Any stockbrokers here?

[Beach girl]

Well, rates are absolutely fixed for the time period. But once that particular CD, bought for that time period, has matured, then NEW CDs would be (could be) purchased at the current rates.

Current rates are really, really low. Inflation quite possibly might be more than current rates, over a few years' time. CDs bought a few years had much better returns.

They're purchased for safety, for "gotta have this much money at a certain time," type of reasons. You won't make money on them (or not much), but you will definitely have the money available when needed.

For instance: a parent saving for a child's education might have been investing steadily since the child was born. When the child hits age 15 or so, parent knows college expenses will start in 3 years time. So parent will definitely need $30,000 a year, say, starting in 3 years' time, and continuing for the next 4 years.

So parent starts selling off the investments, and putting money into CDs, the first to mature in 3 years (when child will be 18 and starting college), the second in 4 years, the 3rd in 5 years. $90,000 locked up in CDs, which will mature on schedule, as needed.

Parent can take a bit more time to sell off the final $30,000 in investments, let it ride until child is 17 or 18. Then put another $30,000 to cover the final year of the 4 year's worth of college expenses.

That way parent has minimized the risk of stocks taking a dive just when money is needed, the cash is available, and it's dedicated to child's education.

Perfectly valid and prudent thing to do.

 

[TWA]

I'm curious, what would you do instead? Just putting money into a savings account will not net you anything, after inflation. If you ever want to retire, you need something that will appreciate in value to give you the cash you'll eventually want.

There are plenty of ways to invest without putting your money directly into the stock market: bonds, CDs, annuities, etc. Then of course there is real estate, as you mentioned, and making other investments locally, like investing in a small, private business, etc.

Quite frankly, I feel like any money I invest in the stock market right now is not going to be around in 30-40 years when I retire (I'm not even sure if the human species will be around, but that's another matter). The way I see it, the cycle of banks bringing us to the edge of financial disaster and stealing the retirements of millions is going to continue until we have a regime change in this country. By regime change, I mean complete dismantling of the corrupt government and economic systems that reinforce one another. For me, it's a better idea to try and make large sums of money in the short term that can then be kept in ironclad accounts like federally-guaranteed savings accounts and government-backed bonds.

I pay into social security and have done so my entire life. I am perfectly fine with living off SS when I retire if I have nothing else. I don't need a lot of money to be happy.

 

[Beach girl]

Well, OK then, if that's what you want. It's your life. If you can seriously live on Social Security and be ok with that, then good luck to you.

As for me, I am very grateful I started seriously investing a bit more than 30 years ago (just about the time period you've got ahead of you). No way would I be able to live the life I have without those compounded returns, and for sure I would not be happy living on Social Security alone. And besides, I'm not even eligible for it yet.

But that's me, not you. That's why they call it "personal" finance; we all make our decisions as we see fit.

(Annuities, incidentally, virtually all rely on the underlying performance of the stocks in which the parent company invests. So you're not avoiding the stock market exactly in buying annuities, although with an *immediate* annuity, the risk is transferred to the issuing company. A delayed annuity is another kettle of fish entirely.)

 

[TXgolfer]

Well, OK then, if that's what you want. It's your life. If you can seriously live on Social Security and be ok with that, then good luck to you.

Yup

As for me, I am very grateful I started seriously investing a bit more than 30 years ago (just about the time period you've got ahead of you). No way would I be able to live the life I have without those compounded returns, and for sure I would not be happy living on Social Security alone. And besides, I'm not even eligible for it yet.

But that's me, not you. That's why they call it "personal" finance; we all make our decisions as we see fit.

Exactly! I made the decision early in life that I didnt want to work into my Late 60's or maybe even my 70's. If SS is ok for some, good for them, but it's not for all of us.


(Annuities, incidentally, virtually all rely on the underlying performance of the stocks in which the parent company invests. So you're not avoiding the stock market exactly in buying annuities, although with an *immediate* annuity, the risk is transferred to the issuing company. A delayed annuity is another kettle of fish entirely.)

Spot on

 

[Daredevel7]

Learned a lot on this thread. Started looking into Fool.com.

I started investing a few years ago. I'm not really the type to look at my investments every day. I'd prefer to pay Jiro's brother to do it for me. Looks like I am on track. Slow and steady.. just the way I like it.

 

[Beach girl]

Slow and steady will get it done, and leave your nerves a bit more at peace, too.

An asset allocation that smooths out the inevitable ups and downs of the market helps a lot.

 

[TXgolfer]

Learned a lot on this thread. Started looking into Fool.com.

I started investing a few years ago. I'm not really the type to look at my investments every day. I'd prefer to pay Jiro's brother to do it for me. Looks like I am on track. Slow and steady.. just the way I like it.

Slow and steady is excellent at your age. Paying someone isn't a bad idea as long as you are informed and watch them like a hawk no matter how much you trust them.

 

[Beach girl]

Slow and steady is excellent at your age. Paying someone isn't a bad idea as long as you are informed and watch them like a hawk no matter how much you trust them.

Maybe I'm biased, but for the average person *who takes the time to be well-informed,* I don't much see the need to pay someone for advice. If you have a complicated situation, then yes, that's different. But for a young person starting out, how complicated can it be? Inform yourself and keep all your earnings to yourself.

That said - a fee-based planner is better than someone who takes a percentage of the money under management, especially if you're talking about fairly small amounts (less than $500,000, at minimum). Most of the financial planners who charge a percentage of the amount being managed won't even talk to you unless you have at least a million, anyway.

 

[Jiro]

Maybe I'm biased, but for the average person *who takes the time to be well-informed,* I don't much see the need to pay someone for advice. If you have a complicated situation, then yes, that's different. But for a young person starting out, how complicated can it be? Inform yourself and keep all your earnings to yourself.

That said - a fee-based planner is better than someone who takes a percentage of the money under management, especially if you're talking about fairly small amounts (less than $500,000, at minimum). Most of the financial planners who charge a percentage of the amount being managed won't even talk to you unless you have at least a million, anyway.

no. he's referring to paying someone to make money for you.

 

[Beach girl]

no. he's referring to paying someone to make money for you.

Mmm-hmmm. And make money for himself along the way out of my profits. No thanks.

Most people today have the ability to invest in a 401(k) plan at work. That is the cheapest way to go, and usually the employers will have information available to help people choose which funds (although granted, the information is often not used to full effect by many employees).

 

[Jiro]

Mmm-hmmm. And make money for himself along the way out of my profits. No thanks.

Most people today have the ability to invest in a 401(k) plan at work. That is the cheapest way to go, and usually the employers will have information available to help people choose which funds (although granted, the information is often not used to full effect by many employees).

no it's not "your" profit. it's HIS profit because he made it for you.

put in $20,000. he gets you $200,000. he gets a percentage out of that. how can you not like it? oh well. your loss.

 

[Beowulf]

Mmm-hmmm. And make money for himself along the way out of my profits. No thanks.

Most people today have the ability to invest in a 401(k) plan at work. That is the cheapest way to go, and usually the employers will have information available to help people choose which funds (although granted, the information is often not used to full effect by many employees).

Didn't people have their 401K mangled just a couple years ago?

 

[DeafCaroline]

Didn't people have their 401K mangled just a couple years ago?

The Great 401K Stock Loan Scandal – How Wall Street Minted Money While Retirees Picked Up the Losses | Commercial Lending | Securities Lending | Sec Lending

and this was an interesting read on pros and cons of 401(k):

Efforts to raise 401(k) participation hit snags - USATODAY.com

 

[Beach girl]

Didn't people have their 401K mangled just a couple years ago?

If people were totally in stocks in 2008 (in IRAs, 401(k) plans, or non-tax-advantaged plans), and *didn't understand the risks,* then yes, they lost a lot. But in 2009 and 2010, they would have earned it all back again, and more.

If people took out loans *and didn't understand the risks,* then yes, they were in trouble if they then lost their jobs and had to repay the money.

People need to educate themselves. People being what they are, some will do a better job than others; some employers are better than others at making information available.

But more people are benefiting from 401(k)s than ever benefitted from traditional pensions where you had to work for the same employer for 30 years for maximum benefits. People just don't stay with one company that long very often, and never did.

 

[TWA]

The world was a lot different when Beach Girl and TxGolfer started investing for their retirement. There was a lot more protection for small-time investors like yourselves. I do not trust, at all, any investment firm or large bank to protect my retirement. You two should consider yourselves lucky that you did not lose everything. There are millions of people who did everything right when it came to planning for their retirement, only to have it stolen right from under them and put into the pockets of scumbag executives.

It's a gamble no matter what you do. Personally, I will invest some money, but not directly in the stock market. But I will enjoy a good chunk of it right now. I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to the American Empire. It cannot last forever.

 

[Beach girl]

Maybe not. But the probability is that it WILL at least last your lifetime.

The one thing you have on your side is time, and the magic of compounded returns over time. It would be a shame to waste that. IMHO, of course, and I'm not you.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Maybe not. But the probability is that it WILL at least last your lifetime.

The one thing you have on your side is time, and the magic of compounded returns over time. It would be a shame to waste that. IMHO, of course, and I'm not you.

Credit card companies get rich on monthly compounded interest, no reason why we can't too.

 

[webexplorer]

Mmm-hmmm. And make money for himself along the way out of my profits. No thanks.

Most people today have the ability to invest in a 401(k) plan at work. That is the cheapest way to go, and usually the employers will have information available to help people choose which funds (although granted, the information is often not used to full effect by many employees).

I recalled a username's comment on the AllDeaf about this one. She lost everything that she invested in 401(k). I may think that it has to do with her layoff. I personally think that 401(k) is a crazy. It is not for me anyway.

 

[webexplorer]

Well, OK then, if that's what you want. It's your life. If you can seriously live on Social Security and be ok with that, then good luck to you.

As for me, I am very grateful I started seriously investing a bit more than 30 years ago (just about the time period you've got ahead of you). No way would I be able to live the life I have without those compounded returns, and for sure I would not be happy living on Social Security alone. And besides, I'm not even eligible for it yet.

But that's me, not you. That's why they call it "personal" finance; we all make our decisions as we see fit.

(Annuities, incidentally, virtually all rely on the underlying performance of the stocks in which the parent company invests. So you're not avoiding the stock market exactly in buying annuities, although with an *immediate* annuity, the risk is transferred to the issuing company. A delayed annuity is another kettle of fish entirely.)

I'm surprised that he is able to do that on his Social Security. Does it means that he is allowed to invest something with a limited amount of money?

I am not really expert in stocks. I really hate it, but I had to do it for a reason. It is not a miracle for any investments. I have a Well Fargo account. The Well Fargo took over A.G. Edward Company. Ouch! My stock broker was best, but he passed away a couple of years ago, and his son took over his place, and I don't like him because he is not doing a good job. He is a big guy and about 40 years old. I have to do my own homework without any help.

I am thinking of switching to Scottrade because it cost 5 dollars per a stock. It cost 25 dollars fee ? to call someone at the Scottrade office. Well Fargo charges 100 dollars for a commission and a small percent fee for per call - that is terrible. It is kind of mess up my feeling about the difference. My Dad never taught me anything for money business.

By the way, I was told that all mutual funds take so many years to increase a very small percent every year. I have heard a little bit about CDs in banks. It is a good thing that you bought the issue. My Dad sold his house and invests his CD in the bank for 3 or 5 years. He lives with his daughter's farm house in order to help her to pay off her mortgage, but it is a long way to go.
I thought that I share it with you guys. It seems that you are very smart to know much about the stuff. I didn't finish reading all of the comments yet.

 

[webexplorer]

I buy and sell myself. I don't do stocks but I would like to someday. The problem is that one day it's very high. The next day, it's very, very low.

I saw this book when I was window shopping at Barnes and Nobles. I thought it was an interesting book. Not sure if I would want to get this one.

I bet that he was offered to write a book with a 3rd party - See "Louann Lofton Forward by Tom Gardener". I'm sure that Warren doesn't care about it.

The title of the book seems ridiculous. It is not his type. He probably let his authors to be rich again. Who knows. I don't like these words "Like A Girl" because it is too biased.

Many investment books always failed in some ways at the end. It is all about money that the authors tricked the readers to buy their books. I have seen so many books at the public library. No such thing because they are not even famous authors. It is just they take the money and walk away.