Author |
Message |
Wolfridgerider
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 10:50 am: |
|
My 401K is "almost" back to what it was before the bottom fell out. Being that my financial advisor didn't advise me in any way shape or form that I may want to circle the wagons.... what is a good indicator that its about to hit the fan again? |
Blake
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 11:13 am: |
|
I've been thinking the same thing. Interesting to note that if a portfolio drops by 40%, it needs to realize a net gain of 67% just to get back to where it was. |
Court
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 11:58 am: |
|
This is one reason why a few folks are going to be hesitant to buy pricey items and why there is so darn much money sitting "on the sideline". My wife, much keener than I on these matters, moved my entire portfolio to a bond fund about 60 days before the market tanked. She'd quit her job as CFO of a Hedge Fund and spent the next two years, during the most turbulent of times, trading her own account. About 4 months ago she moved me "back onto the field" and . . as is the point of this thread. . . . now is the time to play serious for those of us thinking of retiring the next 10 years. My personal example was that I had kind of a pricey car ordered (at least had a build slot) and she sat me down one night and "did the math" between driving a paid for "beater pickup" (no kidding, she was mean enough to say that) and the very pretty new car. It didn't take much math to see that if I took the sum for the new car . . . placed it in an account and played my cards right . . hell, the car would pay my comfy living expenses from the day I retired until the day I die. I also, the day my Granddaughter was born, opened a trading account for her and did something I have always wanted to do . . . simply invest a fix sum, every day . . . by the time she turns 18 I'll be long gone but I'll bet she appreciates it. This is what my I.B.E.W. Union account looks like as of 10:00am this morning. Frankly, if what I think is going to happen actually takes place the next 24 months . . there will be a lot of folks making less than 50K who make a boat load of money. . . . it's time to play smart, not brave.
|
Stirz007
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 12:09 pm: |
|
I was 75/25 stocks/bonds right up until the talking heads started saying "Don't worry. Keep your stock investments, blah blah blah...." That's when I knew the manure was hitting the ventilator. Changed to 75/25 bonds/stocks next day (Octoberish), and still took a $35K hit. But compared so those who listened to the pundits, I came out much better (at least I think I did) - It's all virtual money anyway. Bonds have been fairly consistent over the last few years at 6-8%. |
Kyrocket
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I'm with you Wolf, mine is almost back to where it was when I gave it to them seven years ago. |
Wolfridgerider
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 12:35 pm: |
|
He Court... could you ask your wife to let us "not so money smart" folks know when it may be a good idea to pull back. |
Court
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 01:14 pm: |
|
I don't have the guts for that business. Her specialty has been complex international transactions . . . . like where you take $3B at noon and bet the Indian currency against the Yen or something . . . it sure gives you an appreciation for how much money can be made or lost when you are leveraging that sort of money and the frickin' market moves $0.01 I prefer electrical power lines where I can only fall or get electrocuted!
|
Wolfridgerider
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 01:24 pm: |
|
If we are talk'n about what we would prefer... Trust Fund comes to mind. But I know that's not gonna happen. |
Court
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 01:33 pm: |
|
>>>Trust Fund comes to mind. Highly overrated. One of my best friends' family owned, for years, the majority shares in Firestone Tire Company. It looked fun when she was flying her Arabian horses legend the world playing "I wanna be an equestrian legend" but I saw the whole deal cave in personally. Stick with what you've got . . . you're a lucky guy! |
Whitetrashxb
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 01:49 pm: |
|
wow, if i'm seeing that right, those are some fantastic return rates... |
Court
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 01:53 pm: |
|
There are some amazing things happening right now . . . the economy still, in the big picture, sucks. But . . . there is some mental momentum that's going to carry through a bit. You may recall, if you go back and look in the archives, I said late 1st quarter 2011 . . . . it was pure luck but it's playing out. I'm playing . . .but very cautiously . . . I treat it much differently than I did at 30 years old. I can't be stupid but I can't ignore the power of compound interest and dividend income. |
Wolfridgerider
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 01:58 pm: |
|
"I wanna be an equestrian legend" Hell, I just wanna be solvent.... Or a "Buell riding legend" that would work too. |
Court
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 04:53 pm: |
|
From today's Wall Street Journal . . . .
quote:RETIREMENT PLANNING FErik Buell RacingUARY 19, 2011. Retiring Boomers Find 401(k) Plans Fall Short By E.S. BROWNING Jason Henry for The Wall Street Journal Patti and Bob Webster had planned to retire in North Carolina but say they need to keep working. .The 401(k) generation is beginning to retire, and it isn't a pretty sight. The retirement savings plans that many baby boomers thought would see them through old age are falling short in many cases. The median household headed by a person aged 60 to 62 with a 401(k) account has less than one-quarter of what is needed in that account to maintain its standard of living in retirement, according to data compiled by the Federal Reserve and analyzed by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College for The Wall Street Journal. Even counting Social Security and any pensions or other savings, most 401(k) participants appear to have insufficient savings. Data from other sources also show big gaps between savings and what people need, and the financial crisis has made things worse. This analysis uses estimates of 401(k) balances from the end of 2010 and of salaries from 2009. It assumes people need 85% of their working income after they retire in order to maintain their standard of living, a common yardstick. Facing shortfalls, many people are postponing retirement, moving to cheaper housing, buying less-expensive food, cutting back on travel, taking bigger risks with their investments and making other sacrifices they never imagined. View Full Image ."Inevitably, we find that, for the average person, there is not enough there," says financial adviser Paul Merritt of NTrust Wealth Management in Virginia Beach, Va., who has found himself advising many retirement-age people with too little savings. "The discussion turns out to be: What kind of part-time work do you want to do after you retire?" He has clients contemplating part-time work into their 70s, he says. Tax-deferred 401(k) retirement accounts came into wide use in the 1980s, making baby boomers trying to retire now among the first to rely heavily on them. The problems are widespread, especially among middle-income earners. About 60% of households nearing retirement age have 401(k)-type accounts, according to government data, and those represent the majority of most people's savings. The situation is less dire for those in a higher income bracket, who tend to save more outside their 401(k) accounts and who have more margin for error if their retirement returns fall below the recommended 85% figure. Steven Rutschmann says his six-figure 401 (k) balance was damaged by the financial crisis. .Steven Rutschmann, 60 years old, manages the buildings and grounds at a Midwest research facility. His employer recently offered him a bonus if he retired early. Mr. Rutschmann's 401(k) is well into six figures. His wife has a 401(k) and expects a small pension from her nursing job. An outdoorsman, he dreams of spending time hunting, fishing and hiking. So he consulted a financial planner at Ernst & Young and learned that even with the bonus, his savings could run out before he turns 85. Now he expects to work for several more years. "I was disappointed," says Mr. Rutschmann, whose 401(k) balance was damaged by the financial crisis and who still has a large mortgage. In general, people facing problems today got too little advice, or bad advice. They didn't realize that a 6% annual contribution, with a 3% company match, might not be enough. Some started saving too late or suspended contributions when they or their spouses lost jobs. Others borrowed against 401(k) accounts for medical emergencies or ran up debts too close to their planned retirement dates. In the stock-market collapses of 2000-2002 and 2007-2009, many people were over-invested in stocks. Some bailed out after the market collapse, suffering on the way down and then missing the rebound. Initially envisioned as a way for management-level people to put aside extra retirement money, the 401(k) was embraced by big companies in the 1980s as a replacement for costly pension funds. Suddenly, they were able to transfer the burden of funding employees' retirement to the employees themselves. Employees had control over their savings, and were able carry them to new jobs. The Websters thought they had "the perfect plan" for retirement says Patti, pictured with her husband Bob. .They were a gold mine for money-management firms. In 30 years, the 401(k) went from a small program to a multi-trillion-dollar industry supporting thousands of financial planners and money managers. But a 401(k) also requires steady, significant savings. And unlike corporate pension plans, which are guaranteed by the U.S. government, 401(k) plans have no such backstop. The government and employers aren't going to pay more for people's retirements. Unless people begin saving earlier and contributing more to their 401(k) plans, advisers say, they are destined to hit retirement age with too little money. Vanguard Group, one of the biggest providers of 401 (k) plans, has changed its advice on how much people should save. Vanguard long advised people to put 9% to 12% of their salaries-including the employer contribution-in their 401(k) plans. The current median amount that people contribute is 9%, counting the employer contribution, Vanguard says. Recently, Vanguard has begun urging people to contribute 12% to 15%, including the employer contribution, because of the stock market's weak returns and uncertainty about the future of Social Security and Medicare. Plans of younger people have been affected too. Of those 45 to 59 who had substantial retirement assets prior to the downturn, 40% planned to work longer, according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research. Gloria Moss has been contributing to a 401(k) since 1985, when she went back to work after having children. Especially after divorcing, she wasn't able to contribute as much as she wished and when her children finished college, she focused on repaying college loans. She says she lost more than half her savings in the recent financial crisis, then shifted heavily to bonds and missed the stock rebound. "I thought I was doing the right thing, and found out otherwise," she says. When she consulted a financial adviser, "I got a report that said, 'You have a 5% chance of reaching your retirement goal'." In her early 60s, she is ready to retire, but if she does that now, "I will have $25,000 to $30,000 a year less than I anticipated having," she says. To retire at her current standard of living, she figures, she needs nearly twice the savings she has now. Dr. Moss, who has a Ph.D. in education, also made good decisions along the way. She saw trouble coming at the educational software company where she worked and found a new job a week after losing hers. Now she has sold the condominium she loved, near the Atlantic Ocean, and moved to a cheaper house. She cut back on vacations and meals out. She adores the theater but hasn't been to a play in at least a year. She works extra hours each week and contributes to her employer's version of a 401(k), but doesn't feel financially able to contribute the maximum amount. "I am going to probably have to work considerably longer than I anticipated," she says. "It is a nice job but I had not planned to be working well into my sixties," she says. "A lot of people are doing that. They need the money." It isn't possible to calculate precisely how many people are able to cover the recommended 85% of their pre-retirement income, but Federal Reserve data suggest that many people can't. Consider households headed by people aged 60 to 62, nearing retirement, with a 401(k)-type account at their jobs. Such households had a median income of $87,700 in 2009, according to data from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, which derived this and other numbers by updating Fed survey data, at The Journal's request. The 85% needed for retirement would be $74,545 a year. Experts estimate Social Security will provide as much as 40% of pre-retirement income, or $35,080 a year for that median family. That leaves $39,465 needed from other sources. Most 401(k) accounts don't come close to making up that gap. The median 401(k) plan held $149,400, including plans from previous jobs, according to the Center for Retirement Research. To figure the annual income from that, analysts typically look at what the family would get from a fixed annuity. That $149,400 would generate just $9,073 a year for a couple, according to New York Life Insurance Co., the leading provider of such annuities- less than one-quarter of the $39,465 needed. Just 8% of households approaching retirement have the $636,673 or more in their 401(k)s that would be needed to generate $39,465 a year. Some families do have other income. Just under half expect pension income of a median $26,500 a year. Added to the $9,073 in 401(k) income, that still falls short. Some families have other savings, but Federal Reserve and other data suggest that those don't fill the gap for most people. These data don't even include people who are in the direst situations: Those who have lost their jobs, stopped contributing to 401(k) plans or shifted to jobs without 401(k) plans. The numbers also don't account for inflation, which would further eat into income from a 401(k). Some researchers question the Fed numbers because they are based on surveys rather than on records of actual contributions. Jack VanDerhei, head of research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a group supported by 401(k) providers, estimates the median person actually has about $158,754, based on data from 401(k) providers. That is based on individuals in their 60s who have been at the same company for more than 30 years, a somewhat different group than that measured by the Fed data. Even that amount of 401(k) savings generates much less than what is needed. The difficulties have been worsened by the 2007-2009 financial crisis. Since the housing and financial markets began to collapse, about 39% of all Americans have been foreclosed upon, unemployed, underwater on a mortgage or behind more than two months on a mortgage, says Michael Hurd, director of the Rand Corporation's Center for the Study of Aging. In 2008, when he was 59, John Mastej figured he was on track to retire in his early 60s. He and his wife both were working, with 401(k) plans. Counting all their savings, they had close to $200,000. Mr. Mastej was putting 20% of his salary into his 401(k). The financial collapse cut their savings in half and left Mr. Mastej out of work for two years, with no 401(k) contributions. He had to dip into other savings and use up an inheritance to pay the mortgage. He found a new job in a specialty food store, but it paid much less than his old one in a plastics factory. Today, Mr. Mastej figures he has about $90,000 in savings left, including about $50,000 from the two 401(k)s, now mostly in a fixed annuity that isn't affected by the stock market. He and his wife have canceled their satellite television and drive 11-year-old cars to work. They buy some food at discounted prices through their church, but are proud they have remained current on their mortgage, home-equity loan, insurance and property taxes. "We don't go out to dinner. We don't do much entertaining," Mr. Mastej says. "I will probably end up having to work for another 10 years." Carol Dailey is continuing to work at age 71. Ms. Dailey spent 10 years as an executive assistant at America Online and had stock options she figures were once worth $1.7 million. The options' value collapsed with the company's stock. Now she relies on her 401(k), which took a hit in the 2008 market plunge. She has cut back spending for entertainment and organic food, and continues to work three days a week as an office manager for an Internet security company. "At AOL, we were buying $60 bottles of wine and not blinking. Now I drink box wine," she says. Eventually, she wants to retire completely. Then, to make ends meet, she plans to take bigger investment risks. Her financial adviser then will shift some of her savings out of an annuity and into high-yielding bonds and real-estate investment trusts, aiming to double the return on that money to 10% a year. Some people were done in by the twin collapses of the housing and stock markets. Patti and Bob Webster had accumulated a six-figure balance in their 401(k) accounts and were building a dream house in North Carolina in 2007. They planned to retire there in about a year. Then their builder went out of business and the stock collapse knocked 40% off their savings. They temporarily suspended 401(k) contributions. "We thought we had the perfect plan," says Patti Webster. "When the bottom fell out of the market, it kind of fell out of our perfect plan as well." Today in their mid-60s, they have completed the house but have worked two years longer than planned and expect to work two years more. "We are having to spend another two years in just trying to catch up with what the market did to us," Ms. Webster says. Write to E.S. Browning at jim.browning@wsj.com Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
By the way . . . . I also laughed at what happens to the word "February". |
J2blue
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 08:09 pm: |
|
I'm investing in plywood and foil/bubble/foil for my retirement. I've picked out a nice piece of real estate under an overpass that should be just right. If I reload my own ammunition I should be able to retire comfortably by age 77. |
F22raptor
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 09:04 pm: |
|
It is just #s on a piece of paper..They are living off of your money...There were no losses in the crash,just adjustments.If you think some 27 yr old kid "Earned" 5 million,you are nuts,he just got a chance to dip into your well! |
Court
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 09:08 pm: |
|
>>>>It is just #s on a piece of paper. You make me feel like crap for cashing that dividend check last week. I also expect to be hearing from the University of Kansas after paying for 2 kids for 6 year with checks from sold MSFT shares. Thanks for the advise.
|
Wolfridgerider
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 08:45 am: |
|
It is just #s on a piece of paper. I like those numbers.... the bigger the better. I've been putting money into it for the last 13 + years... its my retirement... they are not just numbers to me |
Sayitaintso
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 09:10 am: |
|
The other side of the coin is debt. Not only is there not enough saving for retirement, many folks are carrying a bunch of debt into retirement; first mortgage, second mortgage, car payments, and so on. Its going to be UGLY for many people that didn't think any further down the road than their next paycheck. Add the fact that "entitlements" from the feds are not going to be what many people think and lots of folks are going to be working for most if not all of their life. Not that it is a bad thing, "retirement" takes; making plans (and sticking to them), sacrifices along the way, and a little luck. |
Xl1200r
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 09:50 am: |
|
I've been putting money into it for the last 13 + years... its my retirement... they are not just numbers to me Wolf, I think the point of the comment was more that they're only numbers UNTIL you cash out. You haven't lost a dime until you pull out. Same goes for gains. That said, I really feel for everyone who is (or feels) close to retirement age and don't have a ton of faith in their savings. If you're super upset that you've lost your ass over the last decade in your 401(k), you probably were being too risky with your accounts given your age. If you're not close to retirement age, then you've got time, don't worry. I look at it this way: When the market tanks, it means I can buy cheap and realise bigger gains in the future than if I had bought when things were all up. But, then again, I'm young and only started investing in the last couple of years and I likely have another 40+ years of work ahead of me. For the record, I started investing in 2008 and haven't been in the red at year end yet. Also, if your company does any kind of matching, maximize that. My work used to do a flat 4% contribution if you kicked at least 3% of your gross - Yes, they'd put it more than I was. They changed it to a sliding scale, where your 3% only got you 3% from them, and you had to kick in 5% to get the full 4% from them. So I bumped up my contributions that day. I should be doing more and as soon as my debt issues are all fixed (nothing major) I'll bump it up again. I also own my own home, which is pretty good for my age and I hope that provides some financial gain down the road. I bought at the bottom of the market and have already gained over $20k in value (estimated, of course). |
Sayitaintso
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 10:10 am: |
|
Good for you Mark. If you are looking at the long range and not in something that needs to be actively managed (something like an indexed mutual fund) then my advice is dont look at it too often. The daily/weekly fluctuations will drive you nuts. Especially when it gets built up a bit, $5,000-10,000 swings one way or the other on a daily/weekly basis seem to get my blood boiling even though like you and Brian said...... its only numbers until you cash out. I've got another 10-15 years to "let it ride" before diversifying more. I try to force myself to only look at the 401k only once a month or so. The other stuff I have put away is checked at least daily b/c it is directly in equities and can crash and burn while the overall market is unchanged. |
Blake
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 11:37 am: |
|
I have two friends who by sheer luck due to change in employment, had their entire 401K moved into a simple interest bearing account just before the big crash. They avoided having to take a 30% to 40% hit. Then they got back into the market via index funds and realized the ensuing 60% gains. That pretty much describes the term "good fortune"! LOL. I'm a coward when it comes to investing. Was very tempted to put a bunch into Ford when it hit $1.28 or whatever the low was. If only. I also recall scoffing at the google IPO of $50. Idiot. So is the market good to go or fixin' to adjust? |
Blake
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 11:39 am: |
|
>>> If you are looking at the long range and not in something that needs to be actively managed (something like an indexed mutual fund) then my advice is dont look at it too often I used to think that too, but the past ten years kinds shows the risk in that. As mentioned above, it takes a gain of 100% to just get back to where you were before enduring a decline of 50%. |
Blake
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 11:52 am: |
|
|
Daves
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 12:03 pm: |
|
I get to work until I die. Good thing I love my work! |
Sayitaintso
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Blake its only a 50% loss if you bought everything at the top and sold or have counted your gains before you've realized them. Otherwise the loss is only giving back unrealized gains. Thats why I said long term, over a 30-40 career a downturn for 2-3 years will be made up.... plus some. Some "shares" will bought at the top and you'll lose, others will be bought at the bottom and will have huge gains. The important this is to be consistent and shift your position (to less volatile investments) as you get closer to needing to rely on the money and are not able to "ride-out" the downturns. Timing the market to cash out at the top and buy back in at the bottom is really hard to do.....even for pros who do it for a living. It would really suck to sell out at or near the bottom the buy back in after much of the rebound/recover has already happened. Unfortunately for many people, thats exactly what they do. Short term market volatility will drive you nuts if you follow it close and have a long term investment plan. If someone's not in a position to weather the storm of 2-3 year downturns they are in the wrong investment class, imo. Maybe a nice money market would suit their risk tolerance level better. Mutual funds are about the most unsexy equity investment there is. That said, what the hell do I know....I'm just an average schmuck trying to make a living like everyone else. |
Court
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 12:33 pm: |
|
>>>>.....even for pros who do it for a living. That's correct. Trying to "play" the market based on the daily news, at least for me, is an invite to "ratchet down" balances. I try, at this stage, to look at things once a month. I've made a bit of a move right now . . from time to time . . . I "run toward the cliff" . . stay a bit . . then retreat. Some of the new tools, most notably ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) have offered folks access to investments that weren't possible in the past. For me . . and I claim to know nearly nothing . . the key is to max out my 401(K) and take full advantage of our stock purchase plan. For every 9 shares I buy, they give me 1 . . that, at least to me, is FREE money and anything I fall short, in terms of maxing that out . . is pissing money away. Funny . . how you see this stuff from differing perspectives at differing times of your career. Interesting discussion and I think one of the keys . . at least for me . . .that I've long lectured my kids about it debt. My oldest refuses to use ANY debt, rides a bike to school and borrows nothing. He just bought his first house in Portland and it scared him to nearly to death to sign a mortgage. . . . good. Sounds like a lot of the younger folks here have a good handle on things. I've watched folks who make $400,000 retire broke and electricians retire with more than $2,000,000 in their account. Planning |
Sayitaintso
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 12:56 pm: |
|
I couldn't agree more....interest on debt for the average joe (like most, if not all, of us here) is the closest thing to financial evil I know of. Many folks save and earn, say 5% on their savings. They turn around and borrow for a car/bike/TV (or whatever) and pay 12%. They are losing 7% on every dollar they save rather than paying down/off the debt. Edit: Court, with the stock plan from work......dont forget to rebalance periodically, remember the poor folks at Enron? But then you already know that, I guess my comment is more directed at other that may be reading this and have company stock plans. Don't let all your eggs end up in one basket. (Message edited by sayitaintso on February 22, 2011) |
Xl1200r
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 01:01 pm: |
|
Anywhere you look will tell you that the best results will be had from dollar cost averaging, the key is match funds/methods that macth your risk tolerance. I just got my annual 401(k) performance letter in the mail with all kinds of (mostly) useless charts and graphs. It showed that if nothing changed, but the time I reached retirement age I'd have $1 million assuming an average 5% annual rate of return. Firstly, things will change - I'll make more money in future which means my and my employer's contributions will go up. My percentage will go up as well. Secondly, my rate of return last year was just shy of 20%. I'm a little over 7% so far this year and I may move some things around in a month or two to soome higher-gain accounts, we'll see. I try, at this stage, to look at things once a month. I try to do the same every month or two. And, like you, I'll dump some things into a higher risk area for a while and then pull them back. Never any very large changes, though. He just bought his first house in Portland and it scared him to nearly to death to sign a mortgage. . . . good. Agreed. Some debt is healthy and sometimes needed (I'd have never been able to pay for my education without it and the career payoff has been worth it thus far), but many folks are just in too deep (including myself at the moment, but just barely). I had the most unsettling feeling signing all those mortgage papers, and my house was realtively cheap! |
Xl1200r
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 01:03 pm: |
|
Many folks save and earn, say 5% on their savings. They turn around and borrow for a car/bike/TV (or whatever) and pay 12%. They are losing 7% on every dollar they save rather than paying down/off the debt. I think the more common error people make is paying off debt that doesn't need to be, like a car loan with 2% interest, instead of dumping that cash in a money market or CD account. |
Wolfridgerider
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 01:07 pm: |
|
I'm in decent shape. No bills other than the house and the usual operating costs. My wife and I are living on a 1/3 of what we made a few years ago so we both keep a eye on the $ We are both on the same page when it comes to taking on more debt.... its not gonna happen. If we don't have the cash, we don't get the _______ I've got 20 plus years to go before I will retire and I just want to limit the amount of mistakes I make between now and then. |
|