Jump to content

dan

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. dan

    Mf Global

    looks right out of Margin Call the ######..which chastized fear and greed as the cornerstones of Wall Street one up manship. It seems all our money has some leaks ready for ######ation, more support for the "service economy". Best of Fortunes, Dan
  2. since 1861 too..go figure...looks like Wellsley has a good balance. It's return of 6.5% year to date is right in line with the positive bond average return...66% bonds and the rest from dividend earning stocks, mostly large...thanks for all you do Steve...Best of Fortunes, Dan
  3. Dale, Steve's on the right track, but I'd increase the Wellesley to 20%, because it's an already diversified bond fund (treasuries and corporate, etc.) with a decent return (much better than money markets). I'd pick a limit of money or percent of the portfolio for the sectors, say, 8% into each of energy, health, and whatever else, (limit of 3). The rest I'd split between V. Extended Market, Small Cap, Emerging Markets, and Total International. Because you are aggressive and young, you will be buying shares for bargain basement prices if the market tanks. When it recovers you will be sitting pretty. A general rule would be to have the amount in Wellesley be the same percent as your age. This is the height of responsibility which was too difficult for me when I was young and aggressive, but in the end your attention to your retirement and giving it your best s-h-o-t is likely to pay off well. Best of Fortunes, Dan
  4. dan

    Double Dip

    Bill, I am in the distribution phase of my retirement (i.e., old) and in about 70% bonds. My thinking is that with the double dip people will flock to bonds. The price per share will go up because bonds are less risky in a dip. But also, when people go back to stocks with a recovery, the bonds will continue to provide income (even though the price per share will go down). This is a relative safe option. There are risky bonds for people who still need growth in their portfolio, and for that there are corporate bond funds, such as the Vanguard intermediate investment grade fund, and municipal bonds at the lower risk end of the scale. Still, each sector in a diversified portfolio is a loser once in a while. I like Loomis Bond I (the "I" stands for Institutional, meaning a cheaper cost to you) because I get a regular income and growth. Lastly, Vanguard probably has all the options a person needs for funds. Best of Fortunes, Dan
  5. Intruder would wear an ill-fitting dress if this were a site with visuals, just to garner negative attention. Greenspan was such a poor communicator, using vocabulary to substitute for substance. It was always interesting that the financial talking heads had to interpret for "us". It seems our government and many people believe that Wall Street holds the magic and without employing Goldman Sac administrators we'll get off course financially. What a joke! North Dakota has it's own state bank that makes millions for the state, makes loans to small businesses, and has helped that state have the lowest percent of unemployed. How can they do that without the "wisdom" of Wall Street". What a bunch of suckers we are to listen to the likes of the "black suits", "all-knowing" profiteers with supporters like Intruder, Greenspan, and their ilk. Best of Fortunes, Dan
  6. In a greedy culture, particularly in Wall Street, moral decisions go as far as a quick profit or bonus, hpefully within a few days or months. Money represents "the high road". When we make money we are smarter and better than others, and can be charitable or ignore the broader difficulties in society. This must make me a "liberal" to bring up social responsibility. We used to gain value by goods produced but now value goes to "services" and sports. The services are from paperwork and sales, with an emphasis on getting the money but holding back on expenses. That's how it works. Of course we subsidize agri-business, pharmacies, defense, and cry-baby about infrastructure investment. What a great moral compass we have for this great country. If those subsidies were cut some reasonable percent and we could find a positive moral base, we could have a solid social security system, health care for everybody (at half the current cost per taxpayer), bubbleless housing, and a working country. I know we could all add to this discussion....
  7. He doesn't heat his salt water pool because he is so cheap. Of course the 100 degree heat does that for him. The assenblyman fort his area is Benoit, a traditional republican who believes in no taxes no matter what, no matter which nonprofit hospitals close, or job training centers, state park personnel get laid off, etc., etc. So if any residents don't believe in the concept of taxes, they will be happy there.
  8. They get an "F" for appreciation of the immediate hardships faced by poor and hungry people in the state. Why embarass the membership by doing this now! Since everybody is crying about their own budget it seems like CALSTRS is trying to appear as a legitimate fiduciary and cover their ###### by making an impossible request. Yes, they are looking out for us teachers and retired teachers who depend on the "black suits", those financial sales people who care so much for us'all. Maybe Steve is right! If one compares indexing with managed CALSTRS investments, and then subtracts ALL the costs, we could see a viable solution for reasonable future financial security. This won't happen when the retirement leadership goes to Sacramento to "pile on" with a "woe is me" because I might run out of money in 30 years. I don't think the argument will wash, with all due respect. Best of fortunes, Dan
  9. Being a true conservative I think the best solution is to eliminate taxes on bonuses, commissions, wealthy people and capital gains so all that money can be reinvested. The Bushies had it right but just needed a few more months for capitalism to show its true beneficence. Pity! What does their spokesperson say? Has anyone asked Rush what to do?
  10. Not to mention the $7 trillion Bush deficit that added to the foundation of this recession. At least this president will listen to willing participants in finding a solution. He will give the credit to the team that helps. The country has to pull together. I agree with you on taxes being passed on. Maybe we should eliminate personal income taxes and just tax energy, businesses with over $3.0 million annual income, financial services, and all bonuses.
  11. You will pay taxes on the Roth contribution, but you will be buying in at bargain basement prices. This is ideal for a Roth, because eventually all the growth and compounding will be tax free. Best of Fortunes, Dan
  12. Of course an N of 1 would only be allowed for a dissertation at USC, but I digress... I agree with your conclusion but agree with the therapist about thinking too often about this. The part we all want to know is when to get back in so I offer my theory, even though it doesn't even have an N=1. I call it the "crook" approach. First you get your stock holdings down to below 10%, and then dollar cost average back in after another 20% drop from today. Today the Dow is 6800ish, and the 500 index is about 700. So the re-entry begins when the Dow is around 1360 and/or the 500 index at 560. This might be in six months, but gives us all breathing room and time to do other things in the meantime. The market may continue down and them curve up, like a shepard's crook, and we will have dollar cost averaged into the recovery. I would only go back in enough to meet your allocation plan based on age, years of work left, other money saved (kids college, debts paid, money saved for next car, etc.). That allocation might be 60% bonds, 20% U.S. total stocks mkt., and 15% total international. That leaves 5% for something nuts, like a sector (gold, energy, reit, managed fund). I am a little chicken myself. I like my idea but I don't know if a crook in the market means very little. For example the value of stocks may go up but not the income from them. So at 67 years old, going on 68, I get income from bonds and social security. Schullo's remmended book, Intelligent Asset Allocator (Wm Bernstein), shows the optimal low risk option includes 5-10% stocks. All the best, really. You have a lot of company in this boat. I know the pain, frustration, denial, and obsession, so you do have a support system here. BTW, Jason Zweig listed my horror during the tech burst at the front of his chapter on Regret, p 190, Your Money and Your Brain.
  13. I would go back to the social security office when my feet would be warmer. I would ask the office for the data for your number and the resultant benefits. You don't need to mention 403b because that money is separate from school district retirement plans. Social security is not concerned with your savings, whether from inheritance, 403b, ira, roth ira, etc. I get full social security benefits and have a nice 403b which supplements my social security. I taught at University level, but was not part of the pension plan. Haven't you been getting the annual mailing for social security participants? I got one from age 55 until I retired at 59. I started collecting SS at 62.
  14. My experience is similar to Presentation and Schullo. My tech losses were paralyzing. I was sure the turnaround had to be close. After all, tech will make the world a better place, and maybe some profits too. I was "ahead of the curve", or so I thought. So with the next bubble I came back, but learned from the tech bubble. I read a cache of financial newsletters in 07 which I received due to my father's passing. I would have never subscribed myself. Anyway, they prophesied a financial collapse because of derivatives, inadequate insurance, and fuzzy bundling of mortgages. These sources even listed the offenders: brokerages, Citi, AIG, B of A, etc. So in Nov. and Spring, 08 I moved into a 90Bond/10 stock portfolio. I was "goosed" by Lehman Brothers problems, because they were exactly what had been predicted. Most of the bond money went to Vanguard (Total Bond, GNMA, Inflation Protected, Intermediate Treasuries) and some elsewhere (Dodge and Cox Income, Loomis Sayles Bond I, and L-S Global Bond). This solution has "only" cost me a 16% loss, because I didn't do it all before the end of 07. One big difference is my age. I can't play games in a house of cards! I might get back into some stocks, up to 20%, after the market goes down another 20% or so. But it won't be in a sector, nor in a "managed" fund. At 67 with a possible 3 year recession ahead of us, the watchword has to be prudence. Best of Fortunes....
  15. There you go again Schullo! Don't you know the benefits of the last 8 years were just about to take fruition when the socialist scare toppled the "house of cards"? The perception of stock and bond values based on transparency is a ruse. The tax lawyers will make more money whatever passes or doesn't. A major Vanguard advantage is low fees, which are not suffiecient to add lobbyists for lower CEO bonuses. That will be up to us, either as individuals or collectively, depending on our view of the "politics of change". Many years ago when new funds were being created they could've started the "low CEO pay" fund, to satisfy those of us who complain about our dividends going to the ceo instead of us, the investors. But people don't get very involved in this stuff. It must be the psychology of humans that keeps most of us cowed about change. After all, doesn't greed trump common good?
×
×
  • Create New...