Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Niwrad
Jul 1, 2008

Harry posted:

I forgot to ask this, but where did you get a savings account with that high of a rate? Did it have a minimum amount to get that?

There are a few online banks offering rates like that. Incredible Bank is offering 1.05% on balances between $2500-$250,000. Most seem to fall in the .75% to .90% range however.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Harry
Jun 13, 2003

I do solemnly swear that in the year 2015 I will theorycraft my wallet as well as my WoW

Niwrad posted:

There are a few online banks offering rates like that. Incredible Bank is offering 1.05% on balances between $2500-$250,000. Most seem to fall in the .75% to .90% range however.

How easy is it to transfer between those and your checking account? I have a penfed savings account sitting around which gets like .2%, and my main problem with it is they send a check.

Niwrad
Jul 1, 2008

Harry posted:

How easy is it to transfer between those and your checking account? I have a penfed savings account sitting around which gets like .2%, and my main problem with it is they send a check.

I haven't used Incredible Bank (I use ING), but I assume it's like the other online savings accounts. You essentially link accounts to it similar to Paypal. Then you can transfer money in and out within 2-3 business days by putting in a request. You may want to double check on that though.

ING has a competitive rate (0.80% I believe) and is extremely easy to use. They are supposedly going to be adding an option to deposit checks via your smartphone in the Spring. When my checking account gets too large, I just login to ING and make a transfer for money into the ING account. When I need money from it, I login and make a request for a withdrawl and it's in my checking account in a couple days. About as easy as you can get.

DJCobol
May 16, 2003

CALL OF DUTY! :rock:
Grimey Drawer

Harry posted:

I forgot to ask this, but where did you get a savings account with that high of a rate? Did it have a minimum amount to get that?
Ally, and I don't think there was a minimum.

Harry posted:

How easy is it to transfer between those and your checking account? I have a penfed savings account sitting around which gets like .2%, and my main problem with it is they send a check.
It took a few days to link the Ally account to my main bank account, and transfers usually take 2-3 days.

bam thwok
Sep 20, 2005
I sure hope I don't get banned

Niwrad posted:

ING has a competitive rate (0.80% I believe) and is extremely easy to use. They are supposedly going to be adding an option to deposit checks via your smartphone in the Spring. When my checking account gets too large, I just login to ING and make a transfer for money into the ING account. When I need money from it, I login and make a request for a withdrawl and it's in my checking account in a couple days. About as easy as you can get.

FYI, I got that email from ING about the Capital One purchase and mobile app as well. Went straight into a Capital One branch to close my checking account there, and they told me that the ING and CapOne accounts/systems are only going to stay separate for another 1.5 years.

Solaron
Sep 6, 2007

Whatever the reason you're on Mars, I'm glad you're there, and I wish I was with you.
Our 401k at work finally switched over (it's been a months-long process as Vanguard takes over our retirement accounts, our pension and retirement plans changed, etc). If you guys could help me out I would appreciate it.

Here's my existing 401k asset mix: 93% short term reserves, .7% bonds and 6.3% stocks. I've only got 2 funds that I'm putting money in which is Vanguard Retirement Savings Trust IV and the Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund. The majority of my balance is in the first, which, from the description, appears to be very conservative.

I'm 30 and don't plan on retiring until 65 (if I can). I put 6% of my income to the 401k, the company matches 5% and I have another 3% of my salary contributed to a self-directed retirement plan by my company as well.

This is just how my funding transferred over to Vanguard, I can change the allocations and funds easily, but I don't know which ones to look at or target.

My wife's mixture is totally different, but she's been at this company a lot longer than I and has more money in her account. Neither of us understand enough to know if we've got our allocations set correctly.

I don't know what to aim for - Vanguard says 'Hey, you'll want 85% of your income in retirement' which my calculators say is just not going to happen without me throwing in a poo poo ton more money every month. Where should I go to learn more about what to do?

Thanks.

nelson
Apr 12, 2009
College Slice

Solaron posted:

Neither of us understand enough to know if we've got our allocations set correctly. I don't know what to aim for - Vanguard says 'Hey, you'll want 85% of your income in retirement' which my calculators say is just not going to happen without me throwing in a poo poo ton more money every month. Where should I go to learn more about what to do?

As far as allocations go, you'll want mostly domestic stock (S&P 500, Russel 2000), some foreign stock and some bonds/fixed income (the rule of thumb is your age in bonds). A good starting place would be age% in bonds, then divide the rest equally among the other 3 index funds.

I think the 85% number is bogus. What you need is enough money to cover all of your expenses. Speaking of which, what are your expenses? Do you have any debt?

moana
Jun 18, 2005

one of the more intellectual satire communities on the web

streetlamp posted:

Should I be putting more towards the repayments or keeping it around that and putting more towards my 2012 Roth IRA?
I would lean towards making sure you max out your Roth, but remember that you do have some time to do that. Those savings rates are poo poo. Figure out how much you need for an emergency fund, and keep that all in savings, then put the rest towards maxing out your Roth and paying off debt.

Honestly, the thing you need to be doing right now is applying yourself to getting a better salary. If in a year you get a job making $10k more, this won't be a problem. I don't know what line of work you're in, but make sure you are kicking rear end and taking names and also applying to lots of jobs even if the one you have is okay. The best way to earn pay bumps is by job hopping when you're young, so always be on the lookout!

Solaron
Sep 6, 2007

Whatever the reason you're on Mars, I'm glad you're there, and I wish I was with you.

nelson posted:

As far as allocations go, you'll want mostly domestic stock (S&P 500, Russel 2000), some foreign stock and some bonds/fixed income (the rule of thumb is your age in bonds). A good starting place would be age% in bonds, then divide the rest equally among the other 3 index funds.

I think the 85% number is bogus. What you need is enough money to cover all of your expenses. Speaking of which, what are your expenses? Do you have any debt?

We have debt, but not a lot compared to our income. We make ~130k/yr together, we each save ~14% of our income via 401k/employee match and the self-directed retirement plan. Our debt is $50k in student loans between the two of us, $65k on a home and $20k between our 2 cars.

I've changed the allocations to be more stock heavy and move out of some of the short-term things we had. Vanguard has a 2045 Retirement Fund that appears to be a decent deal - I assume those work out pretty well, since as we get closer to the retirement date the fund will gradually move from stocks to more bonds, etc, yes?

Thanks for your help. :)

silvergoose
Mar 18, 2006

IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS




Okay, I have a ton of savings and am already contributing to my 401k quite a bit. I just, however, started a Roth IRA last year (technically this year but for 2011) and just stuck 5k into Vanguard's 2050 fund or whatever.

Here's my question. I'm going to put another 5k in, and then another 5k for my (to be) wife when we get married this year. Should I just keep on with the 2050 fund? Or is there a significantly better way of investing for retirement than target funds? I'm not great at picking individual funds and doing proper research.

gvibes
Jan 18, 2010

Leading us to the promised land (i.e., one tournament win in five years)

silvergoose posted:

Okay, I have a ton of savings and am already contributing to my 401k quite a bit. I just, however, started a Roth IRA last year (technically this year but for 2011) and just stuck 5k into Vanguard's 2050 fund or whatever.

Here's my question. I'm going to put another 5k in, and then another 5k for my (to be) wife when we get married this year. Should I just keep on with the 2050 fund? Or is there a significantly better way of investing for retirement than target funds? I'm not great at picking individual funds and doing proper research.
Generally, the TR funds are going to be pretty solid. Once you get to 15k or so, with typical 3k fund minimums, you could certainly self-manage if you wanted, but I don't think it's necessary.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the TR funds are a little more heavilty tilted towards equity than debt, and domestic than international, than I would prefer, so I self-manage.

e: re a "ton of savings," your asset allocation should consider all investments, not just each account separately.

silvergoose
Mar 18, 2006

IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS




gvibes posted:

Generally, the TR funds are going to be pretty solid. Once you get to 15k or so, with typical 3k fund minimums, you could certainly self-manage if you wanted, but I don't think it's necessary.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the TR funds are a little more heavilty tilted towards equity than debt, and domestic than international, than I would prefer, so I self-manage.

e: re a "ton of savings," your asset allocation should consider all investments, not just each account separately.

So it would be reasonable to, if I think the target funds are too tilted towards stocks (which I think I do agree with you on, at least a bit) I could maybe go for putting some into a bond fund (still through an IRA) for the fourth 5k or whatever?

I guess it's hard for me to grasp good asset allocation when it feels like I need to actively manage it but still treat it as an incredibly long-term deal. Hence just tossing my retirement stuff into target funds, where I can kinda ignore them.

"a ton of savings" meaning I have some non-retirement money in large-cap, emerging markets, bonds, some stocks. But all non-retirement, so I don't know if it is part of my asset allocation in that respect? Bwee!

flowinprose
Sep 11, 2001

Where were you? .... when they built that ladder to heaven...

silvergoose posted:

So it would be reasonable to, if I think the target funds are too tilted towards stocks (which I think I do agree with you on, at least a bit) I could maybe go for putting some into a bond fund (still through an IRA) for the fourth 5k or whatever?

I guess it's hard for me to grasp good asset allocation when it feels like I need to actively manage it but still treat it as an incredibly long-term deal. Hence just tossing my retirement stuff into target funds, where I can kinda ignore them.

"a ton of savings" meaning I have some non-retirement money in large-cap, emerging markets, bonds, some stocks. But all non-retirement, so I don't know if it is part of my asset allocation in that respect? Bwee!

If it's simply a question of stocks/bonds ratio, you can simply buy a more near-term target retirement fund.

silvergoose
Mar 18, 2006

IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS




flowinprose posted:

If it's simply a question of stocks/bonds ratio, you can simply buy a more near-term target retirement fund.

Huh, quite true. I actually did that for my 401k and completely forgot the fact that I could do similar for IRA. Thanks!

gvibes
Jan 18, 2010

Leading us to the promised land (i.e., one tournament win in five years)

silvergoose posted:

So it would be reasonable to, if I think the target funds are too tilted towards stocks (which I think I do agree with you on, at least a bit) I could maybe go for putting some into a bond fund (still through an IRA) for the fourth 5k or whatever?

I guess it's hard for me to grasp good asset allocation when it feels like I need to actively manage it but still treat it as an incredibly long-term deal. Hence just tossing my retirement stuff into target funds, where I can kinda ignore them.
If it's just the equity/bonds ratio that bothers you, yeah, flowinprose is right.

silvergoose posted:

"a ton of savings" meaning I have some non-retirement money in large-cap, emerging markets, bonds, some stocks. But all non-retirement, so I don't know if it is part of my asset allocation in that respect? Bwee!
What makes these funds "non-retirement"? Do you have an intent to use them for any particular purpose in the nearer-term future?

silvergoose
Mar 18, 2006

IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS




gvibes posted:

If it's just the equity/bonds ratio that bothers you, yeah, flowinprose is right.

What makes these funds "non-retirement"? Do you have an intent to use them for any particular purpose in the nearer-term future?

Down payment on a house, babies in the future. Essentially, it's money that I don't need right now, but will probably want some of in the next 5 years, but don't want it sitting in a really tiny % savings account if possible.

Plus none of them are pre-tax or gains post-tax (i.e. they are not 401k or IRA).

The Shep
Jan 10, 2007


If found, please return this poster to GIP. His mothers are very worried and miss him very much.
I am looking for some quick advice here.

I liquidated an IRA to fund a down payment in 2011. I now owe approximately $980 on my 2011 taxes. I've read that I can open and contribute to an IRA account before April 17th and still have it be tax deductible, however I am also participating in an employer sponsored retirement program.

Where can I find out what kind of tax-deductible contributions I can make to an IRA so I don't have to write a check to the IRS?

Niwrad
Jul 1, 2008

flowinprose posted:

If it's simply a question of stocks/bonds ratio, you can simply buy a more near-term target retirement fund.

I would point out that there isn't much of a difference in stock/bond ratio until you hit almost 50 years old. The difference in the Vanguard 2050 fund and 2035 fund is 2% more bonds. Even the 2025 fund is only 20% bonds as opposed to 10% when you start. So if someone planned on doing something like 120 minus age to determine their ratio, they'd need to buy additional bonds separately.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp

bam thwok posted:

Depends how "indeterminate" the timeframe really is. TIPS come with 5-year duration at the shortest, and 30 at the longest. If you want to try to do a ladder of some kind, then you'll probably want to go through a broker as you mentioned.

Essentially it's a bad time to be buying houses in California, and I personally believe that the market has more to go down. Additionally, I may end up moving for work in the next 6 months.

So "indeterminate" means probably 1-2 years at a minimum, probably more.

quote:

I'd suggest a very low risk portfolio of ETFs covering blue-chip fixed income, treasuries, and municipal bonds to both beat out inflation and earn a modest return while you figure out when you'll need the money.

Is this the kind of thing I can put together myself through a low cost online broker? Or something I need to have a professional look at?

It's unexciting safe, low yield holding pattern for her money, and I know that, so I'm not looking to have returns eaten up badly by fees.

Tewdrig posted:

You can buy them from TreasuryDirect. You have to sell TIPS on the open market, however.

The following is my understanding, but I am no expert. Selling on the open market can still subject you to interest rate risk. An ordinary savings bond accumulates interest, like a CD, and when you want to cash in the bond, you sell it back to the government for what you paid plus interest (possibly minus a penalty depending on the circumstances). TIPS don't do that. Because you have to sell TIPS on the open market, their value can fluctuate like any other bond. While TIPS are indexed for inflation, this is on top of the real interest rate, which remains fixed for the life of the particular security you purchase. Changes to the real interest rate will affect the value of your TIPS. If real interest rates rise, the value of your TIPS go down. Interest rates now are very low, though the Federal Reserve has promised to keep them low through 2014.

This page has a brief explanation for the price of TIPS, and how it relates to interest rate and the coupon rate. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips_rates.htm

This article talks about the merits of individuals buying TIPS or TIPS funds:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704503104576250752569255210.html
Generally, it seems, only buy individual TIPS if you want to hold on them until maturity.

Great info, thank you. Clearly we should be looking at funds rather than individual bonds.

quote:

TIPS can be a good option, but it's an investment and has risk. A comparable investment could be an intermediate term bond fund. Check out both of these:
Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund - https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0314&FundIntExt=INT
Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund - https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0119&FundIntExt=INT

It looks as if the TIPS fund is actually losing money with a negative yield. Is this having do with the inverse relation of price and yield from the WSJ article?

quote:

A safer investment would be a short-term fund, but you may not keep up with inflation:
Vanguard Short-Term Treasury Fund - https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0032&FundIntExt=INT
Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade - https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0039&FundIntExt=INT

Ideally I'm trying to beat inflation because you can park the money in a CD or savings account and get around 1%, which still doesn't beat inflation but is also essentially risk-less.

streetlamp
May 7, 2007

Danny likes his party hat
He does not like his banana hat

moana posted:

Honestly, the thing you need to be doing right now is applying yourself to getting a better salary. If in a year you get a job making $10k more, this won't be a problem. I don't know what line of work you're in, but make sure you are kicking rear end and taking names and also applying to lots of jobs even if the one you have is okay. The best way to earn pay bumps is by job hopping when you're young, so always be on the lookout!

Thanks Moana, I'm a graphic designer and 30k is pretty much the average for a junior designer in my area. If you really get lucky you might get close to 35k. And actually my 5 year plan is going free lance and running my own studio. I have definitely learned quickly that the fastest way to move up is to hop around, no designer gets promoted.

gvibes
Jan 18, 2010

Leading us to the promised land (i.e., one tournament win in five years)

silvergoose posted:

Down payment on a house, babies in the future. Essentially, it's money that I don't need right now, but will probably want some of in the next 5 years, but don't want it sitting in a really tiny % savings account if possible.

Plus none of them are pre-tax or gains post-tax (i.e. they are not 401k or IRA).
FYI, if you are heavy equities with a ~5 year timeline, that would probably be considered very aggressive to most people.

flowinprose
Sep 11, 2001

Where were you? .... when they built that ladder to heaven...

Niwrad posted:

I would point out that there isn't much of a difference in stock/bond ratio until you hit almost 50 years old. The difference in the Vanguard 2050 fund and 2035 fund is 2% more bonds. Even the 2025 fund is only 20% bonds as opposed to 10% when you start. So if someone planned on doing something like 120 minus age to determine their ratio, they'd need to buy additional bonds separately.

You're right, there aren't very big differences until you get quite near-term. I personally don't use them, since I have to balance between my TSP, my wife and my IRA's, and my taxable accounts.

Guinness
Sep 15, 2004

Perhaps a silly question, but I just opened an RIRA account with Sharebuilder and deposited the $5000 max for 2011. I know that since the contributions to it are all post-tax I don't necessarily need to file it on my tax return, but for tax year 2012 will I still have to file all the 1099/K-1 info for the account like with a normal taxable brokerage account (since I will have allocated it in 2012)?

nelson
Apr 12, 2009
College Slice

Solaron posted:

We have debt, but not a lot compared to our income. We make ~130k/yr together, we each save ~14% of our income via 401k/employee match and the self-directed retirement plan. Our debt is $50k in student loans between the two of us, $65k on a home and $20k between our 2 cars.

I've changed the allocations to be more stock heavy and move out of some of the short-term things we had. Vanguard has a 2045 Retirement Fund that appears to be a decent deal - I assume those work out pretty well, since as we get closer to the retirement date the fund will gradually move from stocks to more bonds, etc, yes?

Thanks for your help. :)

You're welcome (but don't blame me if the market crashes)! The retirement fund should work nicely. It sounds like you're putting plenty into retirement accounts so concentrate on getting those debts paid off next. I'd probably start with the highest interest rate (usually the cars) and go from there.

nelson fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Feb 24, 2012

BnT
Mar 10, 2006

Guinness posted:

Perhaps a silly question, but I just opened an RIRA account with Sharebuilder and deposited the $5000 max for 2011. I know that since the contributions to it are all post-tax I don't necessarily need to file it on my tax return, but for tax year 2012 will I still have to file all the 1099/K-1 info for the account like with a normal taxable brokerage account (since I will have allocated it in 2012)?

Roth IRAs have no annual tax paperwork unless you withdraw.

Geizkragen
Dec 29, 2006

Get that booze monkey off my back!
edit: going to own thread

Geizkragen fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Mar 3, 2012

Swingline
Jul 20, 2008
Sounds like you're being responsible and doing everything right. You mention "another option" for if you get laid off in investing. While optimizing asset class allocation and picking good funds is a great skill, understand you're not going to be killing the market enough to turn your savings into a livable income unless you're already filthy rich. Individual stock picking or making more risky leveraged bets on derivatives should be left to the investment professionals who do it for a living for hedge funds and asset management firms.

Geizkragen
Dec 29, 2006

Get that booze monkey off my back!
When I say options I mean "have enough money to move to a better job market" or have a few more months living expenses. I have margin trading and option trading available with my brokerage account but I haven't asked for either capability.

KennyG
Oct 22, 2002
Here to blow my own horn.

Guinness posted:

Perhaps a silly question, but I just opened an RIRA account with Sharebuilder and deposited the $5000 max for 2011. I know that since the contributions to it are all post-tax I don't necessarily need to file it on my tax return, but for tax year 2012 will I still have to file all the 1099/K-1 info for the account like with a normal taxable brokerage account (since I will have allocated it in 2012)?

If you're single and make less than ~27,000 you can get a tax benefit. If you're married, more.

Otherwise, just contribute and wait for the sweet tax free returns.

mynnna
Jan 10, 2004

Niwrad posted:

I would point out that there isn't much of a difference in stock/bond ratio until you hit almost 50 years old. The difference in the Vanguard 2050 fund and 2035 fund is 2% more bonds. Even the 2025 fund is only 20% bonds as opposed to 10% when you start. So if someone planned on doing something like 120 minus age to determine their ratio, they'd need to buy additional bonds separately.

There's no way around this short of "buy additional bonds separately" is there? I'd really like to have something more like the 2030 ratio, but holding it at that level for several years (the way that the newer TR funds hold at 90% stocks for awhile).

Am I correct in assuming that the 3k minimum applies for moving money between funds as well, meaning that I couldn't just start with a target retirement fund and then tweak it as I saw fit until I had several thousand dollars more in it?

nelson
Apr 12, 2009
College Slice

Torael_7 posted:

There's no way around this short of "buy additional bonds separately" is there? I'd really like to have something more like the 2030 ratio, but holding it at that level for several years (the way that the newer TR funds hold at 90% stocks for awhile).

Am I correct in assuming that the 3k minimum applies for moving money between funds as well, meaning that I couldn't just start with a target retirement fund and then tweak it as I saw fit until I had several thousand dollars more in it?

Yes. If you want to have a certain ratio and keep it there then buy separate (non-target-year) funds to create the desired balance. However, if you only have $3000 to invest, I wouldn't worry about it too much. You can get a better balance when you add the next $3000.

Zero One
Dec 30, 2004

HAIL TO THE VICTORS!
Warren Buffett spoke about asset allocation in his latest Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letter:

quote:

Investments that are denominated in a given currency include money-market funds, bonds, mortgages,
bank deposits, and other instruments. Most of these currency-based investments are thought of as “safe.”
In truth they are among the most dangerous of assets. Their beta may be zero, but their risk is huge.

Over the past century these instruments have destroyed the purchasing power of investors in many
countries, even as the holders continued to receive timely payments of interest and principal. This ugly
result, moreover, will forever recur. Governments determine the ultimate value of money, and systemic
forces will sometimes cause them to gravitate to policies that produce inflation. From time to time such
policies spin out of control.

Even in the U.S., where the wish for a stable currency is strong, the dollar has fallen a staggering 86%
in value since 1965, when I took over management of Berkshire. It takes no less than $7 today to buy
what $1 did at that time. Consequently, a tax-free institution would have needed 4.3% interest annually
from bond investments over that period to simply maintain its purchasing power. Its managers would
have been kidding themselves if they thought of any portion of that interest as “income.”

quote:

Today the world’s gold stock is about 170,000 metric tons. If all of this gold were melded together, it
would form a cube of about 68 feet per side. (Picture it fitting comfortably within a baseball infield.) At
$1,750 per ounce – gold’s price as I write this – its value would be $9.6 trillion. Call this cube pile A.

Let’s now create a pile B costing an equal amount. For that, we could buy all U.S. cropland (400
million acres with output of about $200 billion annually), plus 16 Exxon Mobils (the world’s most
profitable company, one earning more than $40 billion annually). After these purchases, we would
have about $1 trillion left over for walking-around money (no sense feeling strapped after this buying
binge). Can you imagine an investor with $9.6 trillion selecting pile A over pile B?

Beyond the staggering valuation given the existing stock of gold, current prices make today’s annual
production of gold command about $160 billion. Buyers – whether jewelry and industrial users,
frightened individuals, or speculators – must continually absorb this additional supply to merely
maintain an equilibrium at present prices.

A century from now the 400 million acres of farmland will have produced staggering amounts of corn,
wheat, cotton, and other crops – and will continue to produce that valuable bounty, whatever the
currency may be. Exxon Mobil will probably have delivered trillions of dollars in dividends to its
owners and will also hold assets worth many more trillions (and, remember, you get 16 Exxons). The
170,000 tons of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can
fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

quote:

My own preference – and you knew this was coming – is our third category: investment in productive
assets, whether businesses, farms, or real estate. Ideally, these assets should have the ability in
inflationary times to deliver output that will retain its purchasing-power value while requiring a
minimum of new capital investment. Farms, real estate, and many businesses such as Coca-Cola, IBM
and our own See’s Candy meet that double-barreled test. Certain other companies – think of our
regulated utilities, for example – fail it because inflation places heavy capital requirements on them. To
earn more, their owners must invest more. Even so, these investments will remain superior to
nonproductive or currency-based assets.

Whether the currency a century from now is based on gold, seashells, shark teeth, or a piece of paper
(as today), people will be willing to exchange a couple of minutes of their daily labor for a Coca-Cola
or some See’s peanut brittle. In the future the U.S. population will move more goods, consume more
food, and require more living space than it does now. People will forever exchange what they produce
for what others produce.

Our country’s businesses will continue to efficiently deliver goods and services wanted by our citizens.
Metaphorically, these commercial “cows” will live for centuries and give ever greater quantities of “milk”
to boot. Their value will be determined not by the medium of exchange but rather by their capacity to
deliver milk. Proceeds from the sale of the milk will compound for the owners of the cows, just as they
did during the 20th century when the Dow increased from 66 to 11,497 (and paid loads of dividends as
well). Berkshire’s goal will be to increase its ownership of first-class businesses. Our first choice will be
to own them in their entirety – but we will also be owners by way of holding sizable amounts of
marketable stocks. I believe that over any extended period of time this category of investing will prove to
be the runaway winner among the three we’ve examined. More important, it will be by far the safest.

Read the whole thing: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf (it starts on page 16)

totalnewbie
Nov 13, 2005

I was born and raised in China, lived in Japan, and now hold a US passport.

I am wrong in every way, all the damn time.

Ask me about my tattoos.

quote:

no sense feeling strapped after this buying binge

Nice to see that he has a sense of humor.

I don't think it's ever been a secret that "investment" in gold is pretty dumb, but putting it the way he did makes it so clear just how dumb putting money in gold really is.

KennyG
Oct 22, 2002
Here to blow my own horn.

totalnewbie posted:

Nice to see that he has a sense of humor.

I don't think it's ever been a secret that "investment" in gold is pretty dumb, but putting it the way he did makes it so clear just how dumb putting money in gold really is.

I also liked this one:

quote:

You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.


I was taking some online T/F quiz about portfolio myths and it had a doozy to the effect of:

quote:

Holding 5% in gold is a good idea, hedge inflation, blah blah
I answered false, and it said I was wrong, but here's the kicker. I thought false, because it's an unstable commodity that has varied wildly with speculation and has gone up in value about 500% in under 10 years and is just itching to pop. Few people realize that their is less than 40 years of reliable economic data on Gold because before that the price was not free to fluctuate against the dollar or by association nearly any other currency. They thought I answered false because I wanted to hold more, when in fact I had no desire to directly hold any gold. It's scary to see how the investment du jour is blindly piled into beyond the point of logic and then spectacularly pops with devastating consequences. Housing anyone?

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

spf3million
Sep 27, 2007

hit 'em with the rhythm
How does one go about investing in farmland? (specifically a small time investor)

BCR
Jan 23, 2011

I'd imagine stock in related companys like Grain Corp.

greasyhands
Oct 28, 2006

Best quality posts,
freshly delivered

Saint Fu posted:

How does one go about investing in farmland? (specifically a small time investor)

You didn't really ask for opinions on the idea itself, but I'd do some pretty heavy research before I put much money into farmland right now.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/quarterly/2008_vol2_4/farmland.html

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c2-70.html

Swingline
Jul 20, 2008

BCR posted:

I'd imagine stock in related companys like Grain Corp.

This isn't a great idea. Lots of these companies have hedging operations which would defeat the purpose of what you're trying to accomplish.

BCR
Jan 23, 2011

I'm not saying its a great idea. I only know a handful of agricultural companys like Monsanto and Grain Corp and its what came to mind. I'll do some more reading.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

plester1
Jul 9, 2004





This NPR Planet Money podcast episode is relevant to the farmland discussion: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/04/141053761/the-tuesday-podcast-the-land-boom

In any event, Buffett is more trying to make a point that gold doesn't create any value. He's not saying to go and invest in farmland specifically, just invest in productive things like Exxon or Coke or a railroad or whatever, not a lump of metal that sits in a vault.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply