
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.
"fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
Bookmarks