Check out this Mutual Fund for last 35 years - amazing!

Did you read what I wrote? I mentioned how it did the last 35 years - NOT SINCE 1990 - okay?

If you posted this as a tip 35 years ago it might have been useful

I will now post last nights lottery results

Here is one I bought for $2,000 in 1975, I think. Never added on. Even with dividends, etc., total value today is about $8900. I didn't get rich from this IRA, that is for sure....seems like similar returns to the Penn one...?

Ho Hum wrote:

I'm glad your gamble paid off, but it's just a gamble. That you have a founding myth to explain how gold will continue to rise doesn't really change the fact that you are gambling.

Oh! Finally someone responded and I got the typical answer. Just tells me gold and silver are far from a crowded trade which gives me comfort that my investments have a very long way to go to the upside. Enjoy your currency debasement.

Senior Software Engineer wrote:

Oh! Finally someone responded and I got the typical answer. Just tells me gold and silver are far from a crowded trade which gives me comfort that my investments have a very long way to go to the upside. Enjoy your currency debasement.

Iceland let all their banks go and embraced austerity, just as the Russians did many years ago before restructuring and what we should've done. Instead, we are going to pursue a path of prolonged debt-deflation, and asset inflation is merely the short-intermediate term symptom. Japan is now buying not only JGBs, as they have for 20 years, but equities as well (which the Fed does through its proxy of POMOs).

However, some sectors will benefit from the Fed's recalcitrant attitude toward the "new normal." Agree on what you own and think commodities, particularly energy, are still in a secular bull. However, they are ripe for a pullback, even if they "go" through year-end.

There are lots of great funds out there, and some stinkers too.

Here are some randomly chosen funds I own (all percentages are annual returns):

Artisan Mid Cap Inv CL - has done 13.73% for life (1997).

Fidelity Contrafund - 12.28% for life (1967)

Fidelity Diversified International Fund - only 8.85% for life (1991)

Fidelity Dividend Growth - 10.23% for life (1993).

Fidelity Small Cap Discovery Fund - 9.48% for life (2000).

Fidelity U.S. Bond Index Fund - only 7.10% for life (1990) but they are bonds after all.

Vanguard Wellington Fund Investor Shares - only 8.12% for life (1929).

Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund Investor Shares - 10.40% for life (1960).

Vanguard Windsor II Fund Investor Shares - 10.22% for life (1985)

Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund Investor Shares - 10.30% for life (1987)

With the proper amount invested (at least 15% of your income) you can become wealthy over 35 years with those returns. And those aren't even anything out of the ordinary...on average, they all equal to be about average. I have other funds too that all range anywhere from 8% up to 15% annual return for life.

Key I think is to own several funds, don't get skittish about a down year (usually if one has a bad year, I'll keep it but then start a new fund), and to continue to invest twice a month like clockwork.

oh so now the sorry science counts and real actions for peace don't?

jjjjjj wrote:

oh so now the sorry science counts and real actions for peace don't?

Scares the hell out of me that you're a teacher. You're the guy who unfolds a world map for all of his students, puts a boatload of cookies on the USA, some on Europe, even fewer in South America, and like half a cookie on Africa. And then you leave it at that, as though the explanation belies itself.

I have and would teach math in a second life, but for the entrenched, non-competitive bureaucracy in our schools and the "constraints" imposed by such lunacy.

Gee, thanks Flagpole. Now if you can direct us to a time machine that can go back 15 years, 20 years, 40 years, we can invest in these funds and then have the time machine return us to present day so we can wallow in our riches. Of course, you also need to find jobs for all of us that allow us to invest 15% of our gross income without starving our familes and/or putting us neck deep into debt.

You're a true genius

Anyone with a middle-class income should be able to comfortably invest 15% of income. It's not some crazy number.

The last 35 years should have a much higher ROR than the last 10 years. The DJIA (I Know it is crappy) was 852 in Dec 1975. Its up over 10x since then. In the past 10 years is up about 10%.The other thing to factor in is that you are cherry picking years. Make it a 37 year calculation (i.e. add in the years where the fund lost LOST 46% and 48% back to back) and the rate goes way down. How much will your 19% drop when you lose that initial year of 121% gain in 1975?

Paula Struthers wrote:

Mcgato - you mention 22.20% and 14.72% for 10 years ... Penn has does almost 19% for 35 years! I again challenge anyone to find a fund that has done that over that timer period.

Middle class is roughly 25k to 100k. If you a single making 100k, it is easy to save 30% of your income (more if you can do it pretax). If you are making 25k, saving 15% can be hard.But hell the poverty line is like 15k. You should be able to save 100% (after tax) of any money after that right?

Lola wrote:

Anyone with a middle-class income should be able to comfortably invest 15% of income. It's not some crazy number.

Real UncleB,Just because the last 10 years have done worse than the average of the life of those funds, that doesn't mean that the last 10 years average is going to be typical going forward for the next 10, 20, 30 years, and I would bet NOT. I was beginning to think about putting money in the stock market at the end of 1987 after the big crash, but I was told it was foolish, and so I held off for 2 more years. In 1989 I was still told it was foolish, but I entered the market when the Dow was at 2700. Glad I did. There are lots of ways to make money, but ONE of them (and one of the least risky and yet still potentially very profitable) is to invest in retirement accounts (401k and Roth IRAs) in good growth stock mutual funds.It is MORE accurate to look at the life of a fund than to look at a shorter amount of time. Usually things eventually pull to the average.So, I can't direct you to a time machine, but I CAN give you advice from someone who has been there...do NOT listen to the naysayers, because you will ALWAYS find someone who says it's not a good idea to put money into the stock market. Do so NOW so that in 20, 30 years, you can look back and be glad you did. Would have been better to be in at 6400 Dow in March 2009, but that ship has sailed.Do note that those funds did that well DESPITE a lackluster last 10 years. Imagine where the market will go once we are finally past all this crap and into real prosperity (and while that might be a few years off yet, it IS coming). Believe it!

Lola wrote:

Anyone with a middle-class income should be able to comfortably invest 15% of income. It's not some crazy number.

Agreed. It's NOT that hard at all. I've done that and more on just one income with a family of 4 the last 13+ years. (Though I did drop it down to 5% for a little over a year in there when I had a drastic salary cut, but then back up to 15% and more when that bump was over).

The ship that has sailed is silver, gold, commodity-based currencies, emerging markets, etc. Sure the DJIA likes the hint of fiscal restraint in Washington, extension of all the tax cuts, which likely takes a serious dip in growth off the table in the short-term, and the Fed's POMOs and perpetual debt monetization, which is code for further confiscation of wealth from the taxpayer and higher energy, food, and clothing costs, as well as "asset inflation." However, your nominal "gauges" measured in terms of a purchasing power proxy are meaningless. That's why we've allowed for a DJIA with further to go, especially with the underperforming mananger, end-of-year chase, but why anyone would want to own the US defies me.

Full disclosure: Where it concerns the US, I do own some small cap and a well-diversified fixed income fund, because I'm not worried about hyperinflation. And I guess you can call some metal ETFs "US," though they're not really a trade on the US.

I hope you are right and THINK you are with regard to silver and gold especially. I'm in agreement with you on extension of tax cuts and mostly on The Fed.As always though, I don't get all geeked about purchasing power as I've planned for that. Investing half my wife's and my income the first 7 years of our marriage and then up to 20%+ since then since 1989...that was done SOLELY to deal with inflation. In my opinion, people who are concerned about inflation (and I ALWAYS have been) need to put MORE into the market than they think they really need. While you can do VERY well on even 50% of your present income in retirement (assuming you are completely debt free with a paid for house), and certainly do decently well on the 70-80% that many experts throw out, it is very possible to have an income LARGER than you had while working in retirement, and that has always been my goal. Why? Increase of costs of things.And, just for the ones who haven't read this from me before, you buy US stocks as a PART of your portfolio, not ALL of it. You do this to remain well diversified.

Sagarin wrote:

The ship that has sailed is silver, gold, commodity-based currencies, emerging markets, etc. Sure the DJIA likes the hint of fiscal restraint in Washington, extension of all the tax cuts, which likely takes a serious dip in growth off the table in the short-term, and the Fed's POMOs and perpetual debt monetization, which is code for further confiscation of wealth from the taxpayer and higher energy, food, and clothing costs, as well as "asset inflation." However, your nominal "gauges" measured in terms of a purchasing power proxy are meaningless. That's why we've allowed for a DJIA with further to go, especially with the underperforming mananger, end-of-year chase, but why anyone would want to own the US defies me.

You are using the Drum Major Institute definition of what middle class is ($25,000-$100,000); many would disagree with that range. I wouldn't call 25K middle class except perhaps in the poorest of states where the cost of living is VERY low. Regardless though, that range is PRETTY close.I WOULD agree though that to be considered UPPER MIDDLE class that a person making $62,500 and living in a household that is ABOVE $100,000 in income would put them in the upper middle class range.Honestly, if two college-educated people (married) are both working, unless it is immediately after graduating or both are in low-income careers like Social Work or sports training or something like that, you OUGHT to be considered upper middle class (meaning you'd be making MORE than $100,000 a year).An interesting question though would be what if a married couple makes $100,000+ for several years and manages to pay for a house completely in what would be considered an upper-class neighborhood and then the wife stays home with children for 10+ years while the husband makes only about $70,000. Their lifestyle hasn't really been impacted greatly as they still live in the house they bought, and since they now own it, the loss of the second income doesn't hurt too much. I would still call them upper middle class even though they aren't making $100,000+ anymore. I think it's more of a philosophical point of view than a monetary one.

asdfasdfas wrote:

Middle class is roughly 25k to 100k. If you a single making 100k, it is easy to save 30% of your income (more if you can do it pretax). If you are making 25k, saving 15% can be hard.

But hell the poverty line is like 15k. You should be able to save 100% (after tax) of any money after that right?

Lola wrote:

Anyone with a middle-class income should be able to comfortably invest 15% of income. It's not some crazy number.

Personally I put the middle class at 25-75k. That is about 50% off the population. If you want to make it the middle third that would ~32k to 65k. Doesn't really change the argument. It is a lot easier to save 15% when your making 65k than when your making 32k. The fixed things in life (car, rent, food,..) dominate for that first 15-30k or so of income. After that it comes down to do you want to save, go on vacations, drive nicer cars, life in better neighborhoods, have kids,.... You can reduce that initial number but it require sacrifices that aren't exactly middle class. Not many 40 year old want to rent a room in a house, buy clothes at the salvation army and so on.As far as your comment about 2 college educated people, sure they should be upper middle class. Of course you have to remember less than 25% of 25+ people had bachelor degrees in 2000. You would expect them to be in the top 25% of income.Some of the class stuff is more cultural (i.e. the school teacher is middle class. The auto mechanic is not even though he out earns her) but when talking about savings the economic definition probably makes more sense.