to start working on maxing it out. There seems to be generally two options: 5% load funds from american, or go to a fee based structure with the company who runs the 403b. It would be 0.9% per year and then any other expenses from the investments, but we aren't limited to one fund family and can include index funds also.

Is this a normal setup for a 403b? I'm at a fairly large company with a 401k and we just have the plan expenses rolled into the funds we choose from. To me it seems like fee based is the way to go, but I don't want to throw a lot of money at it if these are outrageous fees. My wife also has a 457 option through them with the same choices. Ideally, as our incomes go up we would be able to put aside 54k a year pretax if we wanted, or I have a roth 401k option as well. Does it seem worth dumping more into the 403b, or do the fees eat up so much that we should just put the money in a taxable account?
Just quoting myself for reference. I was doing some reading on 403b rollovers, and can't make sense of it. Is it possible to roll a 403b into an IRA while my wife is still employed? Its not like there is a match or anything? What about if she is on leave for maternity at some point? I feel like the tax benefits of the 403b outweigh the high fees, and I am maxed on my 401k, just trying to figure out other options if there are any. TIA

 
Risk management is regarded as an essential element of modern investment management. But few people recognize that retirement -- the period when a person stops working and begins to decumulate their assets -- has now become the riskiest stage of a person's entire financial life.

Worse, most retirees are not prepared to shoulder this burden, and most do not even know the risks involved.

But it wasn't always this way.

The evolution of retirement policy in the United States reflects a critical combination of attitudes towards workers by their employers. By examining these changing relationships over time, we can see how business has changed from considering its own workers essential partners to the current attitude where workers are regarded more as temporary assets. Of course, these attitudes cannot be clearly articulated, but they are evident during recessions and through the evolution from pension plans to 401(k)s, accompanied by threats to privatize Social Security, reduce health care costs, and failures to promote wage increases.

Retirees also face the problem of managing portfolios in a low-return, volatile market environment, and then trying to answer the unanswerable question of whether they have enough assets to last them through a longer lifespan than any other American generation.

In short, retirees today are being asked to manage scenarios which professionals have never consistently done successfully. And they are being asked to do it over longer periods of time without adequate resources.

Retiring With More Security

One of the main reasons for retirees facing increased risk is due to the decline in people being covered by corporate pension plans. The first plan offered in the U.S. was by the Presbyterian Church in 1717 when it established its Fund for Pious Uses for retirement ministers. In 1875, the American Express Company began the nation's first corporate plan. This was followed by pensions offered by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 1884, and by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1900 for all employees who reached age 70.

While corporate paternalism played a part, offering pension plans was also good business due to a combination of favorable tax benefits and funding options. From the 1920s to the 1970s, moderate executives at some corporations, such as GE, Met Life, and Standard Oil of New Jersey, promoted pensions as a way to improve labor-management relations and attract better-qualified workers. John D. Rockefeller also favored the expansion of corporate-sponsored pension plans as a means of preventing the expansion of unions.

In this corporate environment, professionally-managed pension plans, combined with personal savings, and Social Security (post 1935) were the elements of the "three-legged stool" Franklin D. Roosevelt and other New Dealers referred to when they described retirement security in the United States.

Flash forward to the popularity of 401(k) s in the 1980s and we can see a definite change in the prospects for retirement security. Busier, less sophisticated individuals now have the responsibility to select and manage various asset class exposures over a 30-year time period in order to provide the optimum portfolio returns in a volatile market environment. This is all being done in a global economy which changes every trading day and one increasingly dominated by professional traders managing multi-billion portfolios.

On the institutional side, risk is now a stand-alone discipline and a critical element in every major corporation. Global risk management (GRM) has its origins in Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), which formalized elements of portfolio diversification, asset allocation, market risk and portfolio risk. GRM also incorporates option risk management via valuations. This assigns a numeric risk to almost every possible choice a corporation can make in every aspect of its operations. Risk management is most sophisticated in the investment industry, which now regularly uses tools, such as value at risk to examine credit and market risks. Once the risk is quantified, professionals can employ a number of hedging alternatives.

Of course, none of this is readily available to individual investors who don't have the tools or ability to hedge their 401(k) s during recessions or market declines. This means average investors have only a few choices when it comes to risk management: They can accept it, manage it, or transfer it.

My bet is that most choose to accept it mainly because they never see it coming. And this is exactly why retirees who have stopped working and are living off of a fixed accumulation of liquid assets are now facing more financial risk than at any other time in their lives.
 
I just learned that your company has 15 business days from the end of the month in which money was taken from your check to actually transfer the funds to the 401K guardian. I'd have thought there'd be a bit more restriction on this timeframe.

Combined with the move by companies to not make the match along with employee contributions and wait until the end of the year...forget pensions, I long for the good ol' days of 401K.

 
I just learned that your company has 15 business days from the end of the month in which money was taken from your check to actually transfer the funds to the 401K guardian. I'd have thought there'd be a bit more restriction on this timeframe.

Combined with the move by companies to not make the match along with employee contributions and wait until the end of the year...forget pensions, I long for the good ol' days of 401K.
that's a pretty tidy deadline if you ask me. our business generally gets it done within a week, but i think 15 days is reasonable.

we generally split our matches up into halves.. half way and end of year... or really whenever we're just really flush with cash

 
I just learned that your company has 15 business days from the end of the month in which money was taken from your check to actually transfer the funds to the 401K guardian. I'd have thought there'd be a bit more restriction on this timeframe.

Combined with the move by companies to not make the match along with employee contributions and wait until the end of the year...forget pensions, I long for the good ol' days of 401K.
that's a pretty tidy deadline if you ask me. our business generally gets it done within a week, but i think 15 days is reasonable.

we generally split our matches up into halves.. half way and end of year... or really whenever we're just really flush with cash
Really? I get paid bi-weekly, so paydays change. I was paid April 3 and the company doesn't need to fund until May 15?

Next thing you'll be saying that it's a good idea to get a tax refund.

 
I just learned that your company has 15 business days from the end of the month in which money was taken from your check to actually transfer the funds to the 401K guardian. I'd have thought there'd be a bit more restriction on this timeframe.

Combined with the move by companies to not make the match along with employee contributions and wait until the end of the year...forget pensions, I long for the good ol' days of 401K.
that's a pretty tidy deadline if you ask me. our business generally gets it done within a week, but i think 15 days is reasonable.

we generally split our matches up into halves.. half way and end of year... or really whenever we're just really flush with cash
Really? I get paid bi-weekly, so paydays change. I was paid April 3 and the company doesn't need to fund until May 15?

Next thing you'll be saying that it's a good idea to get a tax refund.
oh, i've never understood companies that do payroll every two weeks.. what a waste... monthly is plenty.

I still think that's a reasonable deadline.

 
Good article above DD

I would add to that, risk of inflation. I carry 25% of my bonds as TIPS to hedge against that, but I still worry I am a bit exposed

 
Had a chat with my MIL and FIL over the weekend. My mother in law was talking about how she just has two more years til retirement. And my FIL is a general contractor. I started asking about her 401k etc, and her reply was "oh, no, I don't have one of those any more. I lost like 15k back in 2008, so i took all my money out and stopped contributing. Think about how awesome it'd be to have that money now?". So I asked her what she was planning on retiring on. "Oh the hospital's pension plan is 1.6% * number of years of service * annual pay".

She makes $13.54 an hour to answer phones for the hospital. She'll be eligible to collect after she'll have been there for 20 years in 2 years and she plans on retiring on that date.

Her retirement plan through work will pay her ~$754 a month. And she'll only be 57 so she won't be able to collect social security.

They literally have 0 savings and this is their retirement plan. All they do is talk about how close to retiring they are, and how awesome it will be to be retired etc. $750.. a month! Granted, they own their own house, and have 0 debt. But still, I don't get how they're gonna survive.

 
Had a chat with my MIL and FIL over the weekend. My mother in law was talking about how she just has two more years til retirement. And my FIL is a general contractor. I started asking about her 401k etc, and her reply was "oh, no, I don't have one of those any more. I lost like 15k back in 2008, so i took all my money out and stopped contributing. Think about how awesome it'd be to have that money now?". So I asked her what she was planning on retiring on. "Oh the hospital's pension plan is 1.6% * number of years of service * annual pay".

She makes $13.54 an hour to answer phones for the hospital. She'll be eligible to collect after she'll have been there for 20 years in 2 years and she plans on retiring on that date.

Her retirement plan through work will pay her ~$754 a month. And she'll only be 57 so she won't be able to collect social security.

They literally have 0 savings and this is their retirement plan. All they do is talk about how close to retiring they are, and how awesome it will be to be retired etc. $750.. a month! Granted, they own their own house, and have 0 debt. But still, I don't get how they're gonna survive.
Oof :unsure:

 
Had a chat with my MIL and FIL over the weekend. My mother in law was talking about how she just has two more years til retirement. And my FIL is a general contractor. I started asking about her 401k etc, and her reply was "oh, no, I don't have one of those any more. I lost like 15k back in 2008, so i took all my money out and stopped contributing. Think about how awesome it'd be to have that money now?". So I asked her what she was planning on retiring on. "Oh the hospital's pension plan is 1.6% * number of years of service * annual pay".

She makes $13.54 an hour to answer phones for the hospital. She'll be eligible to collect after she'll have been there for 20 years in 2 years and she plans on retiring on that date.

Her retirement plan through work will pay her ~$754 a month. And she'll only be 57 so she won't be able to collect social security.

They literally have 0 savings and this is their retirement plan. All they do is talk about how close to retiring they are, and how awesome it will be to be retired etc. $750.. a month! Granted, they own their own house, and have 0 debt. But still, I don't get how they're gonna survive.
They aren't retiring for long if at all with that little. They have no clue. Do they think they don't need health insurance? They will be going back to work. Holy cow, she took her $ out right at the bottom.

 
Had a chat with my MIL and FIL over the weekend. My mother in law was talking about how she just has two more years til retirement. And my FIL is a general contractor. I started asking about her 401k etc, and her reply was "oh, no, I don't have one of those any more. I lost like 15k back in 2008, so i took all my money out and stopped contributing. Think about how awesome it'd be to have that money now?". So I asked her what she was planning on retiring on. "Oh the hospital's pension plan is 1.6% * number of years of service * annual pay".

She makes $13.54 an hour to answer phones for the hospital. She'll be eligible to collect after she'll have been there for 20 years in 2 years and she plans on retiring on that date.

Her retirement plan through work will pay her ~$754 a month. And she'll only be 57 so she won't be able to collect social security.

They literally have 0 savings and this is their retirement plan. All they do is talk about how close to retiring they are, and how awesome it will be to be retired etc. $750.. a month! Granted, they own their own house, and have 0 debt. But still, I don't get how they're gonna survive.
people like that retire for a few months.. then realize it's not working and pick up some part time work.

they also are basically satisfied with what I coin as a craptirement. They aren't going to travel or actually pick up any new hobbies. They're going to watch TV, read library books, and any travel will be "visiting relatives" so that they don't incur any expenses other than driving.

Most people are basically impoverished in whatever their retirement is and more or less are just going from one doctors appointment to the next until they die.

I see it all the time at the office. People have a lot of nice dental work done from their working years... it begins to break down on them at some point, and when they no longer have any insurance and are living from one crappy social security check to the next they can't afford to maintain it, and they fall apart rapidly. If I hear the words "i'm on a fixed income!! zomg!" one more time I think my head could explode. I wonder why some of these people even retired in the first place... like what exactly did they think life was going to be like? And frankly due to modern medicine they last a lot longer than they probably ever expected.

But I think we forget that FBG's is home of mostly people that are of above average intelligence and the amount of stupidity out there and bad decisions especially regarding all things financial is absolutely amazing... mindblowing actually.

 
Had a chat with my MIL and FIL over the weekend. My mother in law was talking about how she just has two more years til retirement. And my FIL is a general contractor. I started asking about her 401k etc, and her reply was "oh, no, I don't have one of those any more. I lost like 15k back in 2008, so i took all my money out and stopped contributing. Think about how awesome it'd be to have that money now?". So I asked her what she was planning on retiring on. "Oh the hospital's pension plan is 1.6% * number of years of service * annual pay".

She makes $13.54 an hour to answer phones for the hospital. She'll be eligible to collect after she'll have been there for 20 years in 2 years and she plans on retiring on that date.

Her retirement plan through work will pay her ~$754 a month. And she'll only be 57 so she won't be able to collect social security.

They literally have 0 savings and this is their retirement plan. All they do is talk about how close to retiring they are, and how awesome it will be to be retired etc. $750.. a month! Granted, they own their own house, and have 0 debt. But still, I don't get how they're gonna survive.
I would have had a hard time stopping the conversation there as I would have been biting my lip like crazy.

Jesus, so many easy follow questions if you wanted to drive the point home (which you can't really do with out making them feel bad).

Assuming they really have $0 in savings how can both of them think they can retire on that type of pension?

 
Had a chat with my MIL and FIL over the weekend. My mother in law was talking about how she just has two more years til retirement. And my FIL is a general contractor. I started asking about her 401k etc, and her reply was "oh, no, I don't have one of those any more. I lost like 15k back in 2008, so i took all my money out and stopped contributing. Think about how awesome it'd be to have that money now?". So I asked her what she was planning on retiring on. "Oh the hospital's pension plan is 1.6% * number of years of service * annual pay".

She makes $13.54 an hour to answer phones for the hospital. She'll be eligible to collect after she'll have been there for 20 years in 2 years and she plans on retiring on that date.

Her retirement plan through work will pay her ~$754 a month. And she'll only be 57 so she won't be able to collect social security.

They literally have 0 savings and this is their retirement plan. All they do is talk about how close to retiring they are, and how awesome it will be to be retired etc. $750.. a month! Granted, they own their own house, and have 0 debt. But still, I don't get how they're gonna survive.
Oof :unsure:
Step 1 - sell house

Step 2 - move in with Spin

 
Had a chat with my MIL and FIL over the weekend. My mother in law was talking about how she just has two more years til retirement. And my FIL is a general contractor. I started asking about her 401k etc, and her reply was "oh, no, I don't have one of those any more. I lost like 15k back in 2008, so i took all my money out and stopped contributing. Think about how awesome it'd be to have that money now?". So I asked her what she was planning on retiring on. "Oh the hospital's pension plan is 1.6% * number of years of service * annual pay".

She makes $13.54 an hour to answer phones for the hospital. She'll be eligible to collect after she'll have been there for 20 years in 2 years and she plans on retiring on that date.

Her retirement plan through work will pay her ~$754 a month. And she'll only be 57 so she won't be able to collect social security.

They literally have 0 savings and this is their retirement plan. All they do is talk about how close to retiring they are, and how awesome it will be to be retired etc. $750.. a month! Granted, they own their own house, and have 0 debt. But still, I don't get how they're gonna survive.
He's a contractor so I assume they won't have health insurance which is likely to cost about $950/mo.

I have several well off friends who continue to work only for the health insurance.

 
Had a chat with my MIL and FIL over the weekend. My mother in law was talking about how she just has two more years til retirement. And my FIL is a general contractor. I started asking about her 401k etc, and her reply was "oh, no, I don't have one of those any more. I lost like 15k back in 2008, so i took all my money out and stopped contributing. Think about how awesome it'd be to have that money now?". So I asked her what she was planning on retiring on. "Oh the hospital's pension plan is 1.6% * number of years of service * annual pay".

She makes $13.54 an hour to answer phones for the hospital. She'll be eligible to collect after she'll have been there for 20 years in 2 years and she plans on retiring on that date.

Her retirement plan through work will pay her ~$754 a month. And she'll only be 57 so she won't be able to collect social security.

They literally have 0 savings and this is their retirement plan. All they do is talk about how close to retiring they are, and how awesome it will be to be retired etc. $750.. a month! Granted, they own their own house, and have 0 debt. But still, I don't get how they're gonna survive.
I would have had a hard time stopping the conversation there as I would have been biting my lip like crazy.

Jesus, so many easy follow questions if you wanted to drive the point home (which you can't really do with out making them feel bad).

Assuming they really have $0 in savings how can both of them think they can retire on that type of pension?
Are you kidding? I almost started a family feud because I tried to tell my MIL that 6oz of formula couldn't fit into a 4oz bottle. No way I'm going to push a finance issue.

They really do have $0 in savings. He makes about 200-500 a week depending on what jobs he has lined up. And they spend it as fast as they get it. My FIL is one of the hardest workers out there that I've ever met. Dropped out of high school at 15. The one time I mentioned how little money they were planning on living off of and without Healthcare, my MIL replied "Tenncare and food stamps will round out anything else I need."

It's just mindblowing how little preparation they have and they're perfectly content and don't expect any issues what so ever. They're legitimately looking forward to it. Then I read about the lack of retirement planing and I have a first hand example. Crazy.

 
Need some thoughts on options for my wife's 403b plan. She's a teacher, and up to now we didn't put too much in it, but we want to start working on maxing it out. There seems to be generally two options: 5% load funds from american, or go to a fee based structure with the company who runs the 403b. It would be 0.9% per year and then any other expenses from the investments, but we aren't limited to one fund family and can include index funds also.

Is this a normal setup for a 403b? I'm at a fairly large company with a 401k and we just have the plan expenses rolled into the funds we choose from. To me it seems like fee based is the way to go, but I don't want to throw a lot of money at it if these are outrageous fees. My wife also has a 457 option through them with the same choices. Ideally, as our incomes go up we would be able to put aside 54k a year pretax if we wanted, or I have a roth 401k option as well. Does it seem worth dumping more into the 403b, or do the fees eat up so much that we should just put the money in a taxable account?
Just quoting myself for reference. I was doing some reading on 403b rollovers, and can't make sense of it. Is it possible to roll a 403b into an IRA while my wife is still employed? Its not like there is a match or anything? What about if she is on leave for maternity at some point? I feel like the tax benefits of the 403b outweigh the high fees, and I am maxed on my 401k, just trying to figure out other options if there are any. TIA
No, you can't roll over the 403b to an IRA unless she separates from service and maternity leave doesn't count.

 

If you are planning to retire someday, you have to have a plan. Any such plan will involve saving and building a nest egg over a long period of time to be able to retire with enough wealth off of which you can live comfortably in your Golden Years.

The 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey conducted annually by the Employee Benefit Research Institute is a gauge to help determine how comfortable Americans feel about their ability to retire. Its results highlight some interesting facts about how well American workers are preparing for their futures.

First, the bad news.

This year’s survey found that while retirement confidence among American workers surveyed is higher than in years past, 64% of workers say they are behind on planning for retirement, and out of those workers who have no retirement plan, 64% have less than $1,000 saved.



Why are these workers not saving for their future? Cost of living and day-to-day expenses head the list of reasons why workers do not save. 50% of workers cited these as factors.

However, 69% said that it is possible for them to save $25 per week more than what they are doing currently. 46% said they would give up eating out as a way to boost savings. Soft drinks/snacks from vending machines, movies/streaming services, stops at coffee shops, and buying lottery tickets were other items cited that could be cut to increase saving. However, 24% said they wouldn’t be willing to give up anything to save an extra $25 per week.

To put this into perspective, if one were to start with $1,000 at age 30 and save $100 per month for 35 years invested in good mutual funds that earned, on average, 10% per year, the end result would be $385,854.85. If you increase the $100 per month to $500 for the same time period, the compounded savings jumps dramatically to $1,816,863.24. The workers who said they aren’t willing to give up some of the eating out to save $25 more per week might want to rethink that position.

48% of workers said they have not ever tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved so that they can live comfortably in retirement. Those that have tend to report higher savings goals than workers who have not done the calculation. 29% of workers who have done a calculation, compared with 12% of those who have not, estimate they need to accumulate at least $1 million for retirement.

The news isn’t all bad

Among the good news from the survey, 67% of workers report that they have saved something towards retirement. Among those with a retirement plan, 35% report having saved $100,000 or more. Not surprisingly, workers who report having a retirement plan of some sort had significantly more in savings and investments than workers with no plan. Only 9% of those with a retirement plan had less than $1,000 in savings.

58% of workers said they were either “somewhat confident” or “very confident” about having enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement. This trend indicates that retirement confidence continues to rebound from the record lows experienced between 2009 and 2013, but this is based on the increasing optimism of those who indicate they and/or their spouse have a retirement plan.

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2015/04/22/28-of-workers-have-less-than-1000-in-savings/#sthash.xyOd81UY.dpuf
 
If you are planning to retire someday, you have to have a plan. Any such plan will involve saving and building a nest egg over a long period of time to be able to retire with enough wealth off of which you can live comfortably in your Golden Years.

The 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey conducted annually by the Employee Benefit Research Institute is a gauge to help determine how comfortable Americans feel about their ability to retire. Its results highlight some interesting facts about how well American workers are preparing for their futures.

First, the bad news.

This years survey found that while retirement confidence among American workers surveyed is higher than in years past, 64% of workers say they are behind on planning for retirement, and out of those workers who have no retirement plan, 64% have less than $1,000 saved.



Why are these workers not saving for their future? Cost of living and day-to-day expenses head the list of reasons why workers do not save. 50% of workers cited these as factors.

However, 69% said that it is possible for them to save $25 per week more than what they are doing currently. 46% said they would give up eating out as a way to boost savings. Soft drinks/snacks from vending machines, movies/streaming services, stops at coffee shops, and buying lottery tickets were other items cited that could be cut to increase saving. However, 24% said they wouldnt be willing to give up anything to save an extra $25 per week.

To put this into perspective, if one were to start with $1,000 at age 30 and save $100 per month for 35 years invested in good mutual funds that earned, on average, 10% per year, the end result would be $385,854.85. If you increase the $100 per month to $500 for the same time period, the compounded savings jumps dramatically to $1,816,863.24. The workers who said they arent willing to give up some of the eating out to save $25 more per week might want to rethink that position.

48% of workers said they have not ever tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved so that they can live comfortably in retirement. Those that have tend to report higher savings goals than workers who have not done the calculation. 29% of workers who have done a calculation, compared with 12% of those who have not, estimate they need to accumulate at least $1 million for retirement.

The news isnt all bad

Among the good news from the survey, 67% of workers report that they have saved something towards retirement. Among those with a retirement plan, 35% report having saved $100,000 or more. Not surprisingly, workers who report having a retirement plan of some sort had significantly more in savings and investments than workers with no plan. Only 9% of those with a retirement plan had less than $1,000 in savings.

58% of workers said they were either somewhat confident or very confident about having enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement. This trend indicates that retirement confidence continues to rebound from the record lows experienced between 2009 and 2013, but this is based on the increasing optimism of those who indicate they and/or their spouse have a retirement plan.- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2015/04/22/28-of-workers-have-less-than-1000-in-savings/#sthash.xyOd81UY.dpuf
10% per year for 35 years? Yeah, good luck with that

 
If you are planning to retire someday, you have to have a plan. Any such plan will involve saving and building a nest egg over a long period of time to be able to retire with enough wealth off of which you can live comfortably in your Golden Years.

The 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey conducted annually by the Employee Benefit Research Institute is a gauge to help determine how comfortable Americans feel about their ability to retire. Its results highlight some interesting facts about how well American workers are preparing for their futures.

First, the bad news.

This years survey found that while retirement confidence among American workers surveyed is higher than in years past, 64% of workers say they are behind on planning for retirement, and out of those workers who have no retirement plan, 64% have less than $1,000 saved.



Why are these workers not saving for their future? Cost of living and day-to-day expenses head the list of reasons why workers do not save. 50% of workers cited these as factors.

However, 69% said that it is possible for them to save $25 per week more than what they are doing currently. 46% said they would give up eating out as a way to boost savings. Soft drinks/snacks from vending machines, movies/streaming services, stops at coffee shops, and buying lottery tickets were other items cited that could be cut to increase saving. However, 24% said they wouldnt be willing to give up anything to save an extra $25 per week.

To put this into perspective, if one were to start with $1,000 at age 30 and save $100 per month for 35 years invested in good mutual funds that earned, on average, 10% per year, the end result would be $385,854.85. If you increase the $100 per month to $500 for the same time period, the compounded savings jumps dramatically to $1,816,863.24. The workers who said they arent willing to give up some of the eating out to save $25 more per week might want to rethink that position.

48% of workers said they have not ever tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved so that they can live comfortably in retirement. Those that have tend to report higher savings goals than workers who have not done the calculation. 29% of workers who have done a calculation, compared with 12% of those who have not, estimate they need to accumulate at least $1 million for retirement.

The news isnt all bad

Among the good news from the survey, 67% of workers report that they have saved something towards retirement. Among those with a retirement plan, 35% report having saved $100,000 or more. Not surprisingly, workers who report having a retirement plan of some sort had significantly more in savings and investments than workers with no plan. Only 9% of those with a retirement plan had less than $1,000 in savings.

58% of workers said they were either somewhat confident or very confident about having enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement. This trend indicates that retirement confidence continues to rebound from the record lows experienced between 2009 and 2013, but this is based on the increasing optimism of those who indicate they and/or their spouse have a retirement plan.- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2015/04/22/28-of-workers-have-less-than-1000-in-savings/#sthash.xyOd81UY.dpuf
10% per year for 35 years? Yeah, good luck with that
Its actually been 11.9% over the past 35. I know, I know, its all doom and gloom from here on out. Just saying.

 
Need some thoughts on options for my wife's 403b plan. She's a teacher, and up to now we didn't put too much in it, but we want to start working on maxing it out. There seems to be generally two options: 5% load funds from american, or go to a fee based structure with the company who runs the 403b. It would be 0.9% per year and then any other expenses from the investments, but we aren't limited to one fund family and can include index funds also.

Is this a normal setup for a 403b? I'm at a fairly large company with a 401k and we just have the plan expenses rolled into the funds we choose from. To me it seems like fee based is the way to go, but I don't want to throw a lot of money at it if these are outrageous fees. My wife also has a 457 option through them with the same choices. Ideally, as our incomes go up we would be able to put aside 54k a year pretax if we wanted, or I have a roth 401k option as well. Does it seem worth dumping more into the 403b, or do the fees eat up so much that we should just put the money in a taxable account?
Just quoting myself for reference. I was doing some reading on 403b rollovers, and can't make sense of it. Is it possible to roll a 403b into an IRA while my wife is still employed? Its not like there is a match or anything? What about if she is on leave for maternity at some point? I feel like the tax benefits of the 403b outweigh the high fees, and I am maxed on my 401k, just trying to figure out other options if there are any. TIA
No, you can't roll over the 403b to an IRA unless she separates from service and maternity leave doesn't count.
Thanks for the info.

 
If you are planning to retire someday, you have to have a plan. Any such plan will involve saving and building a nest egg over a long period of time to be able to retire with enough wealth off of which you can live comfortably in your Golden Years.

The 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey conducted annually by the Employee Benefit Research Institute is a gauge to help determine how comfortable Americans feel about their ability to retire. Its results highlight some interesting facts about how well American workers are preparing for their futures.

First, the bad news.

This years survey found that while retirement confidence among American workers surveyed is higher than in years past, 64% of workers say they are behind on planning for retirement, and out of those workers who have no retirement plan, 64% have less than $1,000 saved.



Why are these workers not saving for their future? Cost of living and day-to-day expenses head the list of reasons why workers do not save. 50% of workers cited these as factors.

However, 69% said that it is possible for them to save $25 per week more than what they are doing currently. 46% said they would give up eating out as a way to boost savings. Soft drinks/snacks from vending machines, movies/streaming services, stops at coffee shops, and buying lottery tickets were other items cited that could be cut to increase saving. However, 24% said they wouldnt be willing to give up anything to save an extra $25 per week.

To put this into perspective, if one were to start with $1,000 at age 30 and save $100 per month for 35 years invested in good mutual funds that earned, on average, 10% per year, the end result would be $385,854.85. If you increase the $100 per month to $500 for the same time period, the compounded savings jumps dramatically to $1,816,863.24. The workers who said they arent willing to give up some of the eating out to save $25 more per week might want to rethink that position.

48% of workers said they have not ever tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved so that they can live comfortably in retirement. Those that have tend to report higher savings goals than workers who have not done the calculation. 29% of workers who have done a calculation, compared with 12% of those who have not, estimate they need to accumulate at least $1 million for retirement.

The news isnt all bad

Among the good news from the survey, 67% of workers report that they have saved something towards retirement. Among those with a retirement plan, 35% report having saved $100,000 or more. Not surprisingly, workers who report having a retirement plan of some sort had significantly more in savings and investments than workers with no plan. Only 9% of those with a retirement plan had less than $1,000 in savings.

58% of workers said they were either somewhat confident or very confident about having enough money to live comfortably throughout retirement. This trend indicates that retirement confidence continues to rebound from the record lows experienced between 2009 and 2013, but this is based on the increasing optimism of those who indicate they and/or their spouse have a retirement plan.- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2015/04/22/28-of-workers-have-less-than-1000-in-savings/#sthash.xyOd81UY.dpuf
10% per year for 35 years? Yeah, good luck with that
I know past performance doesn't guarantee future returns, but that number is fairly achievable based on history. :shrug:
 
Ya, it's designed as a 'teaser' to get people off the ###es and to start investing so I don't mind if it is a little exaggerated. I wouldn't recommend anyone here to use it for planning purposes though...

 
If you are planning to retire someday, you have to have a plan.....
10% per year for 35 years? Yeah, good luck with that
Its actually been 11.9% over the past 35. I know, I know, its all doom and gloom from here on out. Just saying.
I am coming up with 10.3% over the past 35 when looking at Vanguard's S&P 500 index fund, but this still supports your point.

However, the big difference is market valuation at the starting point. Shiller's PE ratio (P/E using 10 year average earnings) was 8.85 in 1980 and 27.38 at the start of this year. Effectively, a slightly more apples-to-apples comparison might mean inflating the starting point by a factor of 3. In which case, that >10% growth over the past 35 years drops to <7%.

Bottom line, I don't think 10% annual growth is completely unrealistic over the next 35 years. But I do think that it is on the very high-end of the range of outcomes.

 
If you are planning to retire someday, you have to have a plan.....
10% per year for 35 years? Yeah, good luck with that
Its actually been 11.9% over the past 35. I know, I know, its all doom and gloom from here on out. Just saying.
I am coming up with 10.3% over the past 35 when looking at Vanguard's S&P 500 index fund, but this still supports your point.

However, the big difference is market valuation at the starting point. Shiller's PE ratio (P/E using 10 year average earnings) was 8.85 in 1980 and 27.38 at the start of this year. Effectively, a slightly more apples-to-apples comparison might mean inflating the starting point by a factor of 3. In which case, that >10% growth over the past 35 years drops to <7%.

Bottom line, I don't think 10% annual growth is completely unrealistic over the next 35 years. But I do think that it is on the very high-end of the range of outcomes.
You including dividends? I used this calculator. I really have no idea about the future. I'll just continue to max out 401k and Roth and see what happens.

 
If you are planning to retire someday, you have to have a plan.....
10% per year for 35 years? Yeah, good luck with that
Its actually been 11.9% over the past 35. I know, I know, its all doom and gloom from here on out. Just saying.
I am coming up with 10.3% over the past 35 when looking at Vanguard's S&P 500 index fund, but this still supports your point.

However, the big difference is market valuation at the starting point. Shiller's PE ratio (P/E using 10 year average earnings) was 8.85 in 1980 and 27.38 at the start of this year. Effectively, a slightly more apples-to-apples comparison might mean inflating the starting point by a factor of 3. In which case, that >10% growth over the past 35 years drops to <7%.

Bottom line, I don't think 10% annual growth is completely unrealistic over the next 35 years. But I do think that it is on the very high-end of the range of outcomes.
You including dividends? I used this calculator. I really have no idea about the future. I'll just continue to max out 401k and Roth and see what happens.
I was using adjusted closes from yahoo finance, so that should include the impact of dividends as opposed to if I was just using nominal amounts.

I think differences between the 2 calculations are probably attributable to 1) you can't directly invest in S&P 500 and indices attempting to replicate it have to pay S&P 500 bump premium when companies come into the index and 2) fees for the management of the index. I picked Vanguard because they have had the lowest fees to my knowledge, but still cuts into returns.

I'm with you on not knowing about the future, maxing out tax-advantaged accounts is my play at the moment as well. Simply maxing out those 2 puts you ahead of the vast majority of people.

 
If you are planning to retire someday, you have to have a plan.....
10% per year for 35 years? Yeah, good luck with that
Its actually been 11.9% over the past 35. I know, I know, its all doom and gloom from here on out. Just saying.
I am coming up with 10.3% over the past 35 when looking at Vanguard's S&P 500 index fund, but this still supports your point.

However, the big difference is market valuation at the starting point. Shiller's PE ratio (P/E using 10 year average earnings) was 8.85 in 1980 and 27.38 at the start of this year. Effectively, a slightly more apples-to-apples comparison might mean inflating the starting point by a factor of 3. In which case, that >10% growth over the past 35 years drops to <7%.

Bottom line, I don't think 10% annual growth is completely unrealistic over the next 35 years. But I do think that it is on the very high-end of the range of outcomes.
You including dividends? I used this calculator. I really have no idea about the future. I'll just continue to max out 401k and Roth and see what happens.
I was using adjusted closes from yahoo finance, so that should include the impact of dividends as opposed to if I was just using nominal amounts.
Yahoo data is dividend and split adjusted, so this is correct.

 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tax-threat-to-your-mutual-fund-1430951829

This can't/won't happen...right?

:scared:

The Tax Threat to Your Mutual Fund

Regulators prepare to declare that large funds pose a ‘systemic’ financial risk. Investors will pay the price.

ENLARGE

PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

By BILL MCNABB

May 6, 2015 6:37 p.m. ET

143 COMMENTS

An open letter to all mutual-fund investors:

You may be subject to a new “tax,” and it has nothing to do with the presidential election cycle. Rather, the levy would be decided by a consortium of financial regulators who can designate your mutual fund or mutual-fund firm as posing a “systemic risk” to the financial system.

In the years since the global financial crisis, lawmakers and regulators have worked to stabilize the markets and economy. They identified risks to the financial system and took steps to ensure that Main Street would not be on the hook—again—for bad bets placed by Wall Street. Now regulators might place that burden squarely back on Main Street mutual-fund investors without any solid evidence that the funds or their managers could bring on another panic.

Under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, all banks with more than $50 billion in assets are designated as systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). If one fails, all other SIFIs will be responsible for bailing it out. The U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council and the global Financial Stability Board are considering measures to designate mutual funds as SIFIs, which would impose the same bailout obligations on their investors. If that happens, the 90 million Americans invested in mutual funds for retirement, education or a new home could be forced to once again bail out “too big to fail” Wall Street firms.

Investor returns would suffer even absent a bailout. Mutual fund companies could be required to hold capital reserves, potentially up to 8% of the fund’s assets based on current Dodd-Frank requirements. Such capital requirements would be raised through fees paid by investors. Any capital reserves that are sitting in a mutual fund are not generating returns in the stock or bond markets. According to research from the American Action Forum, capital requirements could trim as much as 25% from a mutual-fund investor’s returns over a lifetime of investing.

Not only would investors pay more and get less, their funds would be investing in a weaker market. Today, investors benefit from a U.S. economy that features a stable banking system and vibrant capital markets. If regulators impose burdensome regulations on mutual funds, it could disrupt the capital markets and hamstring the formation of capital that fuels our economy.

Let us not lose sight of a simple yet critical fact: Mutual funds and their managers are not banks. They do not impose risks on financial markets like banks do. They have fundamentally different structures with fundamentally different risk profiles. They are organized and regulated in a way that limits risk to the financial system. Designating a handful of mutual funds as SIFIs will not reduce systemic risk in the markets.

Regulators theorize that a “run” by mutual-fund investors would destabilize the markets. But the run on institutional money-market funds in September 2008 was a symptom of an already destabilized market. And institutional money-market funds now must have a floating net-asset value—the pricing methodology that equity and bond mutual funds already employ. The notion that these equity and bond mutual funds pose a systemic risk ignores the fact that they operate as separate entities from their managers and other financial institutions. Moreover, these funds have a stable and broadly diversified investor base. Some 95% of mutual-fund shares are owned by individuals, most of whom are saving for long-term goals like retirement.

Even during times of deepest market distress, most recently 2007-08, mutual-fund investors have never redeemed shares en masse. On the contrary, mutual-fund investors provide an element of stability to the markets and economy in turbulent times.

Even when funds exit the business (and hundreds do each year), the risk is contained. Investors in a fund bear the risk of any losses, just as they stand to benefit from gains. Since funds operate as separate entities from their managers and other financial institutions, there is no risk of losses elsewhere in the financial system, or any need for a taxpayer bailout.

It’s not the size of an institution that determines its risk. It’s the amount of leverage in play. Mutual funds use little or no leverage, and leverage was an accelerant of the financial crisis. Leading up to the crisis, some financial institutions were leveraged at a ratio of more than 30 to 1. The maximum allowable leverage ratio for a mutual fund is 1.5 to 1. The leverage ratio of the largest funds targeted for SIFI designation by the Financial Stability Board ($100 billion or more in assets, including several operated by Vanguard) is 1.04 to 1.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Investment Company and Investment Advisers Acts of 1940. Over that time investors have benefited from a prudent regulatory framework and oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Funds and their investors have stood the test of decades of market and economic cycles. They have provided a stable and diversified source of capital to the economy, and a low-cost, prudent way for individuals to invest for the future. Let’s not regulate for regulation’s sake. And let’s not go back to the misguided approach of having Main Street bail out Wall Street.

Mr. McNabb is chairman and CEO of the Vanguard Group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to a 2013 study done by the National Institute on Retirement Security...

3 out of 4 black and 4 out of every 5 Latino working-age households have less than $10k in retirement savings. Half of white folk have at least $10k.

Even worse was another study by Duke U that said the average black family had $200 in liquid wealth, whitey had $23k. How the hell is that even possible?

 
According to a 2013 study done by the National Institute on Retirement Security...

3 out of 4 black and 4 out of every 5 Latino working-age households have less than $10k in retirement savings. Half of white folk have at least $10k.

Even worse was another study by Duke U that said the average black family had $200 in liquid wealth, whitey had $23k. How the hell is that even possible?
Have you paid any attention to what has been going on in this country? I would be surprised if that wasn't the case.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top