How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

Post by jowiar » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 7:52 AM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #201

wepple wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You start with “the safest thing is..” then suggest property, only if they have knowledge of what prices are reasonable. Doesn’t sound safe. Index fund would probably be safer. Or savings account.

Do you know many people impoverished in their old age because they bought a couple of houses (assuming no mortgages)? Bank savings inflate away, stocks crash, houses are typically as safe as houses.

Post by freddie_mercury » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 10:43 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #238

freddie_mercury wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a good way to calculate it because it ignores volatility of the investment. There are decades of publications in the topic of sequence of returns and the impact on retirement. $25,000 is likely a little too low but $70,000 is way, way too high. Most people who've done research agree that something like $25,000 to $35,000 a year from $1,000,000 is reasonable for someone retiring extremely young.

Which corresponds to 2.5 - 3.5%. Back in the 90's when I was doing my research 4.2% was the "magic" number. Of course your life expectancy has to factor in to, so if you boost your withdrawal rate as you get older you can try to hit $0 right when you die. (like timing the market, not recommended) As people point out the thing to remember is that your costs change too, your health care costs go up but if your family m…

Post by Jtsummers » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 1:37 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #224

jdavis703 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For six figure debt? I was under the impression that six figure mortgages were pretty common...

The picture he has in mind here is probably more like six-figure credit card debt.

Post by screye » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

civilitty wrote: post #166

screye wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

College education pays back multiple fold though. Instate tuition for top public universities is not that high, and helps you gain skills and even more importantly build a network that is certainly worth the investment. Sure, there are many soft fields where job opportunities are sparse. But, a degree @ state tuition is certainly worth it for a good number of majors.

You're just making the GP's point for them. If you're focusing on public universities and ignoring private universities with their $30-40k/year tuition (federally subsidized, of course), you're already questioning the value of college education. Most students are not even taught to question the common assumption that expensive private universities are better than low cost public ones.

Post by ixacto » Sat, Feb 10, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #254

ixacto wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is generalizing people of different backgrounds' knowledge of securities. There are plenty of middle/upper class people who buy into idiotic mutual funds with a 3% front load fee. Wtf? Heck, many employers still offer absolute garbage funds in their 401k. I wholeheartedly agree that major league sports should provide financial management skills, however the same should also be provided at large corporations.

I think there is a difference between buying into a 3% front loaded mutual fund and investing in a restaurant in downtown Miami. The first is suboptimal and almost certainly won't beat the market, the other is likely to lose 100% of principal invested within a few years. I guess the equivalent for a non-wealthy person would be to invest all their money into lottery tickets.