|
That is so insane, please teach them about ETFs or something.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:That is so insane, please teach them about ETFs or something. Eh, they're not that bad with money surprisingly. One guy is near retirement and claims to have around 1 million in his 401k plus a pension. His plan is to retire on the pension + 401k interest and never touch the principal, then leave the 401k balance to his only son, thereby leaving him 1 million dollars tax free apparently. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
It's insane and stupid behaviour if they're only doing it to hedge against skyrocketing oil prices. But if they're doing it to just hoard gasoline like a survivalist so that they have a small reserve if poo poo hits the fan then...well, it's still insane, but at least there's some logic behind it and could provide useful in the event of a hurricane or ice storm. I assume these people also have large generators too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
It came from E/N!Dalael posted:Dear GF, Surely nobody else has considered this and this man is certain to make a killing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
A later quote from him in the thread is just as goodquote:Investing is always a gamble of some sort, agreed. But someone who is careful can make a lot of money by grabbing the right opportunity. And right now, with oil this low (it might go down a bit more) it can be a good opportunity. It may take a year or 2, but oil will go back to over 100$ a barrel. Forget John Bogle and William Bernstein telling you that you can't predict the market. This guy knows!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
If we're hedging against societal collapse, bullets are easier to store and can always be, uhh, exchanged for gasoline. edit: oil guy is right though, it will go back to over $100 2014 dollars at some point. I'll  that. That doesn't mean it will beat the market over that timespan.
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If we're hedging against societal collapse, bullets are easier to store and can always be, uhh, exchanged for gasoline. Also going to need a screwdriver and a bucket that can fit under cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:edit: oil guy is right though, it will go back to over $100 2014 dollars at some point. I'll Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Also going to need a screwdriver and a bucket that can fit under cars. Nah, shoot the tank and collect the precious petrol in the empty casings. Added benefit of cleaning up the brass for reloading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
People have short memories so I urge you guys to meander over to google finance and take a look at how much Citicorp, Goldman Sachs, Chevron, BP, Google, Apple, Cisco etc. were trading at in January 2009 and how much they have increased since then. Especially Citi. My buddy wanted to buy 5 figures worth of Citi a couple days before it was decided whether or not to bail their asses out. The stock was trading at less than $5 bucks. My SO works in banking and finance and she was telling me that her more experienced, moneyed clients were ploughing money into the market in late 2008, early 2009. They all made out like bandits. Get ready for whatever comes in the next year or so because you stand a good chance of making a lot of money. Especially if you live in a country like Canada or Australia which are economic one trick ponies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Yeah but for every situation like that there are several situations like GT Advanced Technologies where people threw even more money in because "it's a good time to buy" and then lost everything. Nothing is a sure thing but yes if you have a 7 figure net worth by all means spend 5 figures at a roulette table.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Sure, I'm not saying throw caution to the wind. I'm saying there are going to be lots of opportunities to make money during an economic downturn so be prepared. Or not. I don't really give a poo poo what you do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
You don't really get to compare a small startup penny stock like GTATQ with a commodity as fundamental to the entire world's economy as oil. I'm not recommending anyone run out and buy USO and I'm not going to personally, but I don't think you can really talk about oil as "yet another security" and skip talking about specifics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:People have short memories so I urge you guys to meander over to google finance and take a look at how much Citicorp, Goldman Sachs, Chevron, BP, Google, Apple, Cisco etc. were trading at in January 2009 and how much they have increased since then. That sure is a random bunch of names you tossed out that have no underlying investing principle connecting them, which includes several that have lost value over the past 6 years and only a few that beat the S&P index. I do think the guy's idea of overweighting oil and/or oil-oriented securities is probably fairly reasonable, but then in the next sentence he laments missing out on the gold bubble, which suggests he is using the "I want to buy a thing I heard on the news" strategy rather than relying on any informed analysis of the global oil industry and markets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Sure, I'm not saying throw caution to the wind. I'm saying there are going to be lots of opportunities to make money during an economic downturn so be prepared.  obviously you should be putting money into the market when it goes down. It's piling hoards into a single asset that I feel is just straight up retarded. Putting money into the S&P 500 would also have benefited from gains of many of the names you rattled off.Again, unless putting down five figures is like 1% of your portfolio, in which case why the gently caress not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:
Why so aggro? An index of the S&P500 would be a great strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:That sure is a random bunch of names you tossed out that have no underlying investing principle connecting them, which includes several that have lost value over the past 6 years and only a few that beat the S&P index. By all means, buy the index.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:By all means, buy the index. This isn't sarcasm, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
The S&P is near an all-time high, so that guy clearly should diversify and use half his down payment to short the S&P 500 and the other half to invest in Oil
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
I'm doing a good with money thing! I'm switching from Verizon to T-Mobile so I can cut my bill from $120/month to $80/month. With Verizon, I'm paying $120/month for 1gb of data, and the T-Mobile plan is offering unlimited talk, text, and 4G data for that $80. I always hit or go over my Verizon data cap, so between the higher base cost + overage fees, I will save a substantial bit of money each month by switching providers. To head off anyone saying I shouldn't be going over the cap: I use WiFi at work and at home, and I still manage to go over the data limit on things like Google Maps, looking up phone numbers or addresses, doing Yelp review searches, and other normal things. As an added bonus, T-Mobile lets you stream Pandora and other music services without it counting against your data limit while you're on their network (not so useful to me since I'll be on an unlimited data plan, but it's a nice gesture).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Have you physically tested (ignore the map, the map is awful lies) the connectivity at home, work, your commute, and other places where you will use the phone? I love T-Mobile, but Verizon's network really is better from what I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Do you actually use that many minutes? My girlfriend pays $30 a month with T-Mobile prepaid for 100 minutes, Unlimited 4G, and Unlimited Text. I'm pretty sure you can just buy more minutes (it's a pre-paid, not a post-paid) if you run low. Not sure why it's $80 for you. Volmarias posted:Have you physically tested the connectivity at home, work, your commute, and other places where you will use the phone? They have a 30 day trial as long as there's a store near you. no cost if you return. Verizon's network is way better - my girlfriend doesn't get great service on the train home from work but it's fine almost anywhere else in the metro area. Highway coverage is shittier than Verizon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Have you physically tested the connectivity at home, work, your commute, and other places where you will use the phone? Yeah - Seattle is their headquarters city so if anywhere, this will be a place where I can get consistently good service. I've had friends with T-Mobile come over to the apartment and they've had great service where I live, and a co-worker gets 3 bars in our office, which is what I get right now on Verizon. I rarely leave Seattle so I'm not too concerned with service strength in the countryside but you're right that Verizon's network coverage is, on the whole, better than any other carrier. xie posted:Do you actually use that many minutes? My girlfriend pays $30 a month with T-Mobile prepaid for 100 minutes, Unlimited 4G, and Unlimited Text. I go through about 500 minutes a month, sometimes more. I talk to my family on the East Coast every day, plus making other calls related to scheduling things, appointments, and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
xie posted:They have a 30 day trial as long as there's a store near you. no cost if you return. The number is still ported, and most phones aren't quadband or anything. Verizon might also charge an activation fee to go back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
xie posted:Do you actually use that many minutes? My girlfriend pays $30 a month with T-Mobile prepaid for 100 minutes, Unlimited 4G, and Unlimited Text.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:To pile on, if your car is designed for premium, using regular will typically degrade your fuel economy to a point where it's not economical to use economy. Really? You sure about that? It would have to be a 20% improvement in fuel economy to cover the price spread, and I sincerely don't believe that modern engines lose 20% efficiency with the wrong octane grade gasoline put in them
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Really? You sure about that? It would have to be a 20% improvement in fuel economy to cover the price spread, and I sincerely don't believe that modern engines lose 20% efficiency with the wrong octane grade gasoline put in them I had an Infiniti I30 that absolutely needed mid-grade at a minimum to keep from pinging in all conditions. I would alternate fill-ups from premium and mid-grade, and the one time I tried to run regular I got 14MPG in town and lots of pinging. With mid-grade/premium I would see 18MPG in town, and 26MPG on the freeway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Also, where do you live that premium costs 20 percent more than regular?? Just earlier this week I filled up with premium @ $3.30/gal, regular was $3.10. That's a 6% price difference. Even if you're somewhere where gas is like $2.25/gal, it's still less than 10% difference. For many high compression and/or turbo motors I'd absolutely believe an efficiency loss of up to/over 10%, not to mention the degraded performance and potential long-term reliability implications of running suboptimal octane. Guinness fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Really? You sure about that? It would have to be a 20% improvement in fuel economy to cover the price spread, and I sincerely don't believe that modern engines lose 20% efficiency with the wrong octane grade gasoline put in them Premium costs 20% more where you are? Where I am it is 20 cents a gallon more, well under 10% even with the huge crash in gas prices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Nocheez posted:I had an Infiniti I30 that absolutely needed mid-grade at a minimum to keep from pinging in all conditions. I would alternate fill-ups from premium and mid-grade, and the one time I tried to run regular I got 14MPG in town and lots of pinging. With mid-grade/premium I would see 18MPG in town, and 26MPG on the freeway. I wouldn't include a 20ish year old car that actually pings with regular grade in my definition of modern engines but that's an interesting data point and it's convenient you remembered that one time
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Also, where do you live that premium costs 20 percent more than regular?? It's $2.45 for 87 and $2.85 for 93, so I guess that's 16.3%. The choices are 87/89/93 and my car says 91. Honestly given that cars have to deal with a lot more variables in the real world than ideal test octane formulations (temperature, humidity, air pressure, ethanol, impurities) the thought that octane rating can really cost an engine that can stop itself from knocking any significant fuel efficiency in street driving is hard to believe. Old engines or race cars, ok whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Oh good, car chat. This is just the time to go lubricate the clips to my Colt 1911 Desert Eagle with WD-40 and then go out and protest the spread of machine guns like the M-16.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Have you physically tested (ignore the map, the map is awful lies) the connectivity at home, work, your commute, and other places where you will use the phone? Yes, definitely do this. I switched from TMobile to Verizon because I never got any signal in buildings (and my own house).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Oh good, car chat. This is just the time to go lubricate the clips to my Colt 1911 Desert Eagle with WD-40 and then go out and protest the spread of machine guns like the M-16. make sure to buy a couple clips worth of engraved silver bullets and a tank of 93 octane on your way
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:It's $2.45 for 87 and $2.85 for 93, so I guess that's 16.3%. The choices are 87/89/93 and my car says 91. Honestly given that cars have to deal with a lot more variables in the real world than ideal test octane formulations (temperature, humidity, air pressure, ethanol, impurities) the thought that octane rating can really cost an engine that can stop itself from knocking any significant fuel efficiency in street driving is hard to believe. Old engines or race cars, ok whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:It's $2.45 for 87 and $2.85 for 93, so I guess that's 16.3%. The choices are 87/89/93 and my car says 91. Honestly given that cars have to deal with a lot more variables in the real world than ideal test octane formulations (temperature, humidity, air pressure, ethanol, impurities) the thought that octane rating can really cost an engine that can stop itself from knocking any significant fuel efficiency in street driving is hard to believe. Old engines or race cars, ok whatever. Yeah you really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about and probably shouldn't give advice that will damage people's cars. Including my 2004! An ancient race engine!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:I wouldn't include a 20ish year old car that actually pings with regular grade in my definition of modern engines but that's an interesting data point and it's convenient you remembered that one time It was a loving 2001, smartass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:It's $2.45 for 87 and $2.85 for 93, so I guess that's 16.3%. The choices are 87/89/93 and my car says 91. Honestly given that cars have to deal with a lot more variables in the real world than ideal test octane formulations (temperature, humidity, air pressure, ethanol, impurities) the thought that octane rating can really cost an engine that can stop itself from knocking any significant fuel efficiency in street driving is hard to believe. Old engines or race cars, ok whatever. Thank god someone sees through the car company/gas industry scam! So you put 87 in your car, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
My first car was a 1990 Infiniti Q45, the first year. It said premium recommended, but not required, so I never did. I was also seventeen and an idiot, so I wouldn't have noticed any performance differences (though I certainly never heard knocking).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Nocheez posted:It was a loving 2001, smartass. ok 15 years if that will make you feel any better SiGmA_X posted:You're wrong. Go rent a 2015 M4, run it near dry and throw in regular for a tank. Then do a tank with 93. You'll see a substantial performance and MPG loss. It'll run entirely fine but at a large performance deficient. This isn't a new concept. No poo poo an $80,000 turbocharged sports car would suffer a performance loss? The specific claim I'm disputing is that per the poster above "if your car is designed for premium, using regular will typically degrade your fuel economy to a point where it's not economical to use economy" i.e. premium gas will pay for itself in increased fuel efficiency in street driving, not that 400 hp sports cars do not perform optimally while being floored around a track with low octane gas. Since you brought up BMW, here's my brand new 3 series on its first road trip with lowly 87 octane:  Does anyone want to seriously claim that putting 91/93 octane in a car with modern knock sensing and ignition timing - which was invented to deal with numerous environmental and fuel quality variables in vehicles sold around the entire planet, not to compensate for people putting the wrong grade of gas in the car - will give freebie 16% increased fuel efficiency for the average commuting driver, equaling or exceeding the increased cost at the pump today down the street from my house?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:37
|
|