|
If I were, say, 100% allocation into various indexes (VFINX, C, S & I Funds, etc) and knew I needed to diversify into bonds, how much priority should I put on that? My spouse wants to wait until about 10-15 years before retirement, but I'm thinking that's far too late, but it's hard to make that argument when this seems like such a long-term buyer's market lately. Any thoughts?
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
spf3million posted:Here's one for ya. Let's say hypothetically, I'll get a ~$90k tax exemption for working over seas for a majority of the year (so that'll effectively mean I'll be earning tax free for the year). Would it be to my benefit to contribute everything (after my $5k Roth IRA contribution) to the after tax 401(k) option for that year? Would there be any reason to contribute to the before tax option? Foreign excluded income is not considered earned income for Roth contribution purposes. I hope you have taxable income above the foreign exclusion amount if you plan to do a Roth IRA contribution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 16:06
|
|
|
80k posted:Foreign excluded income is not considered earned income for Roth contribution purposes. I hope you have taxable income above the foreign exclusion amount if you plan to do a Roth IRA contribution. It seems like to me, there isn't any benefit to the pre-tax 401(k) option if you aren't paying any taxes that year. Am I missing anything here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
I'm trying to get my financial investment poo poo in order. Although I don't know where to begin with basics. I've read through part of this thread, but a general answer without specifics was hard to come by. I'm in my mid twenties and have a 401k and a 457 which I cash match up to the limit for employer contributions. It's through ING. I have it 50% in bonds (inflation protected) and 50% in long-term stuff. Should I be focusing it more on longer term investments at this time? I noticed in my last statement that I pretty much lost money all around investment wise (including the bonds it seems).
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
fougera posted:What does the thread suggest for a 50 year old who doesn't have much saved away (somewhere in the 60-120K area). I realize that he's going to have to work in some capacity for most of his life but I'm trying to get him pointed in the right direction. My understanding that hes got most of what he has so far in an IRA but what should he do with the income he will be pulling in here on out? Is it better to max out IRA/401k? Should he be looking at funds? If so, is it a matter of just choosing a reputable company and working from there? IRA's are certainly still the way to go. Also, since he is over 50, he can contribute an additional $1000 (totally $6000 per year) as a catch-up contribution. That is, of course, after investing in a 401K up to the maximum that his employer will match. In terms of actual investments, it's tricky because normally at that age you're going to want to be in very conservative investments, since you will need the money soon. On the other hand, since it sounds like they have very little saved, they may need to be more aggressive than normal in order to be sure he has enough to enjoy at least a few years of retirement. I mostly look at younger people saving for retirement so I'm honestly not sure exactly what kind of mix I would recommend for someone in that situation. Brian Fellows posted:Long term investing questions to follow in later posts, but for now I have a general savings question: A credit union is an option, sure, but I've found online-only banks to be an excellent place to have a savings account. I've used several (ING, Emigrant Direct) and am currently at HSBC, which is actually where I keep all my money (besides a thousand or so in a local bank for paper checks). Anywhere you look right now though will have pretty low rates though. I'd also recommend going with a online bank that is well reviewed and provides what you need, not chasing rates. A Man Whore posted:I'm trying to get my financial investment poo poo in order. Although I don't know where to begin with basics. 50% in bonds is extremely conservative for someone in their 20's. Especially considering the other 50% is in "long-term stuff", and I'm not sure exactly what that means but sounds like conservative investments as well. For reference, a lot of the target age retirement funds (which automatically adjust their holdings depending on your age) are 100% invested in stocks for someone in their 20's. I'm not saying that is the best option, but just using that to compare it to your 50% in bonds. I'd consider something more like 80% stocks 20% bonds, but it depends on what exactly you are comfortable with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
fougera posted:What does the thread suggest for a 50 year old who doesn't have much saved away (somewhere in the 60-120K area). I realize that he's going to have to work in some capacity for most of his life but I'm trying to get him pointed in the right direction. My understanding that hes got most of what he has so far in an IRA but what should he do with the income he will be pulling in here on out? Is it better to max out IRA/401k? Should he be looking at funds? If so, is it a matter of just choosing a reputable company and working from there? Definitely continue the IRA contributions. Save as much as he can. When it gets close to retirement age, he should think about annuitizing a significant portion of his savings. An SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with a COLA (cost of living adjustment) rider can supplement Social Security income, and have a higher stream of guaranteed income than a stock/bond portfolio. Do shop around for them and never buy an annuity from an insurance salesmen. A reverse mortgage is another option for someone like him if he has any equity in a home. I disagree in taking more risk to make up for the lack of savings without at least first looking at the options above. SS income, plus a SPIA, a reverse mortgage, and some part time work may provide him with a modest retirement lifestyle. edit: also he should plan to work longer and delay social security payments as a first step. 80k fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Aug 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:
'Long term stuff' means the two most aggressive ing funds I could get in to provided through my account, I think it's 25%/25%. I don't remember the names of them though. I'll look in to diversifying better and in to other more aggressive things. When I originally opened the account at the new job, it was when the market was going down everyday - so I based my initial decisions off the fear of it's not going up anytime soon mentality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 19:15
|
|
|
In a weird sort of situation, and wondering how I should handle it. Starting a job for poo poo pay ($8.33/hr), but which will likely lead to my dream job within a year (with the same employer), which starts out at $33k a year. Employer doesn't offer a 403(b) until the second year. Current position will allow me to substitute during the school year, for an extra $75/day. I have basically no living expenses, aside from food & gas, so I can save a considerable amount, despite the low pay. For this first year, since the 403(b) isn't an option, aside from $5k in a Roth IRA, where should I put my money? unprofessional fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Aug 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
You'll be making about $16k a year, before taxes. After putting $5k into your Roth, you've got what, less than $10k over? I suggest you build up a $10k nest egg, maybe open a Vanguard account and put $5k of it into a Vanguard index fund, and keep the rest as your cash emergency fund.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
Let me get something straight; if I have $3K I put into Vanguard, can I mix that into as many Vanguard indexes as I want as long as they each have a minimum investment of less than or equal to $3K? Or do I have to put AT LEAST 3K into each fund I want to use?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You'll be making about $16k a year, before taxes. After putting $5k into your Roth, you've got what, less than $10k over? I suggest you build up a $10k nest egg, maybe open a Vanguard account and put $5k of it into a Vanguard index fund, and keep the rest as your cash emergency fund. Should make another $10k or so from subbing, but thanks, that is very helpful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
/\/\sure thing! Brian Fellows, "minimum" means that's the smallest amount you're allowed to put in to a given fund. So yeah, you can't put in less than that. If you have only enough to buy one fund, you can buy one of those "target 2040" or whatever funds, which are actually a mix of asset classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
I've been putting this off for a while now, but I really need to set up some sort of retirement fund. Background: 27 years old, $35k yearly gross, no company 401k or anything, and $0 saved. I've pretty much decided to go with Vanguard based on general recommendations here and elsewhere on the internet, but I'm open to other options. My question is about how to actually open an IRA, or any other account really. I have never dealt with any financial institutions not in person. Is it as simple as calling Vanguard and saying "Hi, I want to open an IRA, please tell me some options"? What information do I need on hand? (I am a horribly socially awkward shut-in if that wasn't readily apparent by the question.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 18:36
|
|
|
You don't even need to speak to a human being. You can do it entirely on the web, and Vanguard's web site makes it very easy. Just go to their website, click "open an account", and pick the "open a new account" option. You can pick an IRA (Roth or Traditional), transfer funds electronically to fund the account, and then pick investment options. They'll mail you whatever tax forms you need each year as well. It's really ridiculously easy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:My question is about how to actually open an IRA, or any other account really. I have never dealt with any financial institutions not in person. Is it as simple as calling Vanguard and saying "Hi, I want to open an IRA, please tell me some options"? What information do I need on hand? It's been a while, but I think all you need is your bank account information, and you might have to send them a physical letter or something, but the online process will walk you through all of that. It's pretty darn simple, the hardest thing you will have to do is pick a fund (I suggest just starting with one of their Target Retirement funds until you do more research). edit: beaten! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
moana posted:You can do this online. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/ira I'm confused about the minimums at Vanguard. To buy their real funds, there is a $3k minimum per fund. But they said that if I instead opened a brokerage account, you could buy or sell ETFs for free. But one guy I talked with said that to open a brokerage account you need $3k, and a different person I talked to said that you technically need $3k, but they don't really enforce that.  So confused.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
I think you can open a brokerage account with $1, but it'll be $1 in a money market account, you won't be able to buy any funds without 3k.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 13:49
|
|
|
sanchez posted:I think you can open a brokerage account with $1, but it'll be $1 in a money market account, you won't be able to buy any funds without 3k. but you can buy ETF's at as little as 1 share. And trading Vanguard ETF's is free at Vanguard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
How advisable is investing on margin for a person with a promising financial future, who is fine with taking some risk, while looking to make a bigger start? My thought was on putting $5k in my IRA, $5k in a vanguard targeted retirement fund, and then another $5k, plus the margin amount, into one of the vanguard core funds (something like the wellington).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
Investing on margin is squarely outside retirement and long-term investing, in my opinion. You wouldn't use your retirement fund to buy options, either. Look to the stock investing thread, and only use money you can afford to lose (read up on margin calls). Long term and retirement savings is about your nest egg, and how to protect it and nurture it and help it grow without putting it into undue risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Investing on margin is squarely outside retirement and long-term investing, in my opinion. You wouldn't use your retirement fund to buy options, either. Look to the stock investing thread, and only use money you can afford to lose (read up on margin calls). I've read a couple articles that have made the point that while people know they should be heavily allocated in equities in the early portion of their retirement contribution, they often are under-allocated in equities when you look at the total amount allocated across time. Basically people often make little/contribute little to their retirement funds in the beginning when they are buying equities, and in later years when you are switching gears to conservative allocation is when they are (hopefully) adding in a lot more dollars. As an example if you contribute 5k to your retirement fund at 25 and go 90/10 split you've put $4500 into equities, and $500 into bonds. Then at 45 or 55 you're contributing $30, $40 maybe $50k at a 50/50 split and while the original contribution as grown, your average allocation was still too heavily weighted in bonds. It would be a poor choice to overweight with equities in your later years due to the volatility and your relatively short time horizon, so the only real way to counter this effect it argued was to buy leveraged funds to gain increased exposure greater than you could otherwise afford now. I am just providing another point of view I found interesting. I personally am allocated at about 95% equities at 25 so take it for what you will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
That is an interesting line of argument. However, I don't think the point of asset allocation is to get your total retirement savings exposed to a certain percentage of equities over a certain number of years, per se; as I understand it, the idea is to manage exposure of your total current savings to risk, with your risk tolerance starting out high, and dropping as you get older, until a few years before retirement when your risk tolerance is nearly zero. Exposing your money to leveraged equities means more risk. If you feel comfortable with higher risk, then cool beans, but I don't think the argument you put forth is what gets you there; instead, you should simply consider the various personal factors that determine how much risk you can tolerate today, and allocate your savings accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
One important point to consider when determining your equity vs bond allocation is the real return these securities are going to provide for you. Let's say for example that the S&P 500 is trading between 1000 and 1100 for a 6 month period. The benefit you receive of buying that index is only the yield it provides, which for the S&P is about 1.75%. There is no actual capital appreciation (except for that low yield) for you by buying an S&P index at the beginning of those 6 months compared to buying it right at the end, before it breaks out of that trading range. However, if for those 6 months you invested that money in a bond fund, you would be receiving a yield of around 3-5%. A buy-and-hold strategy works wonders in a market in an uptrend (see: 2003-2008) However the return over the past 10 years of VFINX, Vanguard's 500 Index Fund, is -0.76%. Granted, this does not include the dividend yield you would receive, which would barely offset this loss into a slightly net positive return. Over the long term (greater than 10 years), equities have historically shown a better return than bonds. I am an advocate of a buy-and-hold strategy of an index. The key, however, is when you buy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:09
|
|
|
Absolutely agree, I see what they are saying but don't know if that should be the goal. I consider myself highly risk tolerant and pretty much kept on buying as much as I could for each new low the markets hit over the past couple years but I still don't know if I would do this. Nifty, as you posted above me, what are you advocating? Attempting to time the market or dollar cost average?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:11
|
|
|
alreadybeen posted:Absolutely agree, I see what they are saying but don't know if that should be the goal. I consider myself highly risk tolerant and pretty much kept on buying as much as I could for each new low the markets hit over the past couple years but I still don't know if I would do this. If you are trading commodities, futures, or currencies: put in a stop-loss, don't trade things that can go limit up/down (commodities). If are you trading options: buying, not selling, calls and puts limits the amount of money lost to the cost of the option. If you are risk averse, adhere to these rules and your risk exposure is limited. In my above post, I am advocating timing the market to the extent that you said you have been, "pretty much kept on buying as much as I could for each new low the markets hit over the past couple years". This is somewhat of a combination between dollar cost averaging and market timing where you only actually invest in the market and dollar cost average if you think that the market is at a relatively low point and has upside potential. Nifty fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Aug 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: if you are leveraged in long positions and the market is falling, won't you get margin calls?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
If you are actually buying on margin, then you will face a margin call. However you can buy a fund/ETF that is actually leveraged and essentially seeks to double the volatility of the underlying asset such as SSO vs. S&P500.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:26
|
|
|
alreadybeen posted:I've read a couple articles that have made the point that while people know they should be heavily allocated in equities in the early portion of their retirement contribution, they often are under-allocated in equities when you look at the total amount allocated across time. I can sort of see where you're going with this, but I think its much more complicated than that... since if you're contributing $30k/year by age 45, your total retirement savings by that point would probably be very large compared to what they were when you were 25. In other words, the amounts you're contributing into bonds are higher, but the percentage that those contributions make up of your total retirement savings at the time is lower. To take your example of $4500 equities / $500 bonds, if that's your first year of contributions then your contribution is 100% of your total portfolio value. Lets say you raise your contributions to $30k by age 45 as you suggested, if that was the case then by that time your total portfolio would probably be in the range of $300,000 (this is assuming you increased your amounts proportionally over the 20 years from age 25 to 45). Thus, your contribution at age 45, even though it is 6 times what it was at age 25 is only 10% of your total portfolio value at the time. To make a long story short, once you get to age 45-55, the re-balancing and/or altering of existing allocation has a much greater effect than your contributions each year. I don't think the math is quite as simple as it seems at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but: if you are leveraged in long positions and the market is falling, won't you get margin calls? This depends on what market you are talking about. In currencies and index/bond/etc futures, you can have a stop loss, meaning that you will automatically exit your position if the market does move a certain amount against you. For example, you buy EUR/USD right now at 1.3181. As a cautious trader, you input a stop loss at 1.2258, meaning that if the exchange rate drops to that level, your broker will automatically try to sell your position and get you out of the market. With this stop-loss, the maximum loss you can incur in this example is 7% of your leveraged position. For example: you have $1,000 but are leveraged 10 to 1, meaning you have a total of $10,000 risked in the market. If this stop loss gets hit and you sell at 1.2258, you lose $700. Obviously these numbers can be changed around to suit the style of the trader. In commodity futures, there is the possibility that a market can go limit up or limit down, meaning it is impossible to exit a position if market is moving against you. With this you can theoretically experience unlimited loss. I dont think this concept is worth getting into here because I doubt there are any aspiring commodities traders. With options, lets say you buy an SPY call. This call costs you $2.79 per share, and gives you the option to buy SPY for 115 by Oct 10. What this means is that you a limited amount of risk. If SPY drops to 100 on Oct 10 that $15 drop doesnt matter to you because you have no obligation to buy it at 100, you merely lose your initial $2.79 for each share and let the option expire with no actual SPY shares exchanged. The opposite is true if you were to sell that call- your maximum profit is $2.79, while your risk is unlimited. Maybe you are merely talking about buying a stock on margin. AAPL is at 261.70 right now, you only have $1000 but you want to buy 10 shares of AAPL so you borrow the extra $1,617 it would cost. In that case, you can still implement a stop loss. If AAPL for instance drops $11.7 to 250, then immediately sell and lose a total $117. This was all a long way of saying that in almost all markets, leveraged or not, you can limit your amount of risk exposure, and conversely limit the possibility of receiving a margin call. Most experts say only risk 3%-7% of your play money on any given trade. For most people, that means don't use leverage unless you have a lot of play money. Nifty fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Aug 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:43
|
|
|
alreadybeen posted:I've read a couple articles that have made the point that while people know they should be heavily allocated in equities in the early portion of their retirement contribution, they often are under-allocated in equities when you look at the total amount allocated across time. Basically people often make little/contribute little to their retirement funds in the beginning when they are buying equities, and in later years when you are switching gears to conservative allocation is when they are (hopefully) adding in a lot more dollars. As an example if you contribute 5k to your retirement fund at 25 and go 90/10 split you've put $4500 into equities, and $500 into bonds. Then at 45 or 55 you're contributing $30, $40 maybe $50k at a 50/50 split and while the original contribution as grown, your average allocation was still too heavily weighted in bonds. It would be a poor choice to overweight with equities in your later years due to the volatility and your relatively short time horizon, so the only real way to counter this effect it argued was to buy leveraged funds to gain increased exposure greater than you could otherwise afford now. Also known as MYR: Mortgage Your Retirement Read this Epic Thread. Not saying it is a bad strategy... but it really is epic. The top of the thread is updated with current results of the strategy, but scroll down a bit and you will get the full history. Prepare to be entertained.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 03:49
|
|
|
80k posted:Also known as MYR: Mortgage Your Retirement Thanks for the link - this is a really good read, will take me a while to get through it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
Thanks for the really detailed explanations. I knew about options and stocks, but didn't consider commodities, futures, or (in particular) leveraged ETFs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
Here is a good article detailing the workings and inherent problems of leveraged ETFs. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/07/leveraged-etf.asp They are a pretty good choice for a short term trader who has a hunch about a market move, but beware of them for the long term. http://seekingalpha.com/article/35789-the-case-against-leveraged-etfs Nifty fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Aug 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 08:23
|
|
|
80k posted:Also known as MYR: Mortgage Your Retirement It's interesting - still reading through it, and my knowledge base is still small enough not to understand a lot of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 11:51
|
|
|
unprofessional posted:It seems like this guy was mainly hurt by bad timing? I think rather he was hurt by lack of experience combined with extreme overconfidence. The guy obviously has some psychological issues that came into play. Timing did play a role, but no person really has control over that. He did, however, have control over what investment strategy he was using and whether or not to continue using it when its flaws became glaringly apparent. He chose to continue (failing several times, if you go by how many times he experienced margin calls). I believe it was Einstein who said the definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result. I think the gist of the thread to me is that most people technically already "mortgage" their retirement by utilizing leverage in order to purchase other necessities, such as an education, a home, and a car. That is to say that if you didn't take a loan to do these things, then you would've otherwise had to save up a considerable amount of cash to buy them, which would take a while and thusly push back the timeframe in which you could contribute as much to a retirement account. These types of loans though are much less risky than his ideas of MYR. That's not to say that they're completely without risk, as evidenced by the housing bubble and subsequent crash where many people are defaulting on their mortgages. However, when you're leveraging an asset class that is prone to swings of 30% with relative regularity, you have to account for the fact that your leverage will thusly amplify such swings to the point that you are at extremely high risk of losing everything. To put it another way, the MYR strategy essentially amounts to a person who only has a $1,000 bankroll sitting down to play poker at a no-limit holdem game with a $200 big blind. Could you potentially win big? Sure, if you get really lucky really early on. The odds suggest, however, that you're probably going to get busted out very quickly since you can only afford to see the flop 5 times without having won a hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
unprofessional posted:It seems like this guy was mainly hurt by bad timing? He was hurt by his underestimation of equity risk. I am sure he went into it with some assumptions: i.e. S&P500 unlikely to go below 1200 and nearly impossible to go below 1000. If he didn't get hurt in '08/'09, he would have gotten hurt eventually considering his young age, and the length of time he would have remained invested at high leverage. The stupidest part was that he had some time to reevaluate his risk in the face of Lehman, AIG, fannie/freddie's collapse (not to mention WaMu, Merrill, Bear Stearns, and one of the largest money market funds breaking the buck). The market still took some time to reach the point that forced his liquidation, yet he held on. There was a time when he should have seen S&P500 going below 900 as a highly likely event, and I'm sure he recognized the consequences if it if that were to happen. He just had dumb belief in the resilience of the market in the face of a complete financial catastrophe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
How about this for a decent balance? Vanguard is my 401k provider, and I figure I want to break out of the target retirement fund.code:The ones I'm not quite sure of is Extended Market vs Institutional Market. It seems to be mainly a risk balance, and I feel at my age I can take the slight extra risk there. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
80k posted:Also known as MYR: Mortgage Your Retirement I've just read the entire thing, over the weekend. It's an amazing and startling display of remarkable intelligence and remarkable hubris. When Market Timer starts waxing philosophical and doing a lot of the really in-depth self-examination (beginning in 2008), is where the thread really warmed up I think, at least for me. There is a valuable lesson there, but it's not really about the dangers of leverage; it's about the dangers of believing yourself to be capable of dispassionate rational decision-making in the face of enormous potential, and real, losses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Sometimes it's really depressing that you can follow all the best advice, be allocated perfectly, be dumping a ton of money into your savings and... a year later, your net worth is exactly the same and you would have been better just putting the money in a bank account.quote:Personal Rate of Return from 01/01/2010 to 08/11/2010 is -0.1% (Actually that account is not too bad. It's worse when it's something like a -5% and it wipes out your contributions.) smackfu fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Aug 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
smackfu posted:Sometimes it's really depressing that you can follow all the best advice, be allocated perfectly, be dumping a ton of money into your savings and... a year later, your net worth is exactly the same and you would have been better just putting the money in a bank account. What worries me is that the rate of return for stocks has been so poor over the last decade. Combine that with our current economic troubles and poor demographic trends (baby boomers) and it's easy to forecast potentially decades of sluggish returns. Compounded returns over time are the backbone of mine (and virtually everyone else's) retirement strategy. Sometimes I wonder what the point of investing is if no matter how much I put in it's hard to see how I will ever finance retirement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 16:53
|
|
