I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Flagpole made one critical (correct) observation a long time ago, and has since done nothing other than implement a passive strategy.
Lazy, and potentially brilliant. Or maybe just disciplined or arrogant enough to never second-guess, although the doubt is there.
Between those options, I will choose lazy--it's much more fun. OK, actively lazy, if you want.
Flagpole correctly went the index route. Only route to go. Basically, invest in index funds and let them grow. Buy and hold.
Believe it or not, I know people like Flagpole--same deal, but they bought BRK-A and just did nothing. I know 3 people who did this, and they are now absolutely loaded in their old age.
They did NOTHING. OK maybe Flagpole does the S&P instead and rebalances a little, but whatever. People like that do exist, and the 3 who I know are insanely loaded.
Believe it or not, I know people like Flagpole--same deal, but they bought BRK-A and just did nothing. I know 3 people who did this, and they are now absolutely loaded in their old age.
They did NOTHING. OK maybe Flagpole does the S&P instead and rebalances a little, but whatever. People like that do exist, and the 3 who I know are insanely loaded.
Over the last 20 years the S & P 500 index fund has beaten 90% of the very expensive actively managed mutual funds.
Kind of lame to say how much you made. What reason would you have to tell us. And you are probably lying.
I actually disagree with that. Although I only made enough to buy a decent bike, I never begrudge anybody their gain unless it is the result of either a scam, market manipulation, or insider trading.
Flagpole self-admittedly knows nobody, has no power, and does nothing as far as the markets are concerned. He is a lazy, powerless, nothing. What he got today was given to him, and he's right to take it, and be happy about it.
Yesterday supported that theme that all of a year's gain happens on essentially only 5 days, or something like that. And ditto the losses. I used to do very well by avoiding those critical down days, and I avoided essentially all of them--but it required vigilance, flexibility, and responsiveness--i.e. it took time.
But, of course, at the same time I did not participate in all of the 5 up days--in fact, hardly any.
With the markets arguably biased in an inexorably upward direction, it would seem to make more sense over time just to be in, and to endure the ups and downs. I am, however, waiting to avoid the next down, because I can afford to wait. I don't need to maximize at this point, and am psychologically comfortable with waiting. My slow grind higher continues today...
But hats off to those of you who are in, and who participated well yesterday, even Flagpole. Excellent!
Hmm. Well, I am lazy in the way that I invest (people spend WAY too much time deciding how to do that when they really just need to do it and go do other things), BUT some of the other things you mentioned are not correct.
1) Powerless? I beg to differ. I invested as I did for as long as I did so that I would have power. I had the power to retire in my mid 50s. I am now wealthy, and that gives me a lot of power and freedom to do what I want when I want to.
2) A nothing? Well, my family would disagree. If I were to die tomorrow, my wife would have no financial worries. I ran my own business in part to have the freedom to watch my kids participate in HS and college sports, and in so doing establishing strong bonds with them that have continued to this day.
3) What I have gained in the stock market was not given to me. I put money in knowing about what kind of return to expect. I have put in a LOT of money religiously since 1989, so I have earned everything I have gotten. Nothing has been given to me ever (well, except in this case...I have gained $15,000 total in my life from two separate inheritances...both from my wife's side of the family...a great Uncle (I think that was his title) who left us $5,000 and her grandparents who left us $10,000.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Flagpole made one critical (correct) observation a long time ago, and has since done nothing other than implement a passive strategy.
Lazy, and potentially brilliant. Or maybe just disciplined or arrogant enough to never second-guess, although the doubt is there.
Between those options, I will choose lazy--it's much more fun. OK, actively lazy, if you want.
we're probably not disagreeing too much.
the percentage of people able to do what Flagpole did is small.
almost everyone lacks the discipline to invest regularly over a lifetime and stay invested through the difficult times.
instead, most people never save and rely on social security for their retirements.
Anyone who gets done a lifetime of saving and investment is a hero in my book.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Flagpole made one critical (correct) observation a long time ago, and has since done nothing other than implement a passive strategy.
Lazy, and potentially brilliant. Or maybe just disciplined or arrogant enough to never second-guess, although the doubt is there.
Between those options, I will choose lazy--it's much more fun. OK, actively lazy, if you want.
Flagpole correctly went the index route. Only route to go. Basically, invest in index funds and let them grow. Buy and hold.
Not exactly right. I do not own anh index funds (though that's a great strategy).
I own a TON of different mutual funds, all made up of stocks, about as diversified as can be except just a TAD skewed toward growth.
I have bought since 1989, and I have never taken money out of the market after putting it in.
Yeah, I beat the S&P all the time, but only marginally, and at the cost of tens of thousands of hours of my time, and the "lifestyle" of engaging in non-traditional markets like fine art.
Was it worth it? I would have to say not. Yes I learned things but they aren't interesting things. The interest I developed in art and antiquities has essentially evaporated, and my knowledge thereof is now waning accordingly. Ditto other asset classes.
As far as the markets are concerned, I would have to say that the biggest thing I have learned may be the exact same thing that Flagpole learned a very long time ago.
So here we all are, probably at relatively the same place, via different paths. I don't know what I would have done with my time had I just been investing passively in the financial markets, but I'm sure I would have found something. Today, I am just trying to minimize tax and administrative burdens going forward, and manage sick family members. It's taking more of my time than ever.
Flagpole correctly went the index route. Only route to go. Basically, invest in index funds and let them grow. Buy and hold.
Not exactly right. I do not own anh index funds (though that's a great strategy).
I own a TON of different mutual funds, all made up of stocks, about as diversified as can be except just a TAD skewed toward growth.
I have bought since 1989, and I have never taken money out of the market after putting it in.
Flagpole - we agree on a lot but NOT on index funds versus actively managed funds. Index funds v. actively managed funds are like Babe Ruth v. Mendoza. No comparison.. Index funds rule.
Believe it or not, I know people like Flagpole--same deal, but they bought BRK-A and just did nothing. I know 3 people who did this, and they are now absolutely loaded in their old age.
They did NOTHING. OK maybe Flagpole does the S&P instead and rebalances a little, but whatever. People like that do exist, and the 3 who I know are insanely loaded.
Anyone who has invested as much as they should have since 1989 like I have would be loaded. That's just how it works. I have invested MORE than recommended since 1989, and that is why I was able to retire early. BUT, early retirement was not my intial goal. I just wanted to ensure that I had enough to retire at all. I was fortunate to always be employed during that time. I was fortunate to make more money than I thought I would and fortunate that my wife was able to land a professor job after 15 years out of the work force as a stay-at-home mom. I was preparing for the worst, and because the worst didn't happen, I ended up where I am now.
I say that with confidence because it takes one to know one.
I have seen real power--and we're not it. We do not move markets, we are along for the ride.
Whatever dude.
Do I have the power to change society? No. Don't want that.
Do I have the power to "move markets?" Of course not. Why would I want that?
I have all the power I could possibly want. I am retired. I can do what I want to do every single day. My investments bring me much more annually than I ever made while working. I say that's a lot of power, but I won't debate you on that further.
lol Flagpole, I don't think you understand what I mean by "loaded".
Let me ask you this: do you think your strategy will continue to be a success over the next 25 year period? And if so, do you plan to just continue the same strategy over that coming period?
Not exactly right. I do not own anh index funds (though that's a great strategy).
I own a TON of different mutual funds, all made up of stocks, about as diversified as can be except just a TAD skewed toward growth.
I have bought since 1989, and I have never taken money out of the market after putting it in.
Flagpole - we agree on a lot but NOT on index funds versus actively managed funds. Index funds v. actively managed funds are like Babe Ruth v. Mendoza. No comparison.. Index funds rule.
I don't disagree about index funds...that's just not the direction I went...and I didn't even do it my way because I thought it was better. I just started buying mutual funds...as many as I could. I am so diversified to day that it's almost as if I were just in index funds anyway.
lol Flagpole, I don't think you understand what I mean by "loaded".
Let me ask you this: do you think your strategy will continue to be a success over the next 25 year period? And if so, do you plan to just continue the same strategy over that coming period?
How much money do you consider for someone to be called, "loaded?"
Will my "strategy" continue to be a success over the next 25 years? Absolutely it will.
I'm not sure you understand. I could take all of my money and put it under my mattress at this point (wouldn't do that of course), and I would not come even close to spending it all, even if I spent more each year than I have ever made in my life and I live for 40 more years to age 97.
So, will my money in mutual funds make more than NOTHING the rest of my life? absolutely.
lol Flagpole, I don't think you understand what I mean by "loaded".
Let me ask you this: do you think your strategy will continue to be a success over the next 25 year period? And if so, do you plan to just continue the same strategy over that coming period?
How much money do you consider for someone to be called, "loaded?"
Will my "strategy" continue to be a success over the next 25 years? Absolutely it will.
I'm not sure you understand. I could take all of my money and put it under my mattress at this point (wouldn't do that of course), and I would not come even close to spending it all, even if I spent more each year than I have ever made in my life and I live for 40 more years to age 97.
So, will my money in mutual funds make more than NOTHING the rest of my life? absolutely.
In my assessment someone in Malibu is "loaded" with a net worth of $20 million. In Ohio, I would say someone it "loaded" when they have a net worth of around $30,000. Maybe $50,000.
How much money do you consider for someone to be called, "loaded?"
Will my "strategy" continue to be a success over the next 25 years? Absolutely it will.
I'm not sure you understand. I could take all of my money and put it under my mattress at this point (wouldn't do that of course), and I would not come even close to spending it all, even if I spent more each year than I have ever made in my life and I live for 40 more years to age 97.
So, will my money in mutual funds make more than NOTHING the rest of my life? absolutely.
In my assessment someone in Malibu is "loaded" with a net worth of $20 million. In Ohio, I would say someone it "loaded" when they have a net worth of around $30,000. Maybe $50,000.
Flagpole - if you only have $30,000 we still respect your investing expertize.
Believe it or not, I know people like Flagpole--same deal, but they bought BRK-A and just did nothing. I know 3 people who did this, and they are now absolutely loaded in their old age.
They did NOTHING. OK maybe Flagpole does the S&P instead and rebalances a little, but whatever. People like that do exist, and the 3 who I know are insanely loaded.
Anyone who has invested as much as they should have since 1989 like I have would be loaded. That's just how it works. I have invested MORE than recommended since 1989, and that is why I was able to retire early. BUT, early retirement was not my intial goal. I just wanted to ensure that I had enough to retire at all. I was fortunate to always be employed during that time. I was fortunate to make more money than I thought I would and fortunate that my wife was able to land a professor job after 15 years out of the work force as a stay-at-home mom. I was preparing for the worst, and because the worst didn't happen, I ended up where I am now.
You're not really retired until your spouse is retired. I retired in my 40s after selling my company. It took two years to convince my wife to retire too. You don’t really have the freedom to do what you want until then. It’s a big difference. Until she retires, you’re just a stay-at-home husband.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.