One last question? I know there are caps to how many you can put in... staying under the 5k or whatever could throw 1-2k at it a few times throughout the year or is it just once a year?
Hey remember when shock came into my gas/oil thread and said opec's decision to cut would hike prices up considerably? Good times
I'm working on a theory that the expected return of a lottery ticket plateaus or diminishes once the jackpot increases over a certain threshold, since more people join and the odds of splitting it go up. And by working on it I mean I thought about it once and it seems like I could be right but I don't feel like getting the PhD in Statistics that would be necessary in order to prove it.
it was at 50 when they announced and when you said for car drivers to 'prepare thy anus' and the 'saudis are comin for that ass' its now at 55 and not going above because OPEC ceded market share to the American shale guys. thats ok though, good for us, and all the while i'll keep paying $2 a gallon for a long long time while OPEC dies on the vine.
You guys are so bad at math. Brent crude was at $48 back on sept. 29th when the deal was announced https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN11Y18K?client=safari Even after a big down day it's just under $56. That's a 16+% jump in crude prices in less than 6 months time. With regards to your last comment you've conflated oil with gas, of which I never commented on.
youre an idiot. the initial shit was throughout the fall, but the deal wasnt final until november 30th. FROM YOUR ARTICLE: However, how much each country will produce is to be decided at the next formal OPEC meeting in November, when an invitation to join cuts could also be extended to non-OPEC countries such as Russia. FROM NOVEMBER 30th: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/30/opec-reportedly-reaches-agreement-to-cut-oil-production.html saying you have a deal in principle is not the same as an actual fucking IN HAND DEAL
Talk of a cut was all that was needed. Ever heard the phrase "buy the rumor"? Look at the chart you'll see the spike up the first week of october. That was no accident.
Ty Webb dahldennsull Since you two both use Betterment, do you see any pros/cons of it versus, for instance, just investing directly with Vanguard in one of their target retirement ETFs. Some of their additional services like Tax Loss Harvesting, etc seem interesting.
I was thinking about starting one and was talking with my friend who has an account the other day. He's up like 9.9% since he started like two years ago or so. To me, that's pretty shitty considering what my vanguard funds and the general market has done since that time.
still pretty new in the game, and am by no means an investing expert. Just turned on harvesting recently as I was unsure if I would need the cash I had in there to have liquidity or not. They recommend at least a year holding which makes sense, so going to give it a go for a while. Have had my account since last August and was very conservative to start. Recently switched to 80/20 stock/bond ratio with tax harvesting. Currently have 3.1% return but would be higher if I had chosen my current setup earlier
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-26/index-investing-unmasked-96-stocks-are-garbage Interesting discussion regarding indexing
why are people in bonds, especially those in their late 20s and early 30s. even warren buffett made fun of you this a.m.
A lot of this can probably be explained by risk tolerance. Does Betterment give you a risk profile and / or some way to adjust your risk profile? I have never used betterment, but their sister service Wealthfront has a questionnaire which basically lets you adjust your risk profile. Your buddy may have answered the questionnaire differently which would explain why your index funds are outperforming his account. I would expect your account to be down more than his in a down market .... ie your portfolio is going to be more volatile.
I get that, but his goal has been to be all stocks and aggressive, which is how my money had been tied up as well. Essentially the same profile but his has way under performed what my very basic stuff has done. I think they're great services but they've both had some issues of late. Between that and a vanguard target account the vanguard accounts are still a far superior service imo
I do it because it's like hitting cruise control which means I don't have to fuck with it. The price is fair and I agree with their methodology. The tax piece isn't a huge benefit to me at present, but it will be nice to take the $3k in losses on a regular basis at some point. There are many other companies that now offer a similar service as well. The only potential move I'll make in the near future with this account is to switch to 100% equities when the next recession hits.
4% of the time it works every time! Nailed it. My 80/20 portfolio has a 33.8% allocation to developed markets via VEA. That and the bond exposure is the reason it has lagged VTI. Even a 100/0 portfolio doesn't look great compared to VTI due to VEA.
Because going through a bear market can be an extremely stressful/depressing situation. People trade in a small change in expected returns for decreased volatility. 100% stocks is always the hot trend in a bull market. The market isn't always going to be this good. Losing 40% of your portfolio in one year might change your attitude.
If you have any interest in getting even a little bit involved, Vanguard is going to be a better bet over Betterment. The beauty of Betterment is that you don't have to worry about rebalancing or tax loss harvesting. Both of those things are fairly easy things to learn how to do. As far as expenses go, Vanguard is the way to go.
This. This run up has caused some to have very unrealistic expectations, and it won't last forever. Losing money while investing is painful and something that most have not been reminded of the last 5-8 years. Attitudes will change quickly when we have some down years, which will be soon.
Its easy to say, much harder to do. People who have only started investing in the last 10 years have been very lucky, it wont always be like this.
Of course you should. That has nothing to do with the psychology of having $100k invested turning into $50k over a year or two. There's emotion involved for most people. If you can take the psychological/emotional part completely out, good for you. Most people can't.
Its not that hard to do I understand this though But just because people can't separate the emotion doesn't mean you're not inherently wrong to be buying bonds 30+ years before retirement
Did any of you 100/0 stocks/bonds guy have a significant portfolio in 2007? If you made it through the other side of 2008 without worrying about it whatsoever, then 100/0 is probably the right thing for you to do. Until you actually go through a bear market with a significant retirment portfolio, you don't know how you'll react.
Its not hard for you to do. And I think you are wise to invest mostly though a retirement vehicle, which allows you to keep your focus on the long-term. That being said, when the market drops 5%, many will start to wonder .... If I wait 6 months will the market be another 5% lower? Maybe i'll just wait a while to make my next contribution. And the cycle will begin. People who are investing for shorter time-tables will just leave their money in cash or go for the safety of bonds. This has been hard to see the past 8-10 years, but it will happen again. Anyway, stick to your guns when the market makes its downturn, if you are investing for retirement it will be the right thing to do. Im with Joystick Izzy though, this market has been way to kind lately and peoples expectations are becoming unreasonable.
I get his point, and I agree with both of you. I just think the younger people who panic are wrong and leaving lots of money on the table. Not denying that it happens
Tell that to Jack Bogle. It's not a right:wrong situation, and if you can't understand that, there's no point in having a discussion with you about it. There are extended periods in history when an 80:20 stocks:bonds portfolio outperforms a 100:0 stocks:bonds portfolio. Experts recommend anywhere from age in bonds to 100% equity, if you're young and in the right situation. If you can afford and have the fortitude to handle a long bear market, then go for 100% stocks. Most people can't handle that.
Honestly, though, if you look at historical records, they aren't leaving THAT much money on the table. And they have much more peace of mind when shit goes bad.
If you're 29 or so and freaking out about the dip in your 401k when the market hits a recession you don't really have a clue about how things work
Holy shit this is just a rehash of the Dave Ramsey shit. We all get the math. Let's acknowledge that emotions can cause irrational behavior and move on.
appreciate this advice, but this is the big part for me. I'm in a set it and forget it phase right now. Don't need to be worrying about managing all of my investments right now, maybe later in life
And history is definitely a good starting point. But no one can be sure what the future holds. Ask Japan how investing in 100% stocks worked out for someone in 1989. They still haven't fully recovered. I agree that anyone on a thirty-year time horizon is almost assuredly going to be better off in 100% stocks, based on history. But can that same person handle a significantly long bear market, losing half or more of their net worth, and everything else that goes with it (job loss, etc)? Hopefully your 100:0 investment strategy involves a signifcantly large emergency fund in case the market completely tanks for a few years. It's bound to happen sooner than later.