Retirement?

Maybe you can respond to what I posted rather than the repeating the same thing and summing up my posts to say what YOU want.

That was predictable, by the way. Yes, it was Reagan. No, it was Bush. (but DEFINITELY not any president in the last 40 years that you masturbate to).

Of course you just told me I don't have a clue. ... while again saying NOTHING in response to what I posted. By the "labor-business climate" do you mean that during that period businesses were finding it impossible to fund the group pension plans they were tied to, so they were shutting down plants, firing workers, underfunding the plans, diverting the funds to other uses, etc.?

Yeah, *I* am pretending about something. I'm not the person who sees everything through a second-grade political party prism and will twist himself in circles to keep trying to making his dumb narrative -- even if it means contradicting himself every other post.

One thing that did happen during that period of time was the advent of the 401(K) plan. It happened for a very specific reason. Pension plans were folding left and right (by necessity). ... and politicians stepped in to try to incentivize retirement savings in another way. Since then, we have just exacerbated those problems by idiotic meddling -- the kinds you advocate for (and shout down anyone who points out a reality you don't like). We all reap what you have sowed. Thanks.

 

Thanks for telling me what I believe and what I am. It's not like I don't represent myself on here in my posts.

I get made fun of for long, wordy posts that are didactic. But why let those posts on this thread speak for me? ... when cranberry can tell me I am some stupid cartoon in his head that bears no relation to what I posted. ... and dismiss me with a wave of his royal hand the way he does when someone points out a reality that contradicts his fantasy.

I have responded to your posts one by one -- responding to what you actually said *gasp*. I have no need to post stupid strawmen over and over again that I think belittle you. Your posts themselves are easy to respond to. It's the difference between someone who feels confident of the correctness of what he is saying. ... and someone trying to convince people of their bullshit, and needs to resort to logical fallacies (strawmen, lame mischaracterizations, arguing against the person instead of what they said).

 

I am not big on financial planners, just because with what most people are able to save, it is VERY difficult to grow money over time and meet the goals that they have. Paying someone else to do something most people really can do for themselves just takes money away from those savings that can be compounding over time.

That is me, though. If I were going to hire a financial planner. ... I would never work with someone who works on commission. Their interests just aren't aligned with what your interests might be. They are going to be selling investments that earn them the most. Not necessarily the best things for you. I'd want someone works for a straight fee -- and those kinds of planners typically take 1 percent of your assets per year. That is on top of the fees the investment vehicles they put your money in charge -- and often they are using high-fee mutual funds or ETFs that can have expense ratios in excess of another 1 percent. Those percentages are huge.

Most people -- the typical person who isn't going to watch very closely -- can define how much they can save themselves. And based on how long they have till retirement, they can figure out how aggressively they need to invest that money to try to grow it. It's not that difficult -- how aggressive do you think you have to be, but also keeping in mind your tolerance for the risk. Are you going to lose sleep because you have everything you own in the Vietnamese stock market?

From there, diversification is the key, and for that, low-expense index funds make the most sense, in my opinion. Things like Vanguard's index funds or index ETFs. The expenses are VERY low -- which is a huge part of their advantage.

You aren't trying to pick winners or losers or be smarter than you really are. You just want to sprinkle money across an asset allocation mix (that meets your goals) and diversify broadly. Thinks like the Wilshire 5000 (which is the total stock market in the U.S.) the S&P 500, the MSCI Global Index, which spreads you into other equity markets in the world including the emerging markets), and some kind of total bond fund that has an intermediate maturity and is broadly investment grade.

For most people, they can accomplish what they need with only three or four broad index funds. Then set it. ... and forget it. Just keep dollar cost averaging, meaning that you automatically add a set amount to each of your funds every month (so you are not buying at all highs, hopefully). You can't completely forget it -- you need to look at it at least 3 or 4 times a year, simply to rebalance. Let's say you have an asset allocation mix of 60 percent U.S. equities, 40 percent U.S. Bonds (not saying that is a formula -- it's just an example). And let's say over the quarter the stock market went on a run, so now your money is in 65 percent equities and only 35 percent bonds. You just shift some of the money from your equity portion into the bond portion to bring your mix back to 60 / 40. It is counterintuitive to what most people do. When something is appreciating in price, they want to run with it -- and from a trading standpoint there is actually merit to that. But you are not trading. But for most people, they shouldn't be gambling with their retirement money or trying to be Warren Buffett -- you want a plan that has a historical basis for meeting the type of goal you have. And you want to stick to that plan -- the mix of assets that meets your intended objectives. If you are trying for home runs, you run a big risk of striking out. Through broad diversification, you hope to hit singles or double while cutting down on the strikeouts. ...