Long Term Investing & Retirement: The second best time is now

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Long Term Investing & Retirement: The second best time is now

«‹›1209 »

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

nwin posted:

That�s good to know. I did a lovely job of only putting in 50-100 a month into my Roth IRA for the longest time and didn�t even start the TSP until 2-3 years ago, so I�ve been very concerned I might be hosed. Right now we only plan on having the one child and I�m going to transfer my GI Bill to him, so he should be set of college. My wife wants to go back to work at some point, so that will also help.

The one thing I don�t have going for me is a house. Moving all over the place makes me nervous to buy a place, but if I retire at 44 and we settle down, then I�m hopeful we can buy a house and have it paid off by the time I�m 65.

I edited with more figures to support my conclusion which should help. I'll add that saving additional money is not a bad thing to hedge against the military pension exploding (or against you not making it to 20 for any number of gently caress-gently caress reasons) and possible reduction in either the payout value of SS or the an increase in full retirement age. If you max your retirement vehicles up to whatever you're comfortable with and you end up with all three (military, ss, and personal retirement assets), you'll be living an incredibly comfortable existence.

# ? Jan 11, 2019 23:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 19:14

pmac: Jun 12, 2007

Question on non-deductible contributions to a Traditional IRA. My 2018 MAGI was $65K and I contributed $5500 to my trad IRA with Vanguard, $4400 of which is deductible. For added context, I've been contributing to a Roth 401k through my employer for "up to 50% of 3%" match, and then putting as much as possible into my IRA. This is the first time I've come into the deduction phase-out range so I'm trying to make sense of the consequences. Do I have any options with the $1100 non-deductible contribution that's now bundled into my trad IRA (total balance is around $15K)?

I was able to find some old info on https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Non-deductible_traditional_IRA.

Assuming I can handle the tax in 2019, is converting my entire trad IRA to Roth my best option?

On the plus side, my company finally added some sub-0.05% ER funds to our 401k plan this year, so I've already switched to making trad 401k and Roth IRA contributions moving forward.

pmac fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jan 12, 2019

# ? Jan 12, 2019 17:43

Mao Zedong Thot: Oct 16, 2008

Apparently I made my 2017 roth contribution as 2018. Can I re-do that, or do I just lose a year? (Vanguard, if it matters)

# ? Jan 12, 2019 17:52

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

pmac posted:

Question on non-deductible contributions to a Traditional IRA. My 2018 MAGI was $65K and I contributed $5500 to my trad IRA with Vanguard, $4400 of which is deductible. For added context, I've been contributing to a Roth 401k through my employer for "up to 50% of 3%" match, and then putting as much as possible into my IRA. This is the first time I've come into the deduction phase-out range so I'm trying to make sense of the consequences. Do I have any options with the $1100 non-deductible contribution that's now bundled into my trad IRA (total balance is around $15K).

I was able to find some old info on https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Non-deductible_traditional_IRA:

Assuming I can handle the tax in 2019, is converting my entire trad IRA to Roth my best option?

On the plus side, my company finally added some sub-0.05% ER funds to our 401k plan this year, so I've already switched to making trad 401k and Roth IRA contributions moving forward.

You can ask to recharacterize $1,100 of your contribution to Roth. No need to convert the whole thing. What I'm seeing is that you have until tax filing time to do the recharacterization. Recharacterizing is essentially asking to have all or a portion of your contribution treated as if it was the other one instead. "Hey, I hosed up and did the wrong one. Please fix this." That's an allowed action.

Mao Zedong Thot posted:

Apparently I made my 2017 roth contribution as 2018. Can I re-do that, or do I just lose a year? (Vanguard, if it matters)

Way too late for that now, unfortunately.

# ? Jan 12, 2019 18:26

pmac: Jun 12, 2007

Hoodwinker posted:

You can ask to recharacterize $1,100 of your contribution to Roth. No need to convert the whole thing. What I'm seeing is that you have until tax filing time to do the recharacterization. Recharacterizing is essentially asking to have all or a portion of your contribution treated as if it was the other one instead. "Hey, I hosed up and did the wrong one. Please fix this." That's an allowed action.

Nice, I totally missed that option. Thanks!

# ? Jan 12, 2019 18:36

nwin: Feb 25, 2002; make's u think

Hoodwinker posted:

I edited with more figures to support my conclusion which should help. I'll add that saving additional money is not a bad thing to hedge against the military pension exploding (or against you not making it to 20 for any number of gently caress-gently caress reasons) and possible reduction in either the payout value of SS or the an increase in full retirement age. If you max your retirement vehicles up to whatever you're comfortable with and you end up with all three (military, ss, and personal retirement assets), you'll be living an incredibly comfortable existence.

Thanks again-this is very helpful. Do you mind explaining how you get the 4% at 2 million and some of the other figures?

# ? Jan 12, 2019 22:12

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

nwin posted:

Thanks again-this is very helpful. Do you mind explaining how you get the 4% at 2 million and some of the other figures?

The napkin-math calculation for the value of an annuity payout is 4%. Social security and pensions aren't exactly annuities, but for the purposes of calculating the effect of their payout they act like one. Annuities usually pay out 4% of their total balance annually. The math then for figuring out the "effective value" of social security or a pension is:

code:

12 for 12 months
25 for turning 4% into 100%
(monthly_payout * 12) * 25 = effective_value

The annual amount you had listed there was $54,694.44. If you take that amount and multiply it by 25, you see that your military pension is the same effect as if you had an annuity paying out 4% of $1,367,361. Then I did the same thing with your SS payment to get ~$750k. When we do long-term investment planning for ourselves as individuals, we usually figure out how much money we would need to save up in order to safely retire. Oftentimes that number is simply 25 times our annual expenses (in this case, 25 is used to represent enough expenses for 25 years, not specifically related to the 4% annuity figure), and then figuring out an investment portfolio that we can safely withdraw 4% from in perpetuity. The reason for this is the oft-cited Trinity Study, which found that a properly invested portfolio could be safely withdrawn from at 4% without running out of funds for 30 years in something like 90-95% of outcomes.

In your case, if your annual expenses were $50,000, your military pension alone would be almost sufficient to retire on at 44. If you manage to get that plan, and you keep saving, and you keep working, and you get social security, then the only danger you run into is pre-deceasing your retirement. You're not going to run out of money.

# ? Jan 12, 2019 22:42

nwin: Feb 25, 2002; make's u think

Hoodwinker posted:

The napkin-math calculation for the value of an annuity payout is 4%. Social security and pensions aren't exactly annuities, but for the purposes of calculating the effect of their payout they act like one. Annuities usually pay out 4% of their total balance annually. The math then for figuring out the "effective value" of social security or a pension is:
code:
12 for 12 months
25 for turning 4% into 100%
(monthly_payout * 12) * 25 = effective_value
The annual amount you had listed there was $54,694.44. If you take that amount and multiply it by 25, you see that your military pension is the same effect as if you had an annuity paying out 4% of $1,367,361. Then I did the same thing with your SS payment to get ~$750k. When we do long-term investment planning for ourselves as individuals, we usually figure out how much money we would need to save up in order to safely retire. Oftentimes that number is simply 25 times our annual expenses (in this case, 25 is used to represent enough expenses for 25 years, not specifically related to the 4% annuity figure), and then figuring out an investment portfolio that we can safely withdraw 4% from in perpetuity. The reason for this is the oft-cited Trinity Study, which found that a properly invested portfolio could be safely withdrawn from at 4% without running out of funds for 30 years in something like 90-95% of outcomes.

In your case, if your annual expenses were $50,000, your military pension alone would be almost sufficient to retire on at 44. If you manage to get that plan, and you keep saving, and you keep working, and you get social security, then the only danger you run into is pre-deceasing your retirement. You're not going to run out of money.

All of that�s amazing-thank you so much for the explanation!

# ? Jan 12, 2019 23:28

SpelledBackwards: Jan 7, 2001; I found this image on the Internet, perhaps you've heard of it? It's been around for a while I hear.

And then you can go out and get that Mustang!

# ? Jan 13, 2019 00:08

Beer4TheBeerGod: Aug 23, 2004; Exciting Lemon

nwin posted:

All of that’s amazing-thank you so much for the explanation!

Yeah that's a really awesome explanation, thank you.

# ? Jan 13, 2019 01:14

smackfu: Jun 7, 2004

If I have a 401k from my old job, I can only transfer that to a traditional IRA, right? But having a deductible IRA messes with our ability to do backdoor Roth, if I understand correctly. So I�m effectively stuck with the old 401k?

# ? Jan 13, 2019 16:00

Harry: Jun 13, 2003; I do solemnly swear that in the year 2015 I will theorycraft my wallet as well as my WoW

smackfu posted:

If I have a 401k from my old job, I can only transfer that to a traditional IRA, right? But having a deductible IRA messes with our ability to do backdoor Roth, if I understand correctly. So I�m effectively stuck with the old 401k?

You can roll it over into a new 401k.

# ? Jan 13, 2019 16:03

spwrozek: Sep 4, 2006; Sail when it's windy

Harry posted:

You can roll it over into a new 401k.

If the plan allows it, not all do

# ? Jan 13, 2019 16:10

Xenoborg: Mar 10, 2007

You can also roll it into a trad IRA and later covert it (at your own pace) to Roth IRA

# ? Jan 13, 2019 16:23

paternity suitor: Aug 2, 2016

Holy poo poo, collecting $39k a year in "retirement" starting at 44...

Hoodwinker posted:

Dog, you're set.

# ? Jan 14, 2019 13:08

Mu Zeta: Oct 17, 2002; Me crush ass to dust

IMO well deserved since there's a chance you die in combat

# ? Jan 14, 2019 13:14

smackfu: Jun 7, 2004

A lot of �hazardous duty� government jobs have similar 20 year service then draw a pension setups. Think police or prison guards. It�s pretty sweet if you can make it 20 years, since there�s nothing stopping you from getting a second job to supplement the pension. And usually you get health care of course.

The real scam is to find a job that is classified as hazardous duty but is not very risky.

# ? Jan 14, 2019 13:51

nwin: Feb 25, 2002; make's u think

The bigger scam is for me to do my 20 years, retire, and then get a civilian job in the government (which still allows you to contribute to the TSP but the government starts matching a percentage) similar to your active duty job. I think either after 5-10 additional years, you�re eligible for your second retirement, aka double-dipping. I have some bosses that have done this and they�re pretty well set, plus they are eligible for health care for life for themselves and their family-I think my last boss said that his annual premium was $600 for him and his wife.

# ? Jan 14, 2019 14:15

Fhqwhgads: Jul 18, 2003; I AM THE ONLY ONE IN THIS GAME WHO GETS LAID

air- posted:

Vanguard Recommends Investors Increase Non-U.S. Holdings to 40%

If I'm sitting at 90/10 US/ex-US, maybe I should up the international exposure a bit? Maybe not 60/40 but 80/20 for future contributions?

# ? Jan 14, 2019 14:25

Ancillary Character: Jul 25, 2007; Going about life as if I were a third-tier ancillary character

Fhqwhgads posted:

If I'm sitting at 90/10 US/ex-US, maybe I should up the international exposure a bit? Maybe not 60/40 but 80/20 for future contributions?

Well do you want to continue to grossly under-represent companies like Nestle, Samsung, and Toyota in your portfolio or just under-represent them relative to their market cap?

# ? Jan 14, 2019 14:42

tumblr hype man: Jul 29, 2008; nice meltdown; Slippery Tilde

nwin posted:

The bigger scam is for me to do my 20 years, retire, and then get a civilian job in the government (which still allows you to contribute to the TSP but the government starts matching a percentage) similar to your active duty job. I think either after 5-10 additional years, you�re eligible for your second retirement, aka double-dipping. I have some bosses that have done this and they�re pretty well set, plus they are eligible for health care for life for themselves and their family-I think my last boss said that his annual premium was $600 for him and his wife.

Yup, when working in consumer finance I saw some a few guys that had done 20 in the military, then another 20 in state or federal government jobs and were now on to consulting gigs. Pulling in crazy amounts of money each year.

I've got a question for you guys.
My dad (turned 67 last year), was contributing to his 401k all year long, and in October of 2018 his company halted his ability to contribute because they classified him as a Highly Compensated Employee. I think at this point he was in to making his catch up contributions however. The way I read the IRS stuff about this is that the catch up contributions don't count towards the HCE tests and they should have let him continue contributing via that. Is that correct? Is there anything he can do to get that tax advantaged space back or is it too late?

# ? Jan 14, 2019 15:18

Kylaer: Aug 4, 2007; I'm SURE walking around in a respirator at all times in an (even more) OPEN BIDENing society is definitely not a recipe for disaster and anyone that's not cool with getting harassed by CHUDs are cave dwellers. I've got good brain!

Ancillary Character posted:

Well do you want to continue to grossly under-represent companies like Nestle, Samsung, and Toyota in your portfolio or just under-represent them relative to their market cap?

If you invest in international instead of U.S-only, it's probably going to be a drag on your portfolio over the long run. You have to cherry-pick your time periods very selectively in order to find international or an international/U.S blend outperforming a pure U.S portfolio.

The reason to invest in the international market is not because it's going to add to your returns under expected conditions - in fact it should be expected to decrease your returns. But there is that small chance that the U.S may run into a Japan-style extended flat market, and in that circumstance you'll be glad to be holding some international equities.

I'm currently at about 1/3 international and I think that's too high, I'm contributing new investment money to U.S only until I'm down to about 25% international.

# ? Jan 14, 2019 15:47

Inept: Jul 8, 2003

Kylaer posted:

The reason to invest in the international market is not because it's going to add to your returns under expected conditions - in fact it should be expected to decrease your returns.

Not saying they're definitely right, but Vanguard seems to think they will:

quote:

Global stock markets are likely to outperform the U.S., which the firm expects to return roughly 4 percent to 6 percent annually over the coming decade, Chief Executive Officer Tim Buckley and Chief Investment Officer Greg Davis said Thursday during a webcast.

# ? Jan 14, 2019 16:07

Kylaer: Aug 4, 2007; I'm SURE walking around in a respirator at all times in an (even more) OPEN BIDENing society is definitely not a recipe for disaster and anyone that's not cool with getting harassed by CHUDs are cave dwellers. I've got good brain!

If you would trust someone named Tim Buckley to deliver you anything other than a loss, well...

# ? Jan 14, 2019 16:13

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

I have a dumb question:

I have a portfolio tracking spreadsheet I made to automatically spit out things like asset allocation, average ER, balances, etc. Is there anything wrong with the lazy man's way of tracking annual rate of return on my whole portfolio by just doing...

code:

gains / (last_year_ending_balance + this_year_contributions)

Where "gains" is calculated as:

code:

current_balance - (last_year_ending_balance + this_year_contributions)

Is this wildly off base?

# ? Jan 14, 2019 18:52

baquerd: Jul 2, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Hoodwinker posted:

I have a dumb question:

I have a portfolio tracking spreadsheet I made to automatically spit out things like asset allocation, average ER, balances, etc. Is there anything wrong with the lazy man's way of tracking annual rate of return on my whole portfolio by just doing...
code:
gains / (last_year_ending_balance + this_year_contributions)
Where "gains" is calculated as:
code:
current_balance - (last_year_ending_balance + this_year_contributions)
Is this wildly off base?

If you were to make all your contributions on the last day of the year, it would be pretty accurate. Depending on when you make your contributions, it will vary. XIRR isn't that hard to calculate and takes these things into account, you just need your full transaction log of contributions and withdrawals.

# ? Jan 14, 2019 19:56

BMan: Oct 31, 2015; KNIIIIIIFE
EEEEEYYYYE
ATTAAAACK

Hoodwinker posted:

I have a dumb question:

I have a portfolio tracking spreadsheet I made to automatically spit out things like asset allocation, average ER, balances, etc. Is there anything wrong with the lazy man's way of tracking annual rate of return on my whole portfolio by just doing...
code:
gains / (last_year_ending_balance + this_year_contributions)
Where "gains" is calculated as:
code:
current_balance - (last_year_ending_balance + this_year_contributions)
Is this wildly off base?

This is correct if you only make contributions at the start of the year. If you make contributions during the year, this will underestimate the true rate of return. To do it right, you need to use the XIRR function and put in all the transactions individually with the dates they occurred. This also works over any time period, so you can use it to calculate the average annual rate of return since you started investing for example.

Hopefully you can figure out how to use it from this spreadsheet I whipped up: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AdZJZocjV5foTK4GXuQDhDRSrv1PotzUI6kG3Aavk8E/edit?usp=sharing

edit: gently caress, ninja'd

# ? Jan 14, 2019 19:59

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

If I'm reading this correctly, the ending balance from the previous year is considered a "contribution" on the 1st for the purposes of calculating with XIRR. Is that correct?

I'm going to end up having to track something like 80 contributions each year if I do it like this ugh (26 for 401k from my pay check, 26 for my wife's 403b from her pay check, 26 for my taxable brokerage contributions I make from each pay check, and a couple of IRA contributions at the start of the year).

This is hardly insurmountable but uuuuugggghhh I just wanted to be lazy and see how many dollars my account went up by. That part's still accurate, right? It's just using that flat number for calculating RoR is wrong.

Thanks goons, I'll use this to set up another sheet on my supersheet which I'll plug this stuff in so I can accurate calculate my return.

# ? Jan 14, 2019 20:08

single-mode fiber: Dec 30, 2012

Kylaer posted:

If you would trust someone named Tim Buckley to deliver you anything other than a loss, well...

I appreciate this one

# ? Jan 14, 2019 20:22

Asleep Style: Oct 20, 2010

Just found out that the 401k plan at newjob slaps a fat 2% fee on top of every fund's expense ratio, instead of 0.05-0.17% I'm really paying 2.05-2.17%. Ow, my balls.

# ? Jan 14, 2019 23:27

Blinky2099: May 27, 2007; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Asleep Style posted:

Just found out that the 401k plan at newjob slaps a fat 2% fee on top of every fund's expense ratio, instead of 0.05-0.17% I'm really paying 2.05-2.17%. Ow, my balls.

Something-something-immediately complain to HR/benefits and get others to do the same

# ? Jan 14, 2019 23:56

Sock The Great: Oct 1, 2006; It's Lonely At The Top. But It's Comforting To Look Down Upon Everyone At The Bottom; Grimey Drawer

Asleep Style posted:

Just found out that the 401k plan at newjob slaps a fat 2% fee on top of every fund's expense ratio, instead of 0.05-0.17% I'm really paying 2.05-2.17%. Ow, my balls.

Wow that's nuts. I thought my 401k was bad with the least expensive fund being .75%. Definitely get as many people as possible to complain to HR.

Your employer has a fiduciary responsibility (if the broker intermediary is not) to act in your best interest. If it comes down to it then you can report them to the Department of Labor and the fines are really hefty (average is about $700k).

# ? Jan 15, 2019 00:33

Asleep Style: Oct 20, 2010

I'm not sure how much of this is a small company thing (there is no HR but I'll be complaining) but 2% is crazy town.

Is there any precedent for roughly what fiduciary responsibility translates to fee wise? Or is it like the supreme court and pornography?

# ? Jan 15, 2019 01:13

Fhqwhgads: Jul 18, 2003; I AM THE ONLY ONE IN THIS GAME WHO GETS LAID

Asleep Style posted:

I'm not sure how much of this is a small company thing (there is no HR but I'll be complaining) but 2% is crazy town.

Is there any precedent for roughly what fiduciary responsibility translates to fee wise? Or is it like the supreme court and pornography?

If it's anything like my old small company, the person in charge of your benefits likely either doesn't what they're doing or doesn't care, so whoever is administering your 401k is taking full advantage of that and probably bought a new boat off of the fees they're charging. Small companies might have less leverage when it comes to fees, but that's just bullshit right there.

# ? Jan 15, 2019 01:53

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

Asleep Style posted:

I'm not sure how much of this is a small company thing (there is no HR but I'll be complaining) but 2% is crazy town.

Is there any precedent for roughly what fiduciary responsibility translates to fee wise? Or is it like the supreme court and pornography?

How many employees? It sounds like if you're in a 401k then it's likely the wrong thing for under 100 employees. SIMPLE IRA should get you better fee structure (literally $25/pp/y), and the Fidelity one gets you access to all of the Fidelity funds.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/choosing-a-retirement-plan-simple-ira-plan
https://investor.vanguard.com/small-business-retirement-plans/simple-ira
https://www.fidelity.com/retirement-ira/small-business/simple-ira/overview

a 2% front end load is insane. Someone is getting a massive kickback or seriously ripped off.

# ? Jan 15, 2019 01:53

Asleep Style: Oct 20, 2010

Fhqwhgads posted:

If it's anything like my old small company, the person in charge of your benefits likely either doesn't what they're doing or doesn't care, so whoever is administering your 401k is taking full advantage of that and probably bought a new boat off of the fees they're charging. Small companies might have less leverage when it comes to fees, but that's just bullshit right there.

This all seems extremely likely.

H110Hawk posted:

How many employees? It sounds like if you're in a 401k then it's likely the wrong thing for under 100 employees. SIMPLE IRA should get you better fee structure (literally $25/pp/y), and the Fidelity one gets you access to all of the Fidelity funds.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/choosing-a-retirement-plan-simple-ira-plan
https://investor.vanguard.com/small-business-retirement-plans/simple-ira
https://www.fidelity.com/retirement-ira/small-business/simple-ira/overview

a 2% front end load is insane. Someone is getting a massive kickback or seriously ripped off.

gently caress me I've got a boat to sink.

# ? Jan 15, 2019 02:16

Senor P.: Mar 27, 2006; I MUST TELL YOU HOW PEOPLE CARE ABOUT STUFF I DONT AND BE A COMPLETE CUNT ABOUT IT

A few questions:

How does a Roth IRA differ from one of these Vanguard 20XX Investment Plans?

My employer offers a Roth 401k. Is there any reason for me not to elect for it? Is a roth 401k really better than a regular 401k?

Is rolling it over my traditional 401k itn a Roth 401k worth it? (Assuming I work for 30 more years...)

Does Vanguard offer IRA management or Investment Plans geared toward older folks?
(My father is 72 and it seems like he is getting taken for a ride with whomever he has had manage his IRA..)

# ? Jan 15, 2019 04:54

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

Senor P. posted:

A few questions:

How does a Roth IRA differ from one of these Vanguard 20XX Investment Plans?

My employer offers a Roth 401k. Is there any reason for me not to elect for it? Is a roth 401k really better than a regular 401k?

Is rolling it over my traditional 401k itn a Roth 401k worth it? (Assuming I work for 30 more years...)

Does Vanguard offer IRA management or Investment Plans geared toward older folks?
(My father is 72 and it seems like he is getting taken for a ride with whomever he has had manage his IRA..)

1. A Roth IRA is a type of account, which can store one of those Vanguard 20XX Target Date Retirement Funds.

2. Roth vs. Traditional is a tax treatment. Roth accounts use already-taxed money but you pay no tax when you withdraw in retirement. Traditional (regular) accounts use pre-tax money and you pay taxes when you withdraw in retirement. When you make very little money, a Roth account is best, because your tax rate is lower. If you make less than $40,000 a year, Roth may make the most sense for you across the board. If you make more than that, using a Traditional 401k and a Roth IRA is a good mix.

3. You cannot do this. Traditional (pre-tax) money has to stay in Traditional accounts. Roth (post-tax) money has to stay in Roth accounts. If you want to convert Traditional money to Roth money, you pay the taxes on it when you do so.

4. I would be extremely surprised if they didn't.

# ? Jan 15, 2019 05:19

H110Hawk: Dec 28, 2006

Company just added Mega-Backdoor Roth w/ automatic conversion. So if we put money into our After Tax 401k they will sweep it right into the Roth 401k for us.

# ? Jan 16, 2019 18:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 19:14

Hoodwinker: Nov 7, 2005

H110Hawk posted:

Company just added Mega-Backdoor Roth w/ automatic conversion. So if we put money into our After Tax 401k they will sweep it right into the Roth 401k for us.

Isn't the mega backdoor where you sweep after-tax into a Roth IRA? I don't think it matters if it sweeps into your Roth 401k since there's no way to get around the contribution limit on that.

# ? Jan 16, 2019 18:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Long Term Investing & Retirement: The second best time is now

«‹›1209 »