11–20 of 43 posts
It would be interesting to see Forbes 400 adjusted for local economy. For instance, Warren Buffett who spends most of his time in Omaha certainly gets more bang for his buck than the Billionaires that live in Silicon Valley.
"A million dollars then would be about $20 million today, which is, interestingly, $1 million a year at a 5% aftertax return." 5%?? Does anyone know what investment is he talking about?
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/12/16/how-much-does-t...
Great snakes! That's because $100 million is really a 'tweener number: You can be Richie Rich among your upper-middle-class friends or a hanger-on in the superrich crowd. It takes tens of millions to be an upper-middle-class person? That would be news to most of us, and to the IRS, I bet. It appears that this whole article is skewed by the editorialist's particular place in the very rich of society. I think that ever…
Two million bucks is the great dividing line between middle-class comfort and worry in America right now. Is this irony or just staggering cluelessness? A family net worth of $2 million puts you in the top few percent. (From http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scf_2009p.htm , it's somewhere above the 95th percentile of family wealth in 2009)
Two million bucks is the great dividing line between middle-class comfort and worry in America right now. Is this irony or just staggering cluelessness? A family net worth of $2 million puts you in the top few percent. (From http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scf_2009p.htm , it's somewhere above the 95th percentile of family wealth in 2009)
Really? This strikes me as rather implausible, and makes me doubt a lot of the other claims.
"A million dollars then would be about $20 million today, which is, interestingly, $1 million a year at a 5% aftertax return." 5%?? Does anyone know what investment is he talking about?
5% is pretty conservative, especially if you're in it for the long haul. If you look at any 30 year average pretty much since 1920, it tends to be 9% or more: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/12/16/how-much-does-t...
Furthermore, consider the demographic issue of boomers retiring. These boomers are forced sellers, in other words returns will be muted for the foreseeable future because of the larger class of people who will sell equities in order to fund their retirements.
The equity risk premium is closer to 4% over cash, which in today's markets means your expected returns should be between 4.25% & 5%.
Regards, TDL
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5% is pretty conservative, especially if you're in it for the long haul. If you look at any 30 year average pretty much since 1920, it tends to be 9% or more: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/12/16/how-much-does-t...
Please, please do not use 9% as your expected investment return. The numbers touted over the past decade & a half are mostly an artifact of the post WWII period. Furthermore, consider the demographic issue of boomers retiring. These boomers are forced sellers, in other words returns will be muted for the foreseeable future because of the larger class of people who will sell equities in order to fund their retirements…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5% is pretty conservative, especially if you're in it for the long haul. If you look at any 30 year average pretty much since 1920, it tends to be 9% or more: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/12/16/how-much-does-t...
Please, please do not use 9% as your expected investment return. The numbers touted over the past decade & a half are mostly an artifact of the post WWII period. Furthermore, consider the demographic issue of boomers retiring. These boomers are forced sellers, in other words returns will be muted for the foreseeable future because of the larger class of people who will sell equities in order to fund their retirements…
If you include tricks that most working class doesn't have the ability to pull off effectively, I believe that the returns will likely continue at that rate, and so does my financial advisor. Stuff like tax harvesting, margin borrowing, offsetting dividends with margin interest, carrying forward capital losses indefinitely, etc.
The simple fact that the majority of the population can't do these things means you get some premium over "regular" investments like mutual funds, CDs, and cash.
That said, it's perfectly fine for us to disagree on this, but no need to be rude (or down vote :P) since really none of us will know who wins this debate for 30 years :)