|
timn posted:It's a literal answer to a very fraught hypothetical question. I don't think he's actually advocating for that outcome. its a very stupid answer
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
It's a very stupid question. Wealth inequality will never be as good as it is right now and will only get worse in the ~35 years this country/planet have left in the tank. I guess in 2055 when the world's richest man eats the world's last grub, we'll all be on equal footing!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
timn posted:It's a literal answer to a very fraught hypothetical question. I don't think he's actually advocating for that outcome. Nah, definitely not advocating for that outcome. As lefty as I may be I don't think any actual Marxists that exist in this country seriously can make anything happen in the good ol' Marxist way. In hopes of avoiding being further painted with the  tarbrush, I'd say either finally making recreational marijuana legal with a tax rate that doesn't price it higher than street price (let's ignore the lobbying that would try very hard, and very likely succeed, to prevent it) which in turn gets people realizing that if they do speak out for things, they actually happen (again... lobbying) or actually de-Reaganomicing the tax rate to such a point that maybe public services, infrastructure, etc. get funded again because even with all the tax shelter loopholes, Bezos having to pay whatever piffling percentage of income and capital gains taxes drops a job training program in rural Montana or whatever. Edit: removed some e/n MJP fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:its a very stupid answer It's rhetorical dude. The answer itself isn't the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Real question that I'm not sure can be answered here: It is going to be up to your plan. Some true up and some don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
That's the thing, I know the plan does a true up, but the documents easily available to me are sparse on details. There's a general document I found that only says this:quote:If, at the end of the year, your actual matching contributions are less than what the maximum matching contribution would have been if your deferrals had been made at a constant rate each pay period throughout the year, <company> will make an additional “true-up” contribution to your account. Still seems to me that I'm owed a true-up here, even if I had waited until December to contribute the necessary amount. But I wanted to run this by people of knowledge before I start yelling at Fidelity in case there's scenarios I'm not thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Your employer will have to put in the true up not fidelity. They probably have a while to actually do it. My entire trued up match comes in February. So I would just ask HR if they did the true ups yet or when they usually happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
Our true ups happened around June as I recall. Fiscal year is the calendar year. Just ask HR how it works and if it's automatic or you need to fill out a form. They shouldn't be hostile or care at all if you aren't. "Hey how does our 401k true up work? Is it automatic or do I need to make sure that I fill out a form?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
yeah I asked our HR person about true ups and she had no clue what I was talking about... not the first time, so I'm starting to get the impression that she's kind of clueless, but that's for another day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:yeah I asked our HR person about true ups and she had no clue what I was talking about... not the first time, so I'm starting to get the impression that she's kind of clueless, but that's for another day. That bodes poorly, but they're fortunately on the hook for it according to the snippet of the plan document you put here. ("Will" not "May".) I would ask your manager about it and get the ball rolling. Or ask coworkers if it happened for them. Or call Fidelity and ask if they can help you. Or lookup your form 5500 for your company and call whatever broker you pay to help you out and ask them. That last piece might light the correct fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
I talked to Fidelity tonight and looks like I was reading the 2020 SPD (they did make changes in 2020 so it is a different document). That said I'm pretty sure I read the 2019 SPD earlier in the year and saw the true up mentioned. The Fidelity rep said he didn't see true up as a feature for 2019, though... BUT dude said 2019 docs aren't available anymore and I have to get it from HR. So maybe! Best part is now I get to fight through clueless HR... yay. edit: It's really a trivial amount of money, but it's the point of it, and the fact that I can't get an easy answer. DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
So I have about $5,000 to put towards my student loans, but my next payment date isn't until April 2021, and it's only accruing at 1.7% right now, so I'd like to safely grow that money for at least ~15 months. I currently have it all in $VTINX (Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund), but I think I could do without the Int'l Stocks/Bonds and TIPS, and I'm willing to be a little more bullish with the money. I'm considering both a very standard 50/50 US stocks/bonds. The 50/50 portfolio has 'worst year' and 'maximum drawdown' numbers that I'm not too afraid of, and I could very easily make this happen in M1. Does that seem reasonable?totalnewbie posted:You think long term capital gains could actually pass Congress? I think the younger generations are much more supportive of raising LTCG rates. I think the idea of 'It's not right that capital is taxed at almost half the rate of labor' could resonate well with most Americans, and if not now then in not too long. I don't think LTCG would or should go away entirely, but I could see a sort of restructuring how they work to make more sense and benefit more people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
literally this big posted:So I have about $5,000 to put towards my student loans, but my next payment date isn't until April 2021, and it's only accruing at 1.7% right now, so I'd like to safely grow that money for at least ~15 months. I currently have it all in $VTINX (Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund), but I think I could do without the Int'l Stocks/Bonds and TIPS, and I'm willing to be a little more bullish with the money. I'm considering both a very standard 50/50 US stocks/bonds. The 50/50 portfolio has 'worst year' and 'maximum drawdown' numbers that I'm not too afraid of, and I could very easily make this happen in M1. Does that seem reasonable? If your time horizon is a little over a year you shouldn't be investing in equities at all with it. If you can't find a hysa or cd to get you better interest rates you could always just make a $5k payment to the loans and assuming you don't have a ton of unpaid interest you'll lower the principal and save on that interest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
This US child care stuff is insane. In my country (10 month baby at home) we spent about 2k on buying all the stuff pre-birth, 150 on hospital bills, monthly allocate 200 for running items and daycare will be about 150 per month (government subsidized). Median salary is about 1.4k net in the town.
lovely tuna snatch fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Jan 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 12:18
|
|
|
My wife and I have been better savers that investors. We let the perfect be the enemy of the good and in trying to pick the right low cost DIY funds, plus balancing other priorities, we let money accumulate in low interest savings accounts (BoA's lol 0.06% APY) , money market brokerage funds inside the tax sheltered accounts or whatever high fee managed fund idiot investments we made when we were young. We have a substantial chunk of money that we want to move into taxable investments and another chunk of money in tax sheltered accounts that we want to move into investments. All of these will be low cost index funds. Meanwhile, the fact that we're currently in the longest bull run in history has us kind of worried about buying high. But I'm convinced that we can't know the future and whether a crash is weeks or years away. So with all that in mind I am wondering if the thread can check the reasoning of our plan to correct this: 1. Immediately move all the tax sheltered money currently in money market funds into a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds (low cost index funds). 1a. Immediately move the taxable money into a savings account that offers a competitive interest rate. 2. Move the taxable money into a balanced portfolio gradually over a year or two in even monthly chunks (to hedge against the crash coming sooner or later). 2a. In parallel, automatically invest additional savings on a monthly basis, and use the buying to keep portfolio balanced. 3. Revisit older tax sheltered investments in high expense ratio funds, sell them off and buy lowest cost index funds available in those accounts. 4. Within a couple years, shift to a more sane occasional rebalancing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
That all sounds reasonable. Dollar cost averaging usually has worse performance than lump sum investing because of the market's overall upward trend. However, psychology is more important in investing than most give it credit for, so if DCA is what it takes for you to actually get a move on with investing while allowing you to sleep at night, do it. This is another place where you don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just be sure to actually follow up on it in the months down the line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
^^ e:f;bdoingitwrong posted:So with all that in mind I am wondering if the thread can check the reasoning of our plan to correct this:
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
I'm ready to be convinced that we should make all the corrections immediately. It would make our lives easier if we could get to the passive part of investing faster, frankly. Where can I find research to help make this argument? E: We're both committed to the buy and hold approach. We're going to have a bunch more conversations to talk about tolerance for risk, how we'll handle the crashes when they come, make agreements about that. And my understanding is that tolerance for risk should impact what % we balance the portfolio between stocks and bonds but not the investing decisions themselves. doingitwrong fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jan 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:I'm ready to be convinced that we should make all the corrections immediately. It would make our lives easier if we could get to the passive part of investing faster, frankly. Where can I find research to help make this argument? Vanguard has put out a couple of short papers outlining the benefits of each. One seems to no longer be on their website anymore, but a more recent one from 2016 is. The Bogleheads wiki has a decent summary and their forums have a ton of threads full of people arguing between the two which all tend to end with “lump sum has slightly higher returns, DCA will expose you to the same amount of risk but spread out over more months.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Here are a few articles related to DCA vs lump sum: https://fourpillarfreedom.com/the-math-psychology-behind-lump-sum-vs-dollar-cost-average-investing/ https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2018/05/the-lump-sum-vs-dollar-cost-averaging-decision/ https://www.madfientist.com/front-loading/
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Thank you both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
The issue apparently is that missing the "bad days" or market falls isn't nearly as good for you as missing the "best days" is destructive. https://www.capitalgroup.com/individual/planning/investing-fundamentals/time-not-timing-is-what-matters.html https://www.putnam.com/literature/pdf/II508-d206c267bdc67daad04ae51e1e47a6d4.pdf There is a very good chart out there (which I cannot find at the moment) that illustrates this well. My recollection is that it has four different investors, and it pretty clearly shows based on historical returns that accidentally getting into the market at a market high that falls isn't nearly so bad as missing those mega-return days when the market jumps. Honestly, the market could well crash tomorrow. You could lose 50% of what you have in the next 3-6 months. But just think about how many people said that in 2013. And 2014, and 2015. And 2016. Etc. And missed out on like a 150% return in the meantime. And all dollar cost averaging would have done during that period is just lower your overall return. I completely get it. The market is scary. The notion of investing $100,000 today and having $50,000 three months from now is truly frightening. But for some things, I think you just have to do what mathematically and historically makes the most sense, and just accept it. SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jan 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:There is a very good chart out there (which I cannot find at the moment) that illustrates this well. My recollection is that it has four different investors, and it pretty clearly shows based on historical returns that accidentally getting into the market at a market high that falls isn't nearly so bad as missing those mega-return days when the market jumps. It might have been this: https://web.archive.org/web/20190428023224/https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/does-market-timing-work or this https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/worlds-worst-market-timer/
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Hopefully not a dumb question. I'm maxing my 401k for the first time in 2020. I also have access to a Roth and a mutual fund though my employer. Both have no commissions/low fees. I'm gathering that I should open and fully fund the Roth before I open a taxable account?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:Hopefully not a dumb question. I'm maxing my 401k for the first time in 2020. I also have access to a Roth and a mutual fund though my employer. Both have no commissions/low fees. I think the line of thinking for this thread is... Emergency fund 401k up to match Then max out your Roth Then max out your 401k Then look at taxable accounts
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:Hopefully not a dumb question. I'm maxing my 401k for the first time in 2020. I also have access to a Roth and a mutual fund though my employer. Both have no commissions/low fees. "Roth" is a descriptor that gets put on a lot of things, and it's not clear what you're talking about. Generally speaking, yes, you should max out whatever tax advantages you can get. Are you talking about a Roth IRA, a Roth 401(k), or a Roth 401(k) with "mega backdoor" features for contributing past the standard cap? For a Roth IRA, just open it through Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab. It's an individual retirement account, so no sense in having it tied to your employer. But, yes, open one and fund it. An ordinary Roth 401(k) counts against the same cap as traditional 401(k) contributions, so you can't use that directly to increase the contributions before your retirement savings have to go into taxable, except by squeezing out a bit of future tax advantage. If you're lucky enough to work somewhere that lets you do the "mega backdoor" by making post-tax contributions that you immediately convert to Roth, fully fund your IRA first (it's a lot less hassle), but it's very much a worthwhile option over going straight to taxable for your retirement savings. This is still a pretty rare luxury, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Sorry - it's a Roth IRA. Looking in to the mega backdoor option, I'm not sure if my 401k qualifies, but at any rate I'll look into funding a Roth IRA and research further, might be useful in the future. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
MJP posted:An extremely liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that requires citizens to be armed. It leads to an actual armed Marxist uprising that is either violently suppressed but enough laws are passed to keep the mob happy, or it's successful and all our 401ks are now worth a lot of very useless currency. Anyone who wants a gun (or 50,000 guns) now can get one, so what makes you think that Congress requiring a bunch of people who don't want guns to get them is going to lead to some kind of Marxist uprising?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:It's a very stupid question. Wealth inequality is inevitable whenever the rate of return on invested capital exceeds the overall economic growth rate (which is just about every stable society). It also really doesn't matter very much. All of the "well it leads to civil war" answers are basically a combination of assuming that the French Revolution is a universal phenomenon and assuming facts not in evidence. My personal politics are left of center, but I just don't get this one. We should have things like universal health insurance, universal free pre-K, free or nearly free state colleges, etc. All of these social innovations would have the effect of reducing wealth inequality, but that isn't their purpose; their purpose is that they are socially useful and broadly beneficial. As long as everyone's basic needs are met, it shouldn't matter that wealth is unequally distributed. If we really want to reduce wealth inequality and benefit society at the same time, my vote for most feasible and effective reform would be restricting the access of poor people to bad consumer credit products (i.e., almost all consumer credit products). Have a net worth and income requirement for anyone who wants a credit card, ban or restrict payday/title lending, ban reverse mortgages, set standards on auto lending so that people cannot buy a car that exceeds X% of their annual income, and don't let anyone go more than $100,000 into student loan debt unless it's for a graduate professional degree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
Boof Bonser posted:If we really want to reduce wealth inequality and benefit society at the same time, my vote for most feasible and effective reform would be restricting the access of poor people to bad consumer credit products (i.e., almost all consumer credit products). Have a net worth and income requirement for anyone who wants a credit card, ban or restrict payday/title lending, ban reverse mortgages, set standards on auto lending so that people cannot buy a car that exceeds X% of their annual income, and don't let anyone go more than $100,000 into student loan debt unless it's for a graduate professional degree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
yeah we should reduce wealth inequality wait hang on, you're not touching my wealth!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Boof Bonser posted:Wealth inequality is inevitable whenever the rate of return on invested capital exceeds the overall economic growth rate (which is just about every stable society). It also really doesn't matter very much. All of the "well it leads to civil war" answers are basically a combination of assuming that the French Revolution is a universal phenomenon and assuming facts not in evidence. My personal politics are left of center, but I just don't get this one. We should have things like universal health insurance, universal free pre-K, free or nearly free state colleges, etc. All of these social innovations would have the effect of reducing wealth inequality, but that isn't their purpose; their purpose is that they are socially useful and broadly beneficial. As long as everyone's basic needs are met, it shouldn't matter that wealth is unequally distributed. Lol, all of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
Boof Bonser posted:As long as everyone's basic needs are met, it shouldn't matter that wealth is unequally distributed. "Let's see, you've got a job that somehow pays half the federally mandated minimum wage. Tips? Not in this neighborhood. But hey, you've got a leaky roof over your head and dollar store groceries in the fridge. Your basic needs are met! What's that? You want to move up in the world? Sorry, we don't hand out bootstraps  "
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 07:29
|
|
|
the first paragraph kiiind of makes sense if you don't think that inequality and immobility are linked (which, lol) the second paragraph is awesome, heavy government restrictions on the behavior of the poor while the wealthy do what they want, where do i sign up for your "left of center" policies boof
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
on one hand, inequality is kinda poo poo. we should probably do something against it? maybe? what about giving the poor some more rules to deal with left of center lmao. you're a fascist dude, sorry you had to find out this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 14:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the first paragraph kiiind of makes sense if you don't think that inequality and immobility are linked (which, lol) Yeah it really swerved in the second half.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
Poors don't need cars, walk to work Work is 10 miles away and pays federal minimum wage? Ever think of using your wages on bootstraps instead of car vehicles? checkmate poors
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
the best part is that inequality ensures that the wealthy have extremely disproportionate political power, so the state won't even meet the "basic needs" of its citizens. Extreme concentrations of wealth and thus power are why we don't have things like: universal health insurance, universal free pre-K, free or nearly free state colleges, etc. in long-term investing news the RoR in my 401k last year was 28.1% 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Boof Bonser posted:Wealth inequality is inevitable whenever the rate of return on invested capital exceeds the overall economic growth rate (which is just about every stable society). It also really doesn't matter very much. All of the "well it leads to civil war" answers are basically a combination of assuming that the French Revolution is a universal phenomenon and assuming facts not in evidence. My personal politics are left of center, but I just don't get this one. We should have things like universal health insurance, universal free pre-K, free or nearly free state colleges, etc. All of these social innovations would have the effect of reducing wealth inequality, but that isn't their purpose; their purpose is that they are socially useful and broadly beneficial. As long as everyone's basic needs are met, it shouldn't matter that wealth is unequally distributed. pamphlet of the worlds most extreme leftist, circa 1325
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
So a few weeks ago I was talking about paying more mortgage off early and potentially putting $120K towards the home vs paying off the whole thing of close to $166K Talked to my lender at Chase about it and learned something new. Apparently you can "recast" a mortgage if you make additional payments. It's a free service, and you just need to fill out some forms to get it done. You can also recast as many times as you want. I did not know this at all. So instead of cutting off months off the back end of the mortgage, you recalculate the amortization schedule and stretch it out over the lifetime of the loan. For example... if I put 120K towards the mortgage, I could reduce my monthly mortgage payment from $855 to $215. Then about half of that would be interest and half is principal the next few years. It would essentially mean that I would lower my mortgage payment by $7,700 per year. I could then take that extra money and invest it if I wanted. Or put it towards paying off the house early. Either way, I estimate that with the lower mortgage payment we could pay off the mortgage in about 2 more years. Now I'm reevaluating if I want to put less towards the home and recast so we could invest some of that money (but not all of it), and may be pay off the home over a longer period of time. But still a significant savings in interest and pay off the house soon. And no, my mortgage payment does not include PMI (which I don't pay), Taxes, or Insurance. I am responsible for paying all those on my own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 17:48
|
|