What's the number?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k2skier112

You said to start out with a deposit (balance) of 250k. WTF? You moved goal posts... Again, that's 100% unrealistic for 98% of all 20-30 year olds. No shit you're not a financial planner, you're so full of biased bullshit. Probably a T**** supporter. If you think 1.5% is being raped. You ARE retarded. How many Confederate flags you got in your pickup?

---

You're losing your shit over something really weird. I mean, you're getting really really worked up over a discussion of financial planning, like somehow your manhood is wrapped up in this discussion. It's just money, mang, lighten up.

Taking a hypothetical number to show the effects of expense ratios (or the effect of any financial thing) is pretty normal. Yes, most people add to the retirement fund regularly, as they should, but it's much easier to do the math -- and show the effect -- with a lump sum amount. So start with $250k and go for 25 years. Doesn't matter whether you're 25 or 40, or whether $250k is a realistic amount for either of those ages (although it certainly is for 40 even if you dispute the 25). It's just a random number to show how high expense ratios eat away at your gains over the long retirement timeframes.

And 1.5% load just to get into a fund is absolutely ridiculous to me. There is no fund that is worth that IMO, but if you're happy with your fund performance after backing out the expenses and load, keep doing it, it's your money after all, nobody else has to agree with you. And I am not a Trump supporter and don't have any confederate flags (it's really fucking weird that you equate that financial advice with Trump/racism). Oh, and dude, retarded is not the preferred nomenclature.

Shafty if you're still reading: the angst and diversity of discussion should show the importance of educating oneself and developing one's own style tailored to goals and risk tolerance

You should also note that there are a lot of people who will tell you how they can't do it. That is almost always the way these discussions devolve

I got stuck with an American Funds plan at my last employer, and the expense ratios are pretty high for my taste, between .62 and .73%. We were a super small company, and the lady running it through Farm Bureau was taking 3.75-5% of every dollar put in the plan right off the top also, which was insane! I assume the owner got a sweet deal under the table, because I bitched about it constantly and he didn't give two shits.

My employer 'paid' for this crap through a match, but holy shit that was expensive. Better than not investing though I guess.

That being said, the three funds I chose have indeed outperformed the rest of my portfolio the past two years, so I'm less salty about it. Notably AGTHX. So now that I'm not paying the bs fee to the lady at Farm Bureau, I let the money sit for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k2skier112

I have no idea where you got those numbers. I was estimating that someone starting to save for retirement would be between 20 and 30. And that person wouldn't have $250k to invest in 98% of 20 to 30 year olds

---

This is TGR. More like half.

About 8 years ago I cashed out a decent retirement balance from an old job - I know you're not supposed to.
Used the money for nice downpayment (and so I could qualify) on a nice property - which I think you are supposed to.

Around the same time I was starting a new job and maxing out contributions. I'll try to go back and compare retirement contributions (employee/employer) plus growth, as well as payments/appreciation on the property - Just to side-by-side which is the better growth investment.

So many variables maybe it's not a worthy comparison (risk tolerance and investing IQ, plus real estate markets are different everywhere). But just from the cuff I think my growth in property value has absolutely crushed that of my retirement accounts (which have done pretty well in their own right).

I hadn't thought about the comparison much before, somehow. Of course, the value of the property is somewhat .. i dunno .. I can't do anything with that unless I sell it and move away.
But for the sake of argument...

It's fucking insane how easy it is to be a financially responsible person yet not end up with enough money to retire. The only avenue available any more to achieve returns is run by a predatory industry and the value of your accounts potentially could collapse at any time. Not too long ago you could have a fee-less FDIC-insured online savings account that paid 5% if your balance was over $20k or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

It's fucking insane how easy it is to be a financially responsible person yet not end up with enough money to retire. The only avenue available any more to achieve returns is run by a predatory industry and the value of your accounts potentially could collapse at any time. Not too long ago you could have a fee-less FDIC-insured online savings account that paid 5% if your balance was over $20k or so.

---

Yea, I mean I make a pretty good buck and the only reason I may be able to even consider retiring before SS and Medicare kick in is due to holding stock in the companies I’ve worked for.

I will say though, I do plan on being retired for about as long as I worked full time. That is pretty bonkers. 50 years ago people were mostly lucky to be retired for 15-20 years before they died. My parents retired at 60. Given family histories and current health they will probably live well into their 90s if not longer.

If I spend more years working than not I will consider myself to have failed. Well not failed but that's the goal for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neufox47

Yea, I mean I make a pretty good buck and the only reason I may be able to even consider retiring before SS and Medicare kick in is due to holding stock in the companies I’ve worked for.

I will say though, I do plan on being retired for about as long as I worked full time. That is pretty bonkers. 50 years ago people were mostly lucky to be retired for 15-20 years before they died. My parents retired at 60. Given family histories and current health they will probably live well into their 90s if not longer.

---

At some point people were lasting an average of < 3 years after retiring from IBM so they gave us all small life insurance policies (12k) to pay for the funeral which brought about the term cradle-to-grave

i think I figured out that with the DB pension I will earn more money in pension than i did in salary if i live to 90, a very likely scenario having the superiour hAZN jeans

It sez something about the long game

I don't see retiring before 65 so being retired for half my working life is out of the picture. Heck, I'm in my 50s so it's right on the cusp of being out of the picture even if I retired tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I don't see retiring before 65 so being retired for half my working life is out of the picture. Heck, I'm in my 50s so it's right on the cusp of being out of the picture even if I retired tomorrow.

---

Yer kid ain't even a teenager yet... that's gonna cut YEARS off your lifespan. Might want to consider retiring now. :fmicon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Yer kid ain't even a teenager yet... that's gonna cut YEARS off your lifespan. Might want to consider retiring now. :fmicon:

---

heh, yeah. I will hit 65 right about when she graduates college (assuming she goes to college and does it in 4-5 years). I figure that's a reasonable target to shoot for, I'll have maybe 25 years of service credit in PERA by then (assuming that I stay employed and PERA stays solvent).

Looks like the Edward Jones discussion died and I should probably leave it that way but I have an anecdote. Have a buddy who is a "financial planner." Always been a stand up guy. never asked him specifically where he worked, just never came up. When my Dad died and my mom had a chunk of money to mess with, I had her call him just to feel things out. Apparently my mother is more impulsive with dough than some and toss everything this guy's way. It also turns out that he worked for EJ and when I dug into their fee structure, I was pretty pissed. As time passed, I dug into performance and holy shit this guy is crushing for her. Long story short, the load is an anachronism that retained some legs because the regulators havent stepped in yet and people will pay it, but it all comes down to the juice in exchange for the squeeze I suppose. I think front load may legally go the way of exorbitant loan yield spread premiums due to consumer protection laws and more transactional transparency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

It's fucking insane how easy it is to be a financially responsible person yet not end up with enough money to retire. The only avenue available any more to achieve returns is run by a predatory industry and the value of your accounts potentially could collapse at any time. Not too long ago you could have a fee-less FDIC-insured online savings account that paid 5% if your balance was over $20k or so.

---

Used to be the banks could charge 8% interest on loans made from your 2% cost + maintenance savings account, so you could get paid and they could still have a solid NIM. If they only charge 3-4% on the loans now, there's not much left over to pay savers, even if they've cut a bunch of overhead costs/reduced branches/moved to online, etc.

Besides, saving is unamerican! Go do your civic duty and buy more shit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

At some point people were lasting an average of < 3 years after retiring from IBM

---

I've heard the same rumor about my company and I think it's pretty clearly BS if you really think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyCarter

Used to be the banks could charge 8% interest on loans made from your 2% cost + maintenance savings account, so you could get paid and they could still have a solid NIM. If they only charge 3-4% on the loans now, there's not much left over to pay savers, even if they've cut a bunch of overhead costs/reduced branches/moved to online, etc.

---

Those poor banks only making hundreds of billions every year.

Will someone think of the banks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

I've heard the same rumor about my company and I think it's pretty clearly BS if you really think about it.

---

Life expectancy has increased by thirty years since the beginning of the twentieth century. (Thanks to vaccinations, more than anything) When FDR passed social security, people were lucky to enjoy just a few years of it in the late thirties/forties. Even in the fifties/sixties, when most old school corporate plans were established, and the actuaries wrote the rules in stone, most men were really old at 75.

I supose you can make stats mean anything but why would they thro out that number and then offer to pay for a funeral ?

maybe at some point in earlier times people had shittier lifestyles, smoked alot , no exercise, were working right to 65 and didnt do well when they were no longer on the ball, for a lot of people who would appear to have it all made retirement is actualy hard, i have had guys talk about it , they actualy like going to work and being someone



those were very different times, when I joined a greasy little christian business man brought me into his office to make me an offer I couldn't refuse, i didnt realize it was a job for life, maybe cuz i was a spaced out 18yr old kid, i remember thinking they were having problems finding people more like them so they had to hire me, in any case if the < 3 years is true i beat the odds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Those poor banks only making hundreds of billions every year.

---

I am currently sitting in a building owned by a MT-based bank that has two completely empty floors (over 20k square feet total) that have been that way since the building was finished in 2018. Meanwhile, they have since built another 3 story building on the other side of town (about 3 miles away) that is fully empty except for their tiny branch office. My read on this is that the bank has so much money they have no fucking idea what to do with it and they just figure real estate is a good investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mazderati

Will someone think of the banks!

---

Weird take on that statement, but ok.

How about:
Fed policy has made all money cheap. Ergo, we all get crazy low rates to buy houses, cars, RVs and snow machines, but the downside is, our money is so cheap that no one will pay us to borrow it anymore.

Is that better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

I supose you can make stats mean anything but why would they thro out that number and then offer to pay for a funeral ?

maybe at some point in earlier times people had shittier lifestyles, smoked alot , no exercise, were working right to 65 and didnt do well when they were no longer on the ball, for a lot of people who would appear to have it all made retirement is actualy hard, i have had guys talk about it , they actualy like going to work and being someone

---

I think this is all true and I'm sure many people did die within three years of retirement, I just don't believe most people died within three years of retirement.

nawww it’s more like money is so cheap to those with money, the disparity in one’s ability to exponentially make money without working via leverage is supporting inflation only a small % can actually back with their monthly nut

“we all get crazy low rates” reads like you’re in a bubble (know you’re not that type). i’ve never had a loan on an asset in my life.

the stock market plays and mortgage refinancing every 6 mo is a luxury the median doesn’t have or likely even understand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shroom

nawww it’s more like money is so cheap to those with money, the disparity in one’s ability to exponentially make money without working via leverage is supporting inflation only a small % can actually back with their monthly nut

“we all get crazy low rates” reads like you’re in a bubble (know you’re not that type). i’ve never had a loan on an asset in my life.

the stock market plays and mortgage refinancing every 6 mo is a luxury the median doesn’t have or likely even understand

---

There's a fancy phrase for what you're describing...it's called The Cantillon Effect.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

You missed the MOST IBMer part, I' m talking about people in the Big Blue machine who wore the suits/white shirts/muted ties for > 30 years of their working existance, for whom it was a thing

notice i didnt use the word " life "

Now days the whizz kids come to work dressed like a Starbucks barrista