DOW setting up to have a...

Debt is cheap.

Now is the time spend and upgrade everything in your home.

Leverage what you can.

Put cash in the market instead of paying down your debt.

Pay your debt very gradually over time.

In the end you will have the debts paid off and have savings for the future.

The Dow will be up from this point years from now even if it dips for a bit.

Spend It wrote:

Debt is cheap.

Now is the time spend and upgrade everything in your home.

Leverage what you can.

Put cash in the market instead of paying down your debt.

Pay your debt very gradually over time.

In the end you will have the debts paid off and have savings for the future.

The Dow will be up from this point years from now even if it dips for a bit.

I agree to put cash in the market. I agree that the Dow will be up from this point years from now even with a big pullback. I don't agree with leveraging everything you can. Paying off debt should be PART of your plan to financial freedom. You can invest AND pay off debt too...doesn't have to be an either or.

"Continue to stay debt free and continue to invest money in the market for the future that you don't need today."

FP, would you agree that this is good advice almost all of the time?

Flaggy,

You use the DOW instead of the S&P 500 for what reason exactly?

You are saying "continue" to be debt free which assumes you are debt free to begin with but also says to not increase your debt.

I am saying go ahead and increase your debt if you are far enough from retirement and securely have means to pay your obligations and pay it off in the long run before retirement.

This way you have more stuff now, more fun, more money invested (vs lower debt) and assist with economic growth which will make your investments grow.

65554 wrote:

"Continue to stay debt free and continue to invest money in the market for the future that you don't need today."

FP, would you agree that this is good advice almost all of the time?

Yep.

Spend It wrote:

You are saying "continue" to be debt free which assumes you are debt free to begin with but also says to not increase your debt.

I am saying go ahead and increase your debt if you are far enough from retirement and securely have means to pay your obligations and pay it off in the long run before retirement.

This way you have more stuff now, more fun, more money invested (vs lower debt) and assist with economic growth which will make your investments grow.

Yeah, I know what you're saying, and that's not good advice. IF you are debt free, then you should stay that way. If you are NOT debt free, then you need to become that way (except for the house...ok to carry a reasonable mortgage until you retire; then you need to have the home paid for in full).

With debt there are interest payments. Without debt, you don't make those payments and ultimately have MORE money to spend on other things. A little bit of sacrifice to become and stay debt free is worth it.

I'm not sure what job is secure enough that a person can willingly go into debt for the purpose of having fun in the very short term. Most people don't have a job such as that.

We are very close to seeing a correction, I think. Hopefully it will be a shallow and brief dip.

Spend It wrote:

I am saying go ahead and increase your debt if you are far enough from retirement and securely have means to pay your obligations and pay it off in the long run before retirement.

This way you have more stuff now, more fun, more money invested (vs lower debt) and assist with economic growth which will make your investments grow.

Can you be serious? You are actively advising people to increase their debt? Who really "securely (has) means to pay (their) obligations..." Is there anyone with an income which is pretty much guaranteed for the next 20 years? I am wondering who in the world that would be.

"Assist with economic growth"? Are you actually advising people to spend more than they make so that they can a make an immeasurably small contribution to the short term growth of the economy? And this immeasurably small impact will help make their investments grow?

I'm sorry but are you just joking all around?

Dude, I was kidding. It's a joke.

If everyone aggressively paid down debt or hoarded their money we would have a massive recession.

That's really what happend in 2008.

Banks stopped lending. People stopped borrowing.

Spending went down.

Therefore sales went down. Layoffs ensued.

Now there were some really bad loans that led to this but it was followed by panic.

And the rate of borrowing against home equity was not sustainable.

I am really just pointing out that there isn't just one way of doing things like the OP would have you to believe.

Some people need to be frugal or at least prefer to be frugal.

Some people can aford be a little bit riskier.

What I am telling you is that there are options and you need to figure out what is best for you.

It is absolutley true that you can be financially succesful while taking on a reasonable amount of debt that will actually grow through the years even as your income goes up.

Since you can't work forever, there will be a time to reverse this course. But you need not be debt free to agressively invest.

Louie Viviatti wrote:

Flaggy,

You use the DOW instead of the S&P 500 for what reason exactly?

Indeed. Why?

Lyndon Larouche wrote:

Louie Viviatti wrote:

Flaggy,

You use the DOW instead of the S&P 500 for what reason exactly?

Indeed. Why?

Gotta pick one of them. Not going to use the NASDAQ, so it's between Dow and S&P 500. Jim Cramer points out the move of the Dow every night on his show with a graphic in the lower right corner, so if it's good enough for a guy with a show, it's good enough for me.

Also, the Dow gets a bad rap when it shouldn't. Lots of dividend-giving stocks in the Dow. I love the Dow. Finally, it takes longer to type S&P 500 than it does Dow, so I go with Dow.

I love peeps told me Mid-April.

Bad news Bears wrote:

I love peeps told me Mid-April.

That's not a horrible guess. As the saying goes, "Sell in May and walk away."

I would take that possibility though and continue to invest the money you don't need (up to ~15-20% of your income). Starting and stopping investing on a hunch is a bad idea.

Flagpole wrote:

Gotta pick one of them. Not going to use the NASDAQ, so it's between Dow and S&P 500. Jim Cramer points out the move of the Dow every night on his show with a graphic in the lower right corner, so if it's good enough for a guy with a show, it's good enough for me.

Also, the Dow gets a bad rap when it shouldn't. Lots of dividend-giving stocks in the Dow. I love the Dow. Finally, it takes longer to type S&P 500 than it does Dow, so I go with Dow.

Yeah, why look at a broad spectrum companies when you can just look at the 30 biggest bestest companies that there are...

So i assume you think it would be a good idea to put all of my money in one or two stocks as well?

I didn't say you only put money in the Dow brother. I just use it as a marker. Gotta pick on of them unless I want to list several indices every time (and I don't).Why would you assume that because I typically use the Dow as a measuring stick that I would tell you to put money into just one or two stocks? That's a very odd leap brother. I constantly preach AGAINST doing that very thing.I have money in the Dow, in the S&P 500, in the NASDAQ, in many many other places too.

the idiocy continues wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Gotta pick one of them. Not going to use the NASDAQ, so it's between Dow and S&P 500. Jim Cramer points out the move of the Dow every night on his show with a graphic in the lower right corner, so if it's good enough for a guy with a show, it's good enough for me.

Also, the Dow gets a bad rap when it shouldn't. Lots of dividend-giving stocks in the Dow. I love the Dow. Finally, it takes longer to type S&P 500 than it does Dow, so I go with Dow.

Yeah, why look at a broad spectrum companies when you can just look at the 30 biggest bestest companies that there are...

So i assume you think it would be a good idea to put all of my money in one or two stocks as well?

Flagpole wrote:

Why would you assume that because I typically use the Dow as a measuring stick that I would tell you to put money into just one or two stocks? That's a very odd leap brother. I constantly preach AGAINST doing that very thing.

Because it is an idiotic measuring stick perhaps?

If you are all about diversification, would it not be better to use a broad diverse measuring stick?

Putting all your money into companies in the S&P 500 isn't enough diversification, so using it as a measuring stick isn't any better than the Dow.I maintain my reasons for using the Dow.

the idiocy continues wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Why would you assume that because I typically use the Dow as a measuring stick that I would tell you to put money into just one or two stocks? That's a very odd leap brother. I constantly preach AGAINST doing that very thing.

Because it is an idiotic measuring stick perhaps?

If you are all about diversification, would it not be better to use a broad diverse measuring stick?