I try to only think about my 401k when I get my quarterly statements since it is a long term investment. I follow my play stocks on a daily basis. Got my quarterly statement yesterday and spit my coffee out. I figured it was down, but damn. My previous statement my ROR since initial investment was right under 25% which I know is unsustainable. My ROR YTD on this statement is -15%. I took a shellacking. Reworked my portfolio into some more stable funds and will be watching that a little more closely now.

(04-12-2022 08:14 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  I try to only think about my 401k when I get my quarterly statements since it is a long term investment. I follow my play stocks on a daily basis. Got my quarterly statement yesterday and spit my coffee out. I figured it was down, but damn. My previous statement my ROR since initial investment was right under 25% which I know is unsustainable. My ROR YTD on this statement is -15%. I took a shellacking. Reworked my portfolio into some more stable funds and will be watching that a little more closely now.

But no mean tweets



Spoiler:. Its gonna get worse

Yeah this is pretty much everyone's 401K right now. Interestingly, around 40% of the country does not have a 401K, 50% of Gen Z does not have one and 54% of people making under $50K do not have one.

(04-12-2022 08:14 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  I try to only think about my 401k when I get my quarterly statements since it is a long term investment. I follow my play stocks on a daily basis. Got my quarterly statement yesterday and spit my coffee out. I figured it was down, but damn. My previous statement my ROR since initial investment was right under 25% which I know is unsustainable. My ROR YTD on this statement is -15%. I took a shellacking. Reworked my portfolio into some more stable funds and will be watching that a little more closely now.

After 2008, I changed to a very conservative profile even though I won't retire until 2025. I know I've missed out on the boom but I sleep better at night that way.

(04-12-2022 08:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Yeah this is pretty much everyone's 401K right now. Interestingly, around 40% of the country does not have a 401K, 50% of Gen Z does not have one and 54% of people making under $50K do not have one.

What do you think about the bill they are about to pass, or might have already, that would require all employers to automatically enroll all new employees in a 401k at 3% of their income? Full text below. I don't generally like any federal mandates of the employer/employee relationship, but this one kind of makes sense. I know I wish I had listened to my Dad and started contributing to a 401k in my 20s vs in my 30s

Quote:SECURE Act 2.0 would require employers that establish new defined contribution plans to automatically enroll newly hired employees, when eligible, in the plan at a pretax contribution level of 3 percent of the employee's pay. This level would increase annually by 1 percentage point up to at least 10 percent but not more than 15 percent of the employee's pay. Employees could affirmatively elect a different contribution.

If a participant has not made an investment election, contributions are defaulted into a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA), generally, a target date or balanced fund or a managed account.

These provisions apply to new 401(k) and 403(b) plans established after the legislation's enactment date, as current plans would be grandfathered. There is also an exception for small businesses with 10 or fewer employees, those in business for less than three years, church plans and governmental plans.

Switched the wife's over to the "safe fund" last October. Making 1.8% and started all new money into the "aggressive fund". No worries. Kept the windfall from the last 5 years. She will retire in 7 5 years. Started it 25 years ago.

I withdrew everything from mine and converted it to gold and silver. I am still contributing and when it approaches 2500 to 3000 I withdraw it all and do the same. I won't live forever, can't take it with me and my kids don't need it. They can have the gold and silver though without all the BS associated with inheriting cash. None of it is in my will and they know where it is.

Stock market is up because it thinks inflation has peaked. It's at 8.5% and somehow that's good for the market. What a disaster.

Orangeman's reign got back all my losses from Hussein and then some. Now it's back in the crapper.

"Welcome to Walmart."

(04-12-2022 09:02 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  Orangeman's reign got back all my losses from Hussein and then some. Now it's back in the crapper.

"Welcome to Walmart."

Sure thing...

Quote:Not too bad, according to major indexes. Based on annualized returns for the S&P 500 SPX, 0.97%, the U.S. benchmark, trump (+13.7%) saw the third-best performance of the 15 presidents who have served since 1929, according to Dow Jones Market Data. trump, however, slightly trailed his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama (+13.8%). Bill Clinton (+15.2%) claims the top spot.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, 0.65%, the more popularly known blue-chip gauge, saw an annualized return of nearly 11.8% under trump, versus 12.1% for Obama and 15.9% for Clinton. Calvin Coolidge, with the benefit of the Roaring ’20s, topped them all with a 25.5% annualized rise, based on data going back to the late 1890s.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-...1611161401

The current elevated stock levels are the result of blind exuberance. One of the financial weekly's I follow has been pretty spot on over the years. The guy tends to lean pessimistic most of the time, but his batting average is high none the less. He picked up on a quote from former NY Fed Governor Bill Dudley who said:

“If stocks don’t fall, the Fed needs to force them. In contrast to many other countries, the U.S. economy doesn’t
respond directly to the level of short-term interest rates... financial conditions need to tighten. If this doesn’t
happen on its own (which seems unlikely), the Fed will have to shock markets to achieve the desired response.”

This will be the next domino to fall in this administration's path of destruction on our economy.

The checks they wrote and are still writing (and want to write more of) have to be covered. The Stock Value run up that was a result of that wild spending will now be the victim First, and our 401K balances second.



Biden's (and the Dems) troubles are just beginning.

Tom you can scream at the sky all you want - Biden and his party affiliates will be taking the blame for all of this squarely on the chin regardless of who's fault it may be. And if that comes to fruition before November 2022, the already expected drubbing of the Dem party, may become an absolute moly-whopping.

Congratulations and that whole Biden winning the Presidency thing.... he will go down as the biggest presidential failure in history - and that is no small feat.

(04-12-2022 09:55 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Tom you can scream at the sky all you want - Biden and his party affiliates will be taking the blame for all of this squarely on the chin regardless of who's fault it may be. And if that comes to fruition before November 2022, the already expected drubbing of the Dem party, may become an absolute moly-whopping.

Congratulations and that whole Biden winning the Presidency thing.... he will go down as the biggest presidential failure in history - and that is no small feat.

What are you babbling about? I only pointed out the FACT that the market did better under Obama, in reply to another poster...so if he lost a ton during that time as he claims, that was on him, not Obama.

Seek help.

#RentFree

(04-12-2022 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 09:55 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Tom you can scream at the sky all you want - Biden and his party affiliates will be taking the blame for all of this squarely on the chin regardless of who's fault it may be. And if that comes to fruition before November 2022, the already expected drubbing of the Dem party, may become an absolute moly-whopping.

Congratulations and that whole Biden winning the Presidency thing.... he will go down as the biggest presidential failure in history - and that is no small feat.

What are you babbling about? I only pointed out the FACT that the market did better under Obama, in reply to another poster...so if he lost a ton during that time as he claims, that was on him, not Obama.

Seek help.

#RentFree

Well, when you start with deflated numbers like Obama did, its not hard to look good.

The real metric would be what percent higher did a president have over the previous high.

Run those numbers princess and see what you get.

(04-12-2022 10:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 09:55 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Tom you can scream at the sky all you want - Biden and his party affiliates will be taking the blame for all of this squarely on the chin regardless of who's fault it may be. And if that comes to fruition before November 2022, the already expected drubbing of the Dem party, may become an absolute moly-whopping.

Congratulations and that whole Biden winning the Presidency thing.... he will go down as the biggest presidential failure in history - and that is no small feat.

What are you babbling about? I only pointed out the FACT that the market did better under Obama, in reply to another poster...so if he lost a ton during that time as he claims, that was on him, not Obama.

Seek help.

#RentFree

Well, when you start with deflated numbers like Obama did, its not hard to look good.

The real metric would be what percent higher did a president have over the previous high.

Run those numbers princess and see what you get.

Word play, much like Biden claiming to have created record numbers of jobs when in reality it was easily explained by people simply returning to jobs which they held pre-plandemic.

(04-12-2022 11:30 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 10:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 09:55 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Tom you can scream at the sky all you want - Biden and his party affiliates will be taking the blame for all of this squarely on the chin regardless of who's fault it may be. And if that comes to fruition before November 2022, the already expected drubbing of the Dem party, may become an absolute moly-whopping.

Congratulations and that whole Biden winning the Presidency thing.... he will go down as the biggest presidential failure in history - and that is no small feat.

What are you babbling about? I only pointed out the FACT that the market did better under Obama, in reply to another poster...so if he lost a ton during that time as he claims, that was on him, not Obama.

Seek help.

#RentFree

Well, when you start with deflated numbers like Obama did, its not hard to look good.

The real metric would be what percent higher did a president have over the previous high.

Run those numbers princess and see what you get.

Word play, much like Biden claiming to have created record numbers of jobs when in reality it was easily explained by people simply returning to jobs which they held pre-plandemic.

I just ran some quick numbers:

Change from previous record high in DJIA til end of term.

Obama - 14%
Trump - 62%

After 8 years of mediocrity, Obama was able to see a paltry net gain of 14% over the prior high water mark.

Obama, like all democrats, look better when you deflate their starting point.

(04-12-2022 08:48 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 08:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Yeah this is pretty much everyone's 401K right now. Interestingly, around 40% of the country does not have a 401K, 50% of Gen Z does not have one and 54% of people making under $50K do not have one.

What do you think about the bill they are about to pass, or might have already, that would require all employers to automatically enroll all new employees in a 401k at 3% of their income? Full text below. I don't generally like any federal mandates of the employer/employee relationship, but this one kind of makes sense. I know I wish I had listened to my Dad and started contributing to a 401k in my 20s vs in my 30s

Quote:SECURE Act 2.0 would require employers that establish new defined contribution plans to automatically enroll newly hired employees, when eligible, in the plan at a pretax contribution level of 3 percent of the employee's pay. This level would increase annually by 1 percentage point up to at least 10 percent but not more than 15 percent of the employee's pay. Employees could affirmatively elect a different contribution.

If a participant has not made an investment election, contributions are defaulted into a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA), generally, a target date or balanced fund or a managed account.

These provisions apply to new 401(k) and 403(b) plans established after the legislation's enactment date, as current plans would be grandfathered. There is also an exception for small businesses with 10 or fewer employees, those in business for less than three years, church plans and governmental plans.

My biggest beef with it is this takes away the employee's right to use the money as they see fit. If they don't want a 401K or only want to put 1-2% in it that should be their right. Perhaps they have a different revenue stream they are using for their investment(s). What about someone who retired with a fixed pension from one job and take on another? If they don't want to put 3% into a 401K then that is their choice.

(04-12-2022 11:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 08:48 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 08:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Yeah this is pretty much everyone's 401K right now. Interestingly, around 40% of the country does not have a 401K, 50% of Gen Z does not have one and 54% of people making under $50K do not have one.

What do you think about the bill they are about to pass, or might have already, that would require all employers to automatically enroll all new employees in a 401k at 3% of their income? Full text below. I don't generally like any federal mandates of the employer/employee relationship, but this one kind of makes sense. I know I wish I had listened to my Dad and started contributing to a 401k in my 20s vs in my 30s

Quote:SECURE Act 2.0 would require employers that establish new defined contribution plans to automatically enroll newly hired employees, when eligible, in the plan at a pretax contribution level of 3 percent of the employee's pay. This level would increase annually by 1 percentage point up to at least 10 percent but not more than 15 percent of the employee's pay. Employees could affirmatively elect a different contribution.

If a participant has not made an investment election, contributions are defaulted into a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA), generally, a target date or balanced fund or a managed account.

These provisions apply to new 401(k) and 403(b) plans established after the legislation's enactment date, as current plans would be grandfathered. There is also an exception for small businesses with 10 or fewer employees, those in business for less than three years, church plans and governmental plans.

My biggest beef with it is this takes away the employee's right to use the money as they see fit. If they don't want a 401K or only want to put 1-2% in it that should be their right. Perhaps they have a different revenue stream they are using for their investment(s). What about someone who retired with a fixed pension from one job and take on another? If they don't want to put 3% into a 401K then that is their choice.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that employees can opt out if they want to. But companies have to set this up for them to participate.

(04-12-2022 12:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 11:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 08:48 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 08:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Yeah this is pretty much everyone's 401K right now. Interestingly, around 40% of the country does not have a 401K, 50% of Gen Z does not have one and 54% of people making under $50K do not have one.

What do you think about the bill they are about to pass, or might have already, that would require all employers to automatically enroll all new employees in a 401k at 3% of their income? Full text below. I don't generally like any federal mandates of the employer/employee relationship, but this one kind of makes sense. I know I wish I had listened to my Dad and started contributing to a 401k in my 20s vs in my 30s

Quote:SECURE Act 2.0 would require employers that establish new defined contribution plans to automatically enroll newly hired employees, when eligible, in the plan at a pretax contribution level of 3 percent of the employee's pay. This level would increase annually by 1 percentage point up to at least 10 percent but not more than 15 percent of the employee's pay. Employees could affirmatively elect a different contribution.

If a participant has not made an investment election, contributions are defaulted into a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA), generally, a target date or balanced fund or a managed account.

These provisions apply to new 401(k) and 403(b) plans established after the legislation's enactment date, as current plans would be grandfathered. There is also an exception for small businesses with 10 or fewer employees, those in business for less than three years, church plans and governmental plans.

My biggest beef with it is this takes away the employee's right to use the money as they see fit. If they don't want a 401K or only want to put 1-2% in it that should be their right. Perhaps they have a different revenue stream they are using for their investment(s). What about someone who retired with a fixed pension from one job and take on another? If they don't want to put 3% into a 401K then that is their choice.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that employees can opt out if they want to. But companies have to set this up for them to participate.

Yes, apologies that part was not in the snip I posted. An employee can opt out if they wish. The law just changes it that you are enrolled by default instead of the other way around. Companies that match have a fiscal incentive for employees to not sign up

(04-12-2022 08:35 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 08:14 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  I try to only think about my 401k when I get my quarterly statements since it is a long term investment. I follow my play stocks on a daily basis. Got my quarterly statement yesterday and spit my coffee out. I figured it was down, but damn. My previous statement my ROR since initial investment was right under 25% which I know is unsustainable. My ROR YTD on this statement is -15%. I took a shellacking. Reworked my portfolio into some more stable funds and will be watching that a little more closely now.

But no mean tweets



Spoiler:. Its gonna get worse

1. 401ks and 403bs are intentionally crappy retirement investment tools which were implemented to force more corporate funds back into stocks in order to Ponzi up values so the same corporations through book asset derivatives could take over more things and leave their employees holding the bag when the inevitable crash comes.

These plans were designed to hose you.

2. The U.S. Dollar was losing 10% of its purchasing power annually until Biden took over. We are now losing 25% of our purchasing power annually. So even what is left in your portfolio when converted to cash will be worth less.

The decline is due to national debt drag on dollar trades, and to supply chain issues sustained during COVID, and to more people and less resources.

3. In part the decline in dollar value is the basis of Bitcoin and Corporate investment in real estate. God's not making any more land on Earth, and people are still out procreating death rates.

4. Put your money in things which hold value (stocks don't), stock up on scarce stable commodities (they only go up in value), and store portable sources of wealth.

The economy is apocalyptic, and with all apocalypses the signs are all around and nobody is paying attention.

(04-12-2022 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 09:02 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  Orangeman's reign got back all my losses from Hussein and then some. Now it's back in the crapper.

"Welcome to Walmart."

Sure thing...

Quote:Not too bad, according to major indexes. Based on annualized returns for the S&P 500 SPX, 0.97%, the U.S. benchmark, trump (+13.7%) saw the third-best performance of the 15 presidents who have served since 1929, according to Dow Jones Market Data. trump, however, slightly trailed his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama (+13.8%). Bill Clinton (+15.2%) claims the top spot.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, 0.65%, the more popularly known blue-chip gauge, saw an annualized return of nearly 11.8% under trump, versus 12.1% for Obama and 15.9% for Clinton. Calvin Coolidge, with the benefit of the Roaring ’20s, topped them all with a 25.5% annualized rise, based on data going back to the late 1890s.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-...1611161401

Seriously Tommy, if any gains were made under the Socialist regime of Obama it was by mistake. Since when do Socialists care about Capital gains? Duh!