well so far my small cap vs big cap indicator is working - I wrote about it on the 5th and the market never went materially below the lows of that day.
but anything can happen of course - I repeat I am not betting any money on this and it is not scientific.
Maserati wrote:
Flagpole, 55 or 60 is old. You might not think it is, but it is. By the time you are 60, you are no longer middle-aged. I spend my time "investing", exercising, traveling, and spending time with family, and have for a while now, while I am middle-aged. Yours is the type of exactly standard outcome that I have always found horrifying, if only for its standardization and utter psychological predictability, if not predictability of outcome. I almost hope for your sake that it doesn't go for you as planned.
For you, that standard outcome is "good enough", for me, it is not, never has been, and never will be. Between today and the time I am 60, I will have lived another entire life compared to you.
This guy retired @ 30 using.. Index funds.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/18/how-to-make-money-in-the-stock-market/Just because you can retire years earlier than flagpole doesn't make your investment strategy better. Time and time again people have proven they can't time the market. According to this article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/10/11/indexes-beat-active-funds-again-in-sp-study/), more than 65% of managed funds did worse than the S&P 500 and that doesn't even take into accout Vanguards dirt cheap fees which saves even more. Those are funds run by pros who spend 40-80 hours a week scouring for extra info..
Up goes the Dow but it won't break 17,000 again this month.
You still don't get it.
Do you think that target-date funds "time the market" by adjusting asset allocation as the target date approaches?
Also, if my essential goal regarding "investing" is to, as soon as possible, have enough that I don't need to work a 9-5 job and having more freedom to do what I want to, rather than what I need to, yes, my investment strategy has been better, for me.
I know all about the relative performance of managed funds. I "manage my own funds", directly. There is a big difference between somebody doing it for a job, and somebody doing it for themselves--the money doesn't disappear, it has to go somewhere. The options of where to put it, and what it can do while there, are not the same between myself, and a fund manager, due to securities regulations. Hedge fund mangers have more leeway, of course, but it still isn't the same. Private equity is better.
And 40-80 hours per week? You're wrong, that is just the time that they get paid for. They, like me, spend every waking hour observing, listening, thinking, and deciding about these things. Many, if not most, have less experience than I do, and are just plain less effective at synthesis and action, and don't have the same range of options professionally as I have personally.
Good day for the DJIA, all sectors up, now 16,554 up 186.
SP500 up 22 to 1932
Still nothing much to see here.
Today's action: DCB or BTFD?
la gente está muy loca wrote:
Today's action: DCB or BTFD?
eh?
so the sp 500 has recovered 2.0% from the bottom...after losing 4.3% at its worst.
I suspect we are not done with the downturn, but who knows. Often there is turbulence around the time man companies report earnings - January, April, July, October
and yes, I am making money on my gold gambit. around 0.1% worth of pure unadulterated, profit.
Econ 101 wrote:
Thank you for the clarification, Maserati. Though I enjoy reading Flagpole's posts and typically find a lot of good information and advice in them, I agree that his formula is not for everyone. For example, I retired at 58 with two mortgages and about $250k in savings/investments between my wife and myself (she retired two years later). Though Flagpole might not approve of that, I can confidently tell you that we are "living the dream."
Btw, I also enjoy reading posts by you and agip. Thanks for the education, gentlemen.
Econ 101,
If you don't mind sharing (I promise this isn't a way for me to criticize you, and I will not do that), I would like to perhaps LEARN from you. People have accused me of being unwilling to learn, and I reject that notion and am proving it here.
When you retired, did you have a pension? Or does your wife have a pension? If so, is that in addition to Social Security? Finally, what kind of monthly outgo are we talking about for the two mortgages, and were either of them supplemented by a renter?
Maserati wrote:
And 40-80 hours per week? You're wrong, that is just the time that they get paid for. They, like me, spend every waking hour observing, listening, thinking, and deciding about these things. Many, if not most, have less experience than I do, and are just plain less effective at synthesis and action, and don't have the same range of options professionally as I have personally.
I've worked with fund managers, brokers, investment bankers and private bankers and the majority of them are headed home or to the pub within an hour of market close.
Most trading is done by computers anyway.
Not My Usual Handle wrote:
Maserati wrote:And 40-80 hours per week? You're wrong, that is just the time that they get paid for. They, like me, spend every waking hour observing, listening, thinking, and deciding about these things. Many, if not most, have less experience than I do, and are just plain less effective at synthesis and action, and don't have the same range of options professionally as I have personally.
I've worked with fund managers, brokers, investment bankers and private bankers and the majority of them are headed home or to the pub within an hour of market close.
Most trading is done by computers anyway.
You are quite correct--however every time I hang out with these types, the conversation mostly centers around economic/fiscal/market factors. They're always looking for patterns, some new way to make some money, not just for their funds but for themselves, because they are exposed to so much buying/selling/trading of large amounts.
That's all I meant, I didn't mean to say that they were especially diligent, rational, or meticulous in their efforts. The good ones, of course (few and far between, as in any area of endeavor), are.
Flagpole wrote:
Econ 101 wrote:Thank you for the clarification, Maserati. Though I enjoy reading Flagpole's posts and typically find a lot of good information and advice in them, I agree that his formula is not for everyone. For example, I retired at 58 with two mortgages and about $250k in savings/investments between my wife and myself (she retired two years later). Though Flagpole might not approve of that, I can confidently tell you that we are "living the dream."
Btw, I also enjoy reading posts by you and agip. Thanks for the education, gentlemen.
Econ 101,
If you don't mind sharing (I promise this isn't a way for me to criticize you, and I will not do that), I would like to perhaps LEARN from you. People have accused me of being unwilling to learn, and I reject that notion and am proving it here.
When you retired, did you have a pension? Or does your wife have a pension? If so, is that in addition to Social Security? Finally, what kind of monthly outgo are we talking about for the two mortgages, and were either of them supplemented by a renter?
Flagpole, I am happy to fill in the blanks. Of course, my previous post did not include all of the details. Once you get a more complete story, I think you will approve.
Yes, I am receiving a defined benefits pension from the state. My wife is also, though hers is relatively small due to a much shorter term of service. Combined it is currently worth approximately $85,000/year. So that's similar to having $2 million in an IRA or other retirement investment plan. We also have north of $200,000 invested as a hedge against inflation and perhaps for a little fun. We will both eventually receive a small amount from SS.
Our primary home was paid off several years ago. Five years ago we bought a house near the beach that we planned to retire to within five years. I took a home equity loan on our primary residence to cover the 20% down payment on the second house and had a mortgage on the new house to cover the rest. Fast forward a few years to when we have both retired (with two mortgages). We move to the beach house (downsizing), sell our first house, and use the proceeds to pay off the mortgages.
So now we're living at the beach (we're 0.25 mi from the ocean with water views from a couple of rooms) with no mortgage or car loans. The credit cards are paid off every month. Our third and youngest child recently graduated from college with about $19,000 in debt, but we have about $14,000 set aside to help her with that. Our older two children have had their loans paid off with some help from us. Oh, and they're all employed and not living with us.
Living the dream.
Econ 101 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Econ 101,
If you don't mind sharing (I promise this isn't a way for me to criticize you, and I will not do that), I would like to perhaps LEARN from you. People have accused me of being unwilling to learn, and I reject that notion and am proving it here.
When you retired, did you have a pension? Or does your wife have a pension? If so, is that in addition to Social Security? Finally, what kind of monthly outgo are we talking about for the two mortgages, and were either of them supplemented by a renter?
Flagpole, I am happy to fill in the blanks. Of course, my previous post did not include all of the details. Once you get a more complete story, I think you will approve.
Yes, I am receiving a defined benefits pension from the state. My wife is also, though hers is relatively small due to a much shorter term of service. Combined it is currently worth approximately $85,000/year. So that's similar to having $2 million in an IRA or other retirement investment plan. We also have north of $200,000 invested as a hedge against inflation and perhaps for a little fun. We will both eventually receive a small amount from SS.
Our primary home was paid off several years ago. Five years ago we bought a house near the beach that we planned to retire to within five years. I took a home equity loan on our primary residence to cover the 20% down payment on the second house and had a mortgage on the new house to cover the rest. Fast forward a few years to when we have both retired (with two mortgages). We move to the beach house (downsizing), sell our first house, and use the proceeds to pay off the mortgages.
So now we're living at the beach (we're 0.25 mi from the ocean with water views from a couple of rooms) with no mortgage or car loans. The credit cards are paid off every month. Our third and youngest child recently graduated from college with about $19,000 in debt, but we have about $14,000 set aside to help her with that. Our older two children have had their loans paid off with some help from us. Oh, and they're all employed and not living with us.
Living the dream.
Sounds good to me, brother. Thanks for the info.
Up goes the... everything. What a great start to my Wednesday. Are you guys all cleaning up today as well?
Also, what do we all think about GE?
Nikkei NikkeiNine Doors wrote:
Up goes the... everything. What a great start to my Wednesday. Are you guys all cleaning up today as well?
Also, what do we all think about GE?
good day, ja - stocks and bonds are both up - everyone's happy today.
We're still 3.0% below the all time highs - but climbing back up in that direction.
The small cap/big cap indicator I wrote about 2 weeks ago has worked brilliantly this time
GE? Who could possibly have a view on GE? It's like having a view on cement - it's there, it's important, it's everywhere, we all own some in some way
Signor Maserati,
Oped piece today in the WSJ about the sort of infrastructure crisis you have been writing about - this one a terrorist EMP pulse. One more nightmare scenario.
it would cost $2 bn to safeguard against this - freaking pocket change. This is where democracy falls down - who is going to stand up and ask for $2 bn to protect against a threat that 99.9% probability will never happen in our lifetimes?
global stocks down just 2.0% from their all time highs
SP 500 just 1.5% below its all time highs
nice quiet rebound - encouraging
Too bad the reds can't keep their tanks out of Ukraine.
Trolls get hungry too wrote:
Too bad the reds can't keep their tanks out of Ukraine.
I'll tell you - I've been reading about the late 1930s and how Hitler started vacuuming up border areas with ethnic germans in them...I really can't find a material difference between what Russia is doing and what Nazi Germany was doing.
Doesn't necessarily mean that we will end up fighting the russians directly or via proxy, but it is frightening.
The differences are nuclear weapons and globalization - Russia truly cannot afford to be isolated internationally - sanctions can work here. And no war between nations with nukes is likely ever to happen.
Preview Wednesday wrote:
Worries over Russian troops amassing near the Ukraine border caused a sharp sell-off in global stock markets on Wednesday.
Good buying opportunity for when the crisis is over.
The British would not have gone to war with Germany over the annexation of areas of neighbouring countries with German populations, as they were historically German and part of it as recently as two decades earlier.
You don't have to worry.
Randy Oldman wrote:
The British would not have gone to war with Germany over the annexation of areas of neighbouring countries with German populations, as they were historically German and part of it as recently as two decades earlier.
You don't have to worry.
you're being sarcastic, right? The British in fact went to war with Germany over the invasion of Poland, which had a material German population.
the parallel today would be if the russians tried to annex a NATO country - one of the baltics, or Poland again.
that would probably mean war. amazingly enough.