41–50 of 370 posts
If I had over 10k in savings I would try to invest at least some of it in something that would give a marginal return in a few years. It would be better than just letting it sit in a savings account.
There's a conversation to be had about many Americans living in precarious financial situations, but the reason why most Americans don't currently view their savings accounts as priorities is because in the current interest rate environment savings accounts and CDs are products with vanishingly little to recommend them. The APY my bank offers is one basis point . That's $1 per year for every $10k held in the account.…
If you need liquid savings, cash is king. I opened a savings account with my son a few weeks ago. In my day, those accounts paid 3-7%. There was a story of compounding interest to tell. Now, I feel like I'm teaching my kid to be a sucker.
There's a conversation to be had about many Americans living in precarious financial situations, but the reason why most Americans don't currently view their savings accounts as priorities is because in the current interest rate environment savings accounts and CDs are products with vanishingly little to recommend them. The APY my bank offers is one basis point . That's $1 per year for every $10k held in the account.…
Many people that can invest elsewhere simply don't. Because they do not know about investing. They may be lawyers or doctors. But their money just accumulates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My net worth is probably top 5% or so and I haven't even had an open savings account in 10 years. Cash on hand or it's invested in stocks, bonds and my home.
You're exactly the kind of person this article is pointing out, because your ability to be wiped away by the market is a precarious position to be in.
In the meantime, he has a home to live in. Plus, most investment accounts give you easy access for withdrawals (eg. debit cards) or the ability to borrow while transfers or sales settle. I fail to see how it's precarious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My net worth is probably top 5% or so and I haven't even had an open savings account in 10 years. Cash on hand or it's invested in stocks, bonds and my home.
You're exactly the kind of person this article is pointing out, because your ability to be wiped away by the market is a precarious position to be in.
> Cash on hand or it's invested in stocks, bonds and my home.
That could be $100k on hand in checking, $600k in stocks/bonds, and $200k in home equity, with $0 in a savings account. Asset allocations that don't use savings accounts are not necessarily 'precarious'.
Also, it's worth noting that most financial advisors do not recommend that you keep a significant portion of your assets in savings accounts. Primary reason is that by not being in assets that deliver returns, you are losing money to inflation, even at these low levels of inflation. (Also, you have to save a ton more if you don't let your money multiply.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people get into the dangerous mentality that since the interest rates are not high that it somehow makes saving not a good idea, similar to many people in our industry who won't max out their 401k simply because the employer does not fully match. With regards to savings and lack thereof, regardless of salary. Far too many people excuse themselves from budgeting because they believe they are stretched too far…
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the point was that savings accounts are not worth it, leading many people to say their saving accounts are barren, not that they don't have savings saved up. Personally I'd fall into that category, I put all my money in checking since the interest is so poor in savings accounts I'd rather see that money go to some retirement fund or investment than see it get so little return in…
A lot of people here think this is about you parse "savings". It's not: 47% of Americans say they lack the cash to pay a surprise $400 bill http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/09/...
But there's still a problem in that the $400 is "pay immediately". The other study from the same article showed 50% of Americans could cope with a surprise $2000 bill that they had 30 days to pay, in 2009.
This should be more explicit in saying "Savings Account" and not just savings. I have plenty of savings yet have 0 savings accounts (since they're practically useless). A little misleading here when many people just keep their money in checking or investment/retirement accounts.
My gut feeling is that the population of commenters here may exhibit some selection bias. As in, leveling criticism that the article doesn't include "investment vehicles" is a negative may be a valid point in some circles, but as a profile of the general population in the US, is a valid approach. With housing having gone through a giant bubble cycle and rents approaching all-time highs IIRC, there really isn't any ex…
How does not including other vehicles help give an accurate picture of "savings"?
There's a conversation to be had about many Americans living in precarious financial situations, but the reason why most Americans don't currently view their savings accounts as priorities is because in the current interest rate environment savings accounts and CDs are products with vanishingly little to recommend them. The APY my bank offers is one basis point . That's $1 per year for every $10k held in the account.…