Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[Skull Pilot]

Gamblers are not purchasing an asset. Investers are.

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

Or do you think that those stocks do not actually represent anything?

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

You also do not invest in a single company or over very short terms for retirement investments. The only arguments that your side seem to have hinge on investing without a vehicle or any structure. A concept that should not and will not exist within a privatized SS system.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

[qiupte

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Gamblers are not purchasing an asset. Investers are.

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

Or do you think that those stocks do not actually represent anything?

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

You also do not invest in a single company or over very short terms for retirement investments. The only arguments that your side seem to have hinge on investing without a vehicle or any structure. A concept that should not and will not exist within a privatized SS system.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Because you've sold all the ones that performed not as well.[/QUOTE]

You mean I exercised choice in investing my own money?

WHat a fucking novel concept

 

[Skull Pilot]

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Well not every American can be a genius like you, lol.

btw, you're actually making the case that people can and should invest IN ADDITION to their SS,
and can do so successfully.

You definitely should.

In fact, the existence of social security means Americans can be free to invest knowing that if their investments all fail - they will at least have social security.

I have my IRA invested in 60% U.S. stocks 40% government bonds.Unlike SkullIdiot, I'm not fooling myself. I know the 60% I have in stocks is subject to severe risk and may fail completely. I know that my lack of total knowledge of all the underlying companies puts me at a disadvantage compared to professionals like Touro who have the time to keep track of all that crap. All of my stock investments may fail. If that happens, I've got my bonds, my social security, my state pension, equity in my home, and the fact that my profession involves work I can do well into old age, to back me up.

Not all stocks are "severely" risky

Tell me do you have individual stocks or mutual funds in your IRA?

Most likely it's mutual funds so you don't have to buy and sell individual stocks do you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Well not every American can be a genius like you, lol.

btw, you're actually making the case that people can and should invest IN ADDITION to their SS,
and can do so successfully.

AND if they had some control over the 15% of their lifetime income that the government squanders they'd be able to retire with millions AND leave a legacy for future generations but the government can't have that now can it because the government does so much better when more people depend on it

And it has nothing to do with genius all it has to do with is taking some time to learn about money if you're too fucking stupid and or lazy to do that it's your own fault.

See if we owned our own accounts you'd be free to put it 100% in US treasuries and be guaranteed the poverty that SS promises.

And I wouldn't have to give up my returns so you could do so

Well I would have lots more money if years ago I could have told the government how much it should be spending on the military.

you can't prove that can you?

How do you know your taxes would go down if the military was cut?

You don't.

I OTOH know what I would have in my portfolio if I had control over all the FICA taxes taken out of my pay up until today.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes the stock market fluctuates so what?

When has it never come back?

The Nikkei average still hasn't come back from its peak in late 1989. But I forget, you only do statistics with winners. The U.S. stock market is and special, like you.

Worst case scenario if your portfolio takes a hit right before you retire you put off retirement for a bit

Yeah, a bit, like until after you're dead.

But if you follow the strategy of reducing your exposure to equities as you near retirement you'll be able to weather any market turbulence

Really? That's all it takes, huh?

So if you convert your stocks into bank deposits - interest rates won't go down, right?
If you convert your stocks into corporate debt - corporations won't go bankrupt, right?
If you convert your stocks into government debt - well, you wouldn't do that, because government debt is worthless.

So just the Nikkei?

How about NASDAQ

You don't covert stocks to bank deposits.

You either sell them and cash out or sell them to buy another investment.

And how does buying a bond (debt) bankrupt a company?

Besides in a retirement account the point is to preserve capital as you near the age when you will need it then invest so as to get a stable ROR (optimally somewhere around 5%) while making withdrawals

You don't actually even follow any market news at all, do you? There is no fixed income investment that can "weather any market turbulence" and deliver 5%. Not to mention, since you are interested more in the history of the economy rather than its future, 5% would not have covered inflation on many ocassions in the past. Inflation is low now but to presume it will stay far enough below 5% that you won't have to start dipping into your principal is ludicrous. Even now, with inflation around 2%, you still only return 3% so you require 30 X your annual income requirements to retire an arbitrary number of years.

Far more sensible to invest your retirement in a life annuity with an insurance company (or multiple companies, to spread your risk). That way you only need the amount of money required for an average retirement length. Its a lot cheaper that way, unless your life plan is to work much more than you actually have to (or to die young)

You never heard of diversification have you?

Look Sheep if you think investing is day trading and using all your money to buy and sell one stock or one investment at a time then we have nothing to discuss.

Annuities are a losing proposition.

You whine about Wall Street bilking people but do you realize that insurance companies sell annuities to make a shit load of money off of them?

I used to sell annuities and I know how much insurance companies love that product

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

 

[kaz]

Government collects income tax and puts it in the general fund. Government collects payroll taxes and put them in the general fund. Government sends checks out of the general fund to retirees. Government sends checks out to everyone else they fund.

Explain where in that something is saved and interest is paid

Social Security works like a government bond fund. The trusts are debited and credited based on cash flows in and out of the trusts plus interest. The only difference is that the government does not issue securities for the liabilities. Rather, the liabilities are a book entry on the government's balance sheet rather than as securities on the government's balance sheet.

It works like a government bond fund except that the bonds are from and to itself, which aren't assets. Government spends the money as fast as it comes in. It's like any other tax

They are assets of the trusts, and ultimately to people who pay into Social Security.

It's no different than a government bond fund. If you buy, say, a PIMCO government bond fund, the government takes all the money issued from the government bonds and spends it. That's what the government does with SS taxes. If you buy a PIMCO government bond fund, you own a claim on the US government. Same as SS. You own a claim on the US government.

The difference is that rather than issue Treasury bonds, the government credits the accounts as if they were Treasury bonds, but calls them "Non-transferable liabilities," meaning they can't be bought and and sold in the secondary market. But both are liabilities of the US government.

There is no money ... anywhere. You can't loan yourself money and call it an asset. Name anyone else who even tries to do that and call it an asset.

The idea that when government does it somehow then it is an asset is retarded and you know better than that with what you do for a living

 

[BluesLegend]

What I think is that you are a deflecting liberal troll of low intelligence.

Well, kind of suspected that "thinking" was not your strong suit.

Riiiight you say something utterly stupid and I'm the one with the 'thinking' handicap. /sarcasm Crawl back under your bridge and stick to trolling, leave the thinking to conservatives.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

[qiupte

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Gamblers are not purchasing an asset. Investers are.

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

Or do you think that those stocks do not actually represent anything?

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

You also do not invest in a single company or over very short terms for retirement investments. The only arguments that your side seem to have hinge on investing without a vehicle or any structure. A concept that should not and will not exist within a privatized SS system.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Because you've sold all the ones that performed not as well.

You mean I exercised choice in investing my own money?

WHat a fucking novel concept[/QUOTE]


Meaning you've only selected your winning bets as evidence of your investing acumen, discarding all your losing bets. No different than the man who brags when he wins at the casino but who keeps it to himself when he loses.

Companies that sell mutual funds do the same exact thing. Funds that lose money are taken off their rosters, leaving only the winners, making it look to investors as if the company only sells winning funds.

BTW, have you ever bothered to read an investment prospectus? You may have noticed this phrase "Past Performance Is Not an Indication of Future Results". Why don't you heed it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

[qiupte

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

A lotto ticket is also an asset. Its worth $1 in my state.

They represent nothing more than the rights to a cash flow which is not known with certainty beforehand - thus - the same as gambling. The only real difference is the commissions and taxes are much higher on gambling.

Don't get me wrong - for professional investors, investing is more like blackjack than the slots. If you have a LOT of skill, you can gain a TINY edge, and if you work that edge enough, you can make a living off of it. But its still gambling.

Most gamblers don't invest all their chips in one hand of blackjack or on one slot machine pull, either. What's your point?

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Because you've sold all the ones that performed not as well.

You mean I exercised choice in investing my own money?

WHat a fucking novel concept

Meaning you've only selected your winning bets as evidence of your investing acumen, discarding all your losing bets. No different than the man who brags when he wins at the casino but who keeps it to himself when he loses.[/QUOTE]

I make very few trades. I can count on one hand how many funds I've sold off completely in the past decade

And most of those I sold not because I lost money but because I felt they underperformed over a couple years

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So you don't understand long term investing either.

What a surprise

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Well not every American can be a genius like you, lol.

btw, you're actually making the case that people can and should invest IN ADDITION to their SS,
and can do so successfully.

You definitely should.

In fact, the existence of social security means Americans can be free to invest knowing that if their investments all fail - they will at least have social security.

I have my IRA invested in 60% U.S. stocks 40% government bonds.Unlike SkullIdiot, I'm not fooling myself. I know the 60% I have in stocks is subject to severe risk and may fail completely. I know that my lack of total knowledge of all the underlying companies puts me at a disadvantage compared to professionals like Touro who have the time to keep track of all that crap. All of my stock investments may fail. If that happens, I've got my bonds, my social security, my state pension, equity in my home, and the fact that my profession involves work I can do well into old age, to back me up.

Not all stocks are "severely" risky

Tell me do you have individual stocks or mutual funds in your IRA?

Most likely it's mutual funds so you don't have to buy and sell individual stocks do you?

All stocks are risky in that you stand to lose your entire investment.

I hold index funds. I used to have individual stocks but I no longer have the time to do the homework necessary for that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I understand it well enough to know there are millions of Americans like you blindly buying stock for long term investment without understanding much of anything about the underlying corporate entities or the even economy in general - and you appear to be one of them. The small minority of investors, mostly professionals, that spend incredulous amounts of time and energy digesting all of the markets informational inputs, are able to make a living off the millions of sheeple blindly buying stocks. When and if the shit hits the fan - even most of those investors will be put out of business, but the minority that remain and that profit off the disaster will be the ones who know well how unpredictable the market it and how blind most of its followers are.

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Well not every American can be a genius like you, lol.

btw, you're actually making the case that people can and should invest IN ADDITION to their SS,
and can do so successfully.

You definitely should.

In fact, the existence of social security means Americans can be free to invest knowing that if their investments all fail - they will at least have social security.

I have my IRA invested in 60% U.S. stocks 40% government bonds.Unlike SkullIdiot, I'm not fooling myself. I know the 60% I have in stocks is subject to severe risk and may fail completely. I know that my lack of total knowledge of all the underlying companies puts me at a disadvantage compared to professionals like Touro who have the time to keep track of all that crap. All of my stock investments may fail. If that happens, I've got my bonds, my social security, my state pension, equity in my home, and the fact that my profession involves work I can do well into old age, to back me up.

Not all stocks are "severely" risky

Tell me do you have individual stocks or mutual funds in your IRA?

Most likely it's mutual funds so you don't have to buy and sell individual stocks do you?

All stocks are risky in that you stand to lose your entire investment.

I hold index funds. I used to have individual stocks but I no longer have the time to do the homework necessary for that.

You only stand to lose your entire investment if you put all your eggs in one basket.

But since you have illustrated that you think all investing is day trading on individual stocks I'm not surprised

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Nikkei average still hasn't come back from its peak in late 1989. But I forget, you only do statistics with winners. The U.S. stock market is and special, like you.

Yeah, a bit, like until after you're dead.

Really? That's all it takes, huh?

So if you convert your stocks into bank deposits - interest rates won't go down, right?
If you convert your stocks into corporate debt - corporations won't go bankrupt, right?
If you convert your stocks into government debt - well, you wouldn't do that, because government debt is worthless.

So just the Nikkei?

How about NASDAQ

You don't covert stocks to bank deposits.

You either sell them and cash out or sell them to buy another investment.

And how does buying a bond (debt) bankrupt a company?

Besides in a retirement account the point is to preserve capital as you near the age when you will need it then invest so as to get a stable ROR (optimally somewhere around 5%) while making withdrawals

You don't actually even follow any market news at all, do you? There is no fixed income investment that can "weather any market turbulence" and deliver 5%. Not to mention, since you are interested more in the history of the economy rather than its future, 5% would not have covered inflation on many ocassions in the past. Inflation is low now but to presume it will stay far enough below 5% that you won't have to start dipping into your principal is ludicrous. Even now, with inflation around 2%, you still only return 3% so you require 30 X your annual income requirements to retire an arbitrary number of years.

Far more sensible to invest your retirement in a life annuity with an insurance company (or multiple companies, to spread your risk). That way you only need the amount of money required for an average retirement length. Its a lot cheaper that way, unless your life plan is to work much more than you actually have to (or to die young)

You never heard of diversification have you?

Look Sheep if you think investing is day trading and using all your money to buy and sell one stock or one investment at a time then we have nothing to discuss.

Annuities are a losing proposition.

You whine about Wall Street bilking people but do you realize that insurance companies sell annuities to make a shit load of money off of them?

I used to sell annuities and I know how much insurance companies love that product

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I told you I don't buy a lot of individual stocks

I tend to concentrate on sectors of the economy and prefer ETFs

And if I'm making such poor decisions then why do I have funds that are consistently returning 9-13% over the past 15 years?

Well not every American can be a genius like you, lol.

btw, you're actually making the case that people can and should invest IN ADDITION to their SS,
and can do so successfully.

You definitely should.

In fact, the existence of social security means Americans can be free to invest knowing that if their investments all fail - they will at least have social security.

I have my IRA invested in 60% U.S. stocks 40% government bonds.Unlike SkullIdiot, I'm not fooling myself. I know the 60% I have in stocks is subject to severe risk and may fail completely. I know that my lack of total knowledge of all the underlying companies puts me at a disadvantage compared to professionals like Touro who have the time to keep track of all that crap. All of my stock investments may fail. If that happens, I've got my bonds, my social security, my state pension, equity in my home, and the fact that my profession involves work I can do well into old age, to back me up.

Not all stocks are "severely" risky

Tell me do you have individual stocks or mutual funds in your IRA?

Most likely it's mutual funds so you don't have to buy and sell individual stocks do you?

All stocks are risky in that you stand to lose your entire investment.

I hold index funds. I used to have individual stocks but I no longer have the time to do the homework necessary for that.

You only stand to lose your entire investment if you put all your eggs in one basket.

But since you have illustrated that you think all investing is day trading on individual stocks I'm not surprised

Diversified investors had losses exceeding 90% after the 29 crash. I could probably find examples of other stock markets in the world that were even worse. As I said, "diversity" is useful and is in fact one of the minimum requirements of sensible investing - but its overrated - as ultimately all stocks are tied to the economy..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government collects income tax and puts it in the general fund. Government collects payroll taxes and put them in the general fund. Government sends checks out of the general fund to retirees. Government sends checks out to everyone else they fund.

Explain where in that something is saved and interest is paid

Social Security works like a government bond fund. The trusts are debited and credited based on cash flows in and out of the trusts plus interest. The only difference is that the government does not issue securities for the liabilities. Rather, the liabilities are a book entry on the government's balance sheet rather than as securities on the government's balance sheet.

It works like a government bond fund except that the bonds are from and to itself, which aren't assets. Government spends the money as fast as it comes in. It's like any other tax

They are assets of the trusts, and ultimately to people who pay into Social Security.

It's no different than a government bond fund. If you buy, say, a PIMCO government bond fund, the government takes all the money issued from the government bonds and spends it. That's what the government does with SS taxes. If you buy a PIMCO government bond fund, you own a claim on the US government. Same as SS. You own a claim on the US government.

The difference is that rather than issue Treasury bonds, the government credits the accounts as if they were Treasury bonds, but calls them "Non-transferable liabilities," meaning they can't be bought and and sold in the secondary market. But both are liabilities of the US government.

There is no money ... anywhere. You can't loan yourself money and call it an asset. Name anyone else who even tries to do that and call it an asset.

The idea that when government does it somehow then it is an asset is retarded and you know better than that with what you do for a living

The SS money is the same place every US security holder's money is. If you have a money market mutual fund composed of US treasuries,

you don't believe it's a worthless pile of IOU's do you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So just the Nikkei?

How about NASDAQ

You don't covert stocks to bank deposits.

You either sell them and cash out or sell them to buy another investment.

And how does buying a bond (debt) bankrupt a company?

Besides in a retirement account the point is to preserve capital as you near the age when you will need it then invest so as to get a stable ROR (optimally somewhere around 5%) while making withdrawals

You don't actually even follow any market news at all, do you? There is no fixed income investment that can "weather any market turbulence" and deliver 5%. Not to mention, since you are interested more in the history of the economy rather than its future, 5% would not have covered inflation on many ocassions in the past. Inflation is low now but to presume it will stay far enough below 5% that you won't have to start dipping into your principal is ludicrous. Even now, with inflation around 2%, you still only return 3% so you require 30 X your annual income requirements to retire an arbitrary number of years.

Far more sensible to invest your retirement in a life annuity with an insurance company (or multiple companies, to spread your risk). That way you only need the amount of money required for an average retirement length. Its a lot cheaper that way, unless your life plan is to work much more than you actually have to (or to die young)

You never heard of diversification have you?

Look Sheep if you think investing is day trading and using all your money to buy and sell one stock or one investment at a time then we have nothing to discuss.

Annuities are a losing proposition.

You whine about Wall Street bilking people but do you realize that insurance companies sell annuities to make a shit load of money off of them?

I used to sell annuities and I know how much insurance companies love that product

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

 

[Uncensored2008]

Diversified investors had losses exceeding 90% after the 29 crash.

False.

But despite your exaggeration, those who held their stocks saw not only recovery, but solid gains by the end of WWII.

I could probably find examples of other stock markets in the world that were even worse. As I said, "diversity" is useful and is in fact one of the minimum requirements of sensible investing - but its overrated - as ultimately all stocks are tied to the economy..

You might not be able to actually find examples, but it appears you're willing to make a few up, Poo Poo Doo Doo.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You don't actually even follow any market news at all, do you? There is no fixed income investment that can "weather any market turbulence" and deliver 5%. Not to mention, since you are interested more in the history of the economy rather than its future, 5% would not have covered inflation on many ocassions in the past. Inflation is low now but to presume it will stay far enough below 5% that you won't have to start dipping into your principal is ludicrous. Even now, with inflation around 2%, you still only return 3% so you require 30 X your annual income requirements to retire an arbitrary number of years.

Far more sensible to invest your retirement in a life annuity with an insurance company (or multiple companies, to spread your risk). That way you only need the amount of money required for an average retirement length. Its a lot cheaper that way, unless your life plan is to work much more than you actually have to (or to die young)

You never heard of diversification have you?

Look Sheep if you think investing is day trading and using all your money to buy and sell one stock or one investment at a time then we have nothing to discuss.

Annuities are a losing proposition.

You whine about Wall Street bilking people but do you realize that insurance companies sell annuities to make a shit load of money off of them?

I used to sell annuities and I know how much insurance companies love that product

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You never heard of diversification have you?

Look Sheep if you think investing is day trading and using all your money to buy and sell one stock or one investment at a time then we have nothing to discuss.

Annuities are a losing proposition.

You whine about Wall Street bilking people but do you realize that insurance companies sell annuities to make a shit load of money off of them?

I used to sell annuities and I know how much insurance companies love that product

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

It was an example and downturns are temporary the long term average is what matters.

And no one fund will do it all or haven't you learned that yet?

Seriously you have to learn how not to boil everything down to just one choice. Do you do that with all decisions you have to make?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

It was an example and downturns are temporary the long term average is what matters.

And no one fund will do it all or haven't you learned that yet?

Seriously you have to learn how not to boil everything down to just one choice. Do you do that with all decisions you have to make?

Tell you what you go buy your annuities and make your insurance broker a lot of money and I'll worry about my own money

Sound good?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Diversified investors had losses exceeding 90% after the 29 crash.

False.

The overall market lost nearly 90% of its value. Sorry that's historical fact.

But despite your exaggeration, those who held their stocks saw not only recovery, but solid gains by the end of WWII.

Those who could afford to hold their stocks, yes. But judging by all the selling going on, I'd say very few people fell into that category. This is why the dollar-averged and buy-and-hold as long term strategies are mythical - almost by definition, the average investor has less to invest when stock prices are low and more to invest when they are high. Like everyone who looks back and calculates historical returns based on indexes, you are presuming the investor exists in a vacuum, himself not subject to the same economy in which he is investing. The history of actual investors tells a different story - this is why on average, people cannot beat index returns, because there is more more available to invest when stock prices are high and less when they are low.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You never heard of diversification have you?

Look Sheep if you think investing is day trading and using all your money to buy and sell one stock or one investment at a time then we have nothing to discuss.

Annuities are a losing proposition.

You whine about Wall Street bilking people but do you realize that insurance companies sell annuities to make a shit load of money off of them?

I used to sell annuities and I know how much insurance companies love that product

Diversification is useful but its utility is overrated. U.S. stocks tend to go up and down together. Nor did I ever equate "investing" with "day traders".

Of course insurance companies sell policies to make money off of them. They have to be compensated for the service they perform. Yet they also provide fixed income rates higher than the 5% you claimed to need for retirement - without the risk that you will outlive them.

For $1,000,000, a married couple of two 67 year olds can get paid $4850/mo. for the rest of their lives. To guarantee the same income for life using U.S. Treasuries, at the current return of 3.10% for 30 year obligations, requires an investment of $1,900,000 - but this assuming treasury rates don't go down when you go to reinvest.

Insurance companies are able to provide the better deal and still make money because instead of someone having to ensure they have enough capital to live off of for an arbitrary amount of time (i.e. never dipping into principal) - they only need enough to last the average length of retirement - the insurance risk pool takes care of the rest, with those who live shorter than expected "losing" the insurance bet and those who live longer "winning". You used to sell annuities but you don't get this?

hey Moron you don't keep the lion's share of your money in stocks when you're retired.

I've only told you that about a hundred times in this thread.

Now you're missing a lot of info on your projections

How long is "the rest of their lives"?
What is the rate of return on the 1 million?

Rule of thumb

150K earning 5% will allow you to withdraw 1000 a month for 20 years

For example for that 1 million held at 5% you could withdraw 15000 a quarter and after 20 years still have 640K left

Hey I fell for the annuities are great sales pitch when I was young and uninformed.

I used to sell fixed and variable annuities and made a lot of money doing it.

But I continued my education and realized they were a complete rip off. But hey go ahead and buy them if you want IDGAF what you do with your money

You keep saying that you shouldn't hold many stocks in retirement and then turn around and say you should have that money invested in something that returns 5%. What investment, today, 1) returns 5% and 2) is not a stock 3) is low risk and 4) isn't a promotional offer from a bank? Seriously, I would love to know, I wanna put some money there.

Further - what way is there to guarantee 5% returns are available 20 years from now when you might be reinvesting your remaining principal?

You've got to base your arguments in reality, man! Not only are 5% returns not available TODAY - there's no guarantee they will be available in the FUTURE - either! The only way to guarantee a fixed income of a certain amount for the rest of your life is to either a) have much much more money than you actually need for retirement b) buy an annuity.

Where did I ever say to have no stocks in retirement?

I said you hold a smaller percentage of your money in stocks

And who says 5% is not attainable today?

And I don't look for guarantees because in reality a guaranteed return is a guaranteed loss.

But go ahead and get ripped off buying an annuity because its guaranteed like I said IDGAF what you do

But if you must know the Vanguard VTINX fund has averaged 5.4% over the last 10 years

and many other income funds have averages 6 or more over the same time frame

I'm still a ways away from retirement so I don't spend a lot of time researching income funds

VTINX is 30% invested in stock ,took a 20% hit in the last downturn before coming around. It does not satisfy your requirement that such a fund be able to "weather any market turbulence", further, it guarantees no particular return for the future, like an annuity would. And if course you are just.picking the winners after the fact and falling prey yet again to survivorship bias.

Let me ask you something

If you have a stock and the price dips do you panic and see only the drop even if that stock has performed well for years?

So what if a fund drops below 5% for a time? If in the long term that fund averages 5% then you do realize that there are periods when it returns more than 5% don't you?