Sorry Flagpole, I'm talking about actually loaded. I won't get into it.
So if you think your strategy will continue to work for the next 25 years, will you be sticking to it? Will you change it in any way?
-
01
-
Re-tried wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
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.
I will agree that that's partially right. As a college professor, she has a LOT of time off...all summer, two large breaks during the school year. We can and do travel when she's not teaching. I'm not one to want to be constantly traveling, so staying at home, playing my musical instruments and some online games is pretty good for me...and really, pretty much close to exactly what I want.
10 -
m.a.s.e.r.a.t.i wrote:
Sorry Flagpole, I'm talking about actually loaded. I won't get into it.
So if you think your strategy will continue to work for the next 25 years, will you be sticking to it? Will you change it in any way?
Ok. Pretty convenient to not tell me what you define as "loaded." It is subjective after all.
I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. Do I THINK my strategy of letting my money sit in mutual funds for the next 25 years is a good strategy? Absolutely yes. Could something happen that drastically changes how the market behaves and likely will continue to behave in the future so that I change my "strategy?" Yes. Do I anticipate that? No.
Again, I'm not sure you understand. I got to where I am based on an annual return that has averaged in the 11+% range since 1989. Do I EXPECT that to continue? No. I have NEVER expected that level of return at any point which is why I invested as much as I did. Could it continue like that? Yes. Do I need it to? No. I don't really care how the market does now the rest of my life. I have more than enough money no matter what. Even if the market crashed to 10% of its current worth, I have no debt. I could live eventually on Social Security alone for a while as I wait for the market to recover if I had to (once I am old enough to take SS). I DO also have currently three YEARS of expenses (actually it's closer to 4 years now) in cash, so there's that.
You sound like you have some sort of Doomsday thing in mind. I've heard it all before. I was advised heavily against invested at all in 1989 when I began. I'm glad I didn't listen. I have seen "experts" say that equities are done, that it's too risky to invest in the stock market almost every year since 1989. Just hogwash.
20 -
Even before I started investing. NONSENSE!
20 -
Doomsday? lol
Relax Flag, I’m not here to flame you. In fact, quite the opposite.
I do not dismiss your last 25yrs as arbitrary, and am genuinely interested in your thesis for the next 25yrs.
00 -
m.a.s.e.r wrote:
Doomsday? lol
Relax Flag, I’m not here to flame you. In fact, quite the opposite.
I do not dismiss your last 25yrs as arbitrary, and am genuinely interested in your thesis for the next 25yrs.
Until governments around the world stop putting their thumb on the scale of the stock market for the purpose of helping the wealthy in their countries, I will continue to keep my money right where it is...and maybe even beyond that as I no longer require a return of any kind.
I couldn't care less if you flame me. My accounts tell me that anyone who does so on this topic is full of sh!t.
10 -
m.a.s.e.r wrote:
Doomsday? lol
Relax Flag, I’m not here to flame you. In fact, quite the opposite.
I do not dismiss your last 25yrs as arbitrary, and am genuinely interested in your thesis for the next 25yrs.
You should invest in a way that is best for you. I do not know your situation. I created my situation so that I now don't really care how the market does. Most people are never in that situation until they are on their death bed.
10 -
Flagpole wrote:
m.a.s.e.r wrote:
Doomsday? lol
Relax Flag, I’m not here to flame you. In fact, quite the opposite.
I do not dismiss your last 25yrs as arbitrary, and am genuinely interested in your thesis for the next 25yrs.
You should invest in a way that is best for you. I do not know your situation. I created my situation so that I now don't really care how the market does. Most people are never in that situation until they are on their death bed.
Looks like someone could use your help, Flaggy:
11 -
Why do you sound so twitchy? You are acting as though you are being flamed, but you are not.
Now you have worked yourself into a lather. You are in the market, but you really don't care how it does? ok, then.
Return is one thing, capital preservation is another. I was going to ask you about your views on public vs private equity markets, cap gains proposals, stepped-up basis, etc., but now I'm not sure that you have anything to offer.
21 -
m.a.s.e.r.a.t.i. wrote:
Why do you sound so twitchy? You are acting as though you are being flamed, but you are not.
Now you have worked yourself into a lather. You are in the market, but you really don't care how it does? ok, then.
Return is one thing, capital preservation is another. I was going to ask you about your views on public vs private equity markets, cap gains proposals, stepped-up basis, etc., but now I'm not sure that you have anything to offer.
I'd add the effect of declining populations in most investable nations. Have to think that's going to hurt future returns. Having an ever-growing population used to give a steady and dependable growthy tailwind to economies.
But now...with populations shrinking or set to shrink, that is gone. Should probably bring a lower multiple for the market eventually. Maybe sooner than we think.
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.10 -
And few are making game theory analysis of the sunsetting of Republican tax cuts of 2017 on 12/31/2025.
01 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Looks like someone could use your help, Flaggy:
An old man with debt. Sounds a lot like Igy. 😂
11 -
agip wrote:
m.a.s.e.r.a.t.i. wrote:
Why do you sound so twitchy? You are acting as though you are being flamed, but you are not.
Now you have worked yourself into a lather. You are in the market, but you really don't care how it does? ok, then.
Return is one thing, capital preservation is another. I was going to ask you about your views on public vs private equity markets, cap gains proposals, stepped-up basis, etc., but now I'm not sure that you have anything to offer.
I'd add the effect of declining populations in most investable nations. Have to think that's going to hurt future returns. Having an ever-growing population used to give a steady and dependable growthy tailwind to economies.
But now...with populations shrinking or set to shrink, that is gone. Should probably bring a lower multiple for the market eventually. Maybe sooner than we think.
Interesting dynamics in play here, and I appreciate that they have been brought up for consideration, including those raised by Mas. and GOI.
As for the shrinking working pool, it reasonably would manifest with less money going into S.S. and retirement funds and thus the markets, and that is understood. But would the fact that retirement age is going up - people are generally working longer - offset that to some extent? In short, less people paying in, but the ones that remain are paying in for longer duration. Just a thought....
I think, though, that longer lifespans in general would have an averse effect in that people will be drawing funds out for a greater duration, Clearly, that would be a drain on S.S.,, but not sure about the markets.
01 -
Gruntz wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Looks like someone could use your help, Flaggy:
An old man with debt. Sounds a lot like Igy. 😂
Nope. I had good enough credit to buy real estate and a sports car at 2.875%. Paid off.
00 -
Flagpole wrote:
Even before I started investing. NONSENSE!
I came home from a 2 week vacation in Copenhagen and found that issue in my mail. Had it saved for years and it survived 4 moves. When looking for the box before our move to TX and couldn't find it. Asked my wife about it, she said she must have "accidentally" thrown it away.
It's easy to call the cover nonsense ex-post, but most of the posters including FP were 12 or 13 years old at that time. If you had been investing since the 60s your ex-ante outlook would probably see the article as bias confirmation. Say you started investing in 1987 or 1999, would your outlook for equities be so sanguine?
10 -
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
agip wrote:
getting old and not turning into a negative codger talking about the good old days while finding current times lacking...is one of the great challenges of aging. While using our hard-earned wisdom at the same time, of course.
on the other hand, one of the great parts of aging is investing. A day like today...I made more in one day than I made in a year, when I was just out of college.
Trivia question, who are Bandit and Chilli (as Sally Vix says, no cheating)?
Bandit and Chilli are Bluey's parents. And who is Bluey? She is the main character on probably the #1 children's show for the past few years.
Do any of you know who MrBeast is?
Having young children (I do not recommend this for those over 50) or young grandchildren are a great antidote against becoming a negative codger.
10 -
la gente - that's all new to me. But I am still doing my damnedest to not become a stodgy old codger. LOL.
01 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Gruntz wrote:
An old man with debt. Sounds a lot like Igy. 😂
Nope. I had good enough credit to buy real estate and a sports car at 2.875%. Paid off.
You had to work until you were 70 and still retired with a mortgage and car loan (for a sports car!). And you claimed to be a financial advisor! 😂😂😂
00 -
seattle prattle wrote:
la gente - that's all new to me. But I am still doing my damnedest to not become a stodgy old codger. LOL.
10 -
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
la gente - that's all new to me. But I am still doing my damnedest to not become a stodgy old codger. LOL.
(yes, I think this is the best version and I will die on that hill)
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.