How the hell are we supposed to retire?

How can you possible rate or know over the long term? Yes, 1% makes a difference but unless you had the same amount of money with two different brokers for the same amount of time...

You don't know. Except over a long period of time they're going to revert to the mean. And if that's the case, why pay 1% additional, which is huge? If you go 50/50 with two brokers, one will probably lag the market, the other beat it but overall most likely be close to the market. But you're paying both of them those high fees.

Sure, if you can find a Warren Buffet type in 1960 and stick with him for a few decades, an extra few % points lost is no big deal. But the reason why hedge funds have been dropping left and right is people have figured out, and people with $$ have figured out, those fees aren't worth it.
 
That's the point, you still make out well enough to retire. Isn't that what this thread is about?

Not sure what you're saying. That the 1% matters, or the 1% doesn't matter because as long as you're investing you'll have enough?

Hey, that 1% could be the difference between getting the GT and the GT350!
 
Not sure what you're saying. That the 1% matters, or the 1% doesn't matter because as long as you're investing you'll have enough?

Hey, that 1% could be the difference between getting the GT and the GT350!
Work part time bagging groceries and you have the same amount. If you are in the house all the time, Joy will surely kill you.
 
View attachment 139193
View attachment 139194

Example of an extra .5% fees if the average return is 7%. Let's say for a 30 year old, investing 1k a month for 30 years. Not crazy #s, sure still doing OK, but that could be half a year of wages.

Yeah I was saying more of the it doesn't really matter as long as you stay in the game and don't panic. Also relates to my experience where most of the wealth accumulation was in a 401K where fees are minimal. I knew some fools at work that put all their dough in fixed income - for 30+ years. Never understood that. Actually Dave would be proud, I had a very large percentage in our company stock for 20+ years - got lucky as they did very well, split multiple times and just kept on growing.

Now that I'm retired, I don't mind paying a fee to our FA.
 
Yeah I was saying more of the it doesn't really matter as long as you stay in the game and don't panic. Also relates to my experience where most of the wealth accumulation was in a 401K where fees are minimal. I knew some fools at work that put all their dough in fixed income - for 30+ years. Never understood that. Actually Dave would be proud, I had a very large percentage in our company stock for 20+ years - got lucky as they did very well, split multiple times and just kept on growing.

Now that I'm retired, I don't mind paying a fee to our FA.
@rick81721 Out of curiosity, if you're ok divulging, set fee per year or AUM arrangement. Assuming anyone you're with is a fiduciary anyway...Was with a FA years ago and when I switched companies for employment they wanted me to transfer my 401k balance from old company to their company in all actively managed funds...I did the math and was like FU. Completely left the firm and have been DIY since then, but they did help me (and wife) get financial house in order early on (wills, POA, etc.)
 
@rick81721 Out of curiosity, if you're ok divulging, set fee per year or AUM arrangement. Assuming anyone you're with is a fiduciary anyway...Was with a FA years ago and when I switched companies for employment they wanted me to transfer my 401k balance from old company to their company in all actively managed funds...I did the math and was like FU. Completely left the firm and have been DIY since then, but they did help me (and wife) get financial house in order early on (wills, POA, etc.)

PMed you
 
I read two fantastic books this year

1. The psychology of money
2. the simple path to wealth.

synopsis - put all your money in the total stock market and let it compound for as long as you can. Also, avoid advisors that take a percentage. If you want an advisor, use one that charges an hourly rate.
 
Most seem to be asking the question, "how can I retire without saving for it?" As though there is some magic formula that the guy taking the 1% fee knows. (Actually, he does—it is consistently taking 1% of your money.) How to retire? By consistently spending less than you bring in. Only break this rule rarely and for very good reasons: learning a trade, buying a business, etc. If you are going to start saving at age 25, and save until age 65, that gives you 40 years to save. If you live until age 85, that's 20 years to spend those savings. So, that means in retirement each year you can spend twice what you saved each year while working. Wait.. Whu? That's right, there is no magic way that saving for 40 years and spending it over 20 years is more than a 2:1 ratio. But what about compounding? Here I will invoke Einsteins Theory of Relativity. Compounding looks like magic if we ignore the fact that whatever we will buy later (deferred spending) isn't compounding at the same time. So we really need an investment return that exceeds the compounding rate of deferred spending, rather than the rate of inflation. Wow, that hurt my head. Okay, if we look at computers, the price has come down while the functionality has increased. Had I instead of buying that Kaypro computer with two floppy discs, I had invested that money, today I could buy a lot more computing with that compounded deferred spending.

Except we are talking about retirement. Think what retired people spend money on. Medical costs are not moving the way computing costs did. Housing is not getting more affordable. The items used to calculate inflation are not what retires spend money on. The deferred spending is likely to purchase even less. Imagine if we could instead of saving for retirement, (while taking on a lot of investment risk) we could just pre-pay for our retirement homes and medical costs. Then as those costs compound faster than the investment returns compound, we would be indifferent. But that is not our world.

So what to do? Stop deluding yourself about the power of compounding. It is a three card monte trick. Work more. Spend less. No one is impressed with your car, except your car salesman, and he was faking it. Understand the market risks you take as you invest your hard earned money. Stay healthy. Good luck.

I am Fire Lord Jim and I approve of this message.
 
Think what retired people spend money on. Medical costs are not moving the way computing costs did. Housing is not getting more affordable. The items used to calculate inflation are not what retires spend money on. The deferred spending is likely to purchase even less. Imagine if we could instead of saving for retirement, (while taking on a lot of investment risk) we could just pre-pay for our retirement homes and medical costs. Then as those costs compound faster than the investment returns compound, we would be indifferent. But that is not our world.

I don't get this part - We've been retired for 4 years now and don't see us spending money on anything differently in retirement vs working years. Same medical insurance, no change there. Housing has gone down now that we downsized our nj house to a townhouse. Everything else pretty much the same. What is in the basket of goods used to calculate inflation that retirees don't spend money on?
 
I don't get this part - We've been retired for 4 years now and don't see us spending money on anything differently in retirement vs working years. Same medical insurance, no change there. Housing has gone down now that we downsized our nj house to a townhouse. Everything else pretty much the same. What is in the basket of goods used to calculate inflation that retirees don't spend money on?

You sound like the more typical case. While there can be crazy medical issues that blow holes in the budget, for the most part studies show people tend to spend less. There may be a fair amount of spending upon retirement. Time to travel, buying sporty domestic cars trying to drive into crowds with, fixing up the house, etc. But eventually that slows down and the expenses slow down.

That's why it irks me when any retirement/savings calculator bases the yearly retirement expenses on current expenses. WTF, maybe post-retirement expenses are entirely different. Day-care, school expenses, dunkin-donuts on the way to work in the leased 3-row SUV 5 days a week while wearing nice office clothes, etc etc.

Things change.
 
While there can be crazy medical issues that blow holes in the budget,
Things change.
[/QUOTE]
Aren't retirees on Medicare, and doesn't that cover most medical expenses? OK, so you have to pay for secondary insurance.
I guess if you never paid into social security and you have no coverage now, that's a different story.
 
You sound like the more typical case. While there can be crazy medical issues that blow holes in the budget, for the most part studies show people tend to spend less. There may be a fair amount of spending upon retirement. Time to travel, buying sporty domestic cars trying to drive into crowds with, fixing up the house, etc. But eventually that slows down and the expenses slow down.

That's why it irks me when any retirement/savings calculator bases the yearly retirement expenses on current expenses. WTF, maybe post-retirement expenses are entirely different. Day-care, school expenses, dunkin-donuts on the way to work in the leased 3-row SUV 5 days a week while wearing nice office clothes, etc etc.

Things change.

Yes I agree - monthly expenses/spending will go down in retirement (after said purchase of a sports car and a few new bikes!).
 
has anyone found a mortgage calculator that compares what you have now vs what you want refi for?
Also, has additional principal you can input
 
has anyone found a mortgage calculator that compares what you have now vs what you want refi for?
Also, has additional principal you can input
Going through ReFi now - used this one. Has PMI and Insurance etc...

 
Non-Investment Account opinions wanted:

If dollar cost averaging, does it make sense to re-invest dividends, or not re-invest dividends? Assumption is at the end of the year the total amount invested is the same.

So two methods:
Situation #1 - X dollar cost average investments + Dividends re-invested = Z total yearly investments
Situation #2 - Y dollar cost average investments + Dividends not re-invested = Z total year investments

Is one of the above better than the other? Or a wash? My only reason for situation #2 possibly being better is it may make re-balancing easier and possibly less chance of being overweight one category of investments.

Paging @Patrick
 
Back
Top Bottom