'What's Quietly Disappeared Are The Days When'..

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

You could make good interest off of just your checking & savings accounts...

[Willy]

What you do make now in savings interest has no hope of keeping up with inflation. If you think about it, it's more in a bank's interest to have someone take out a loan to buy something rather than saving up to purchase stuff.

[Skarbo]

How long ago were these "good days"??
Since the time I've set up both types of accounts ......30+ years ago...
I have never accepted the rates they offered as "good" .......the most I could ever come up with was under 5%
Even CD's.....

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

I believe had over 5% in the early 90s....(6 - 6.5 if memory serves correct)

[Uncleal]

Yes the very early nineties, because in 92 election Slick Willie was chosen, didn't begin his heroics until Jan 93, by June of that year 5% was high, and on the way down. Eight years of a booming economy that saw many an OOPS, but for all the jobs created, and stock market winfalls. The interest percentage John Q. Public earned on their savings accounts, kept on falling.

By the time Bush took over, it was around 1.5%. 9-11 Hit and it fell even further. What is bank interest now? Haven't checked in years :)

[Skarbo]

I believe had over 5% in the early 90s....(6 - 6.5 if memory serves correct)

Maybe it's just me........ but 6% still was not good enough for me........
I did my investments with a target of 8% at the low end..
Most of my funds were running 12-14%........
Even with 2 big set backs I averaged 10

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

I agree it's not good enough.

But compared to today's rates.................

And I'm only talking about money sitting in a checking or savings account - nothing else

[Skarbo]

I agree it's not good enough.

But compared to today's rates.................

And I'm only talking about money sitting in a checking or savings account - nothing else

I hear ya bud :thumbs up:

[wilbur whately]

come to canada where the bank charges you for every single thing they do.
wanna see a teller? there's a fee
wanna use the atm? pay the fee
checks? fee
savings acct? can't even get one at most banks, they don't even have them.
want online access? call the bank for a balance? fee for that too.

on the other hand, my credit union back in delaware does all that for free, including the atm, and i get 1,000 free checks a year!

[Hans Jaeger]

A credit union is not the same as a bank. Credit unions exist in Canada too.

And Canadian banks are apparently more solvent than those in the USA, UK, etc. Those bank bail-outs you've been hearing about? None in Canada, because the banks are on a solid footing.

A savings or chequing account has NEVER been a good place to park your money if you expect it to work for you and at least keep up with inflation.

And with the ease with which you can set up a portfolio nowadays - stocks, bonds, GIC's, mutuals, whatever - there's no excuse for thinking a bank account is the place for your money to be except if you just want to stash money that's perfectly secure but doesn't grow.

[wilbur whately]

i realize that a credit union is not the same as a bank. however, for what the average person uses a bank for, it serves the purpose better. you can cash/deposit checks, get a loan or a morgage, get a credit card, have a christmas club acct if you want one. my credit union offers big discounts on used cars once a month. what exactly do i need a bank for? a portfolio? i have friends with portfolios. they used to brag about how much they are worth. now they whine about how much they lost. and the best part of it is, the article recently published that tells them it wasn't real money to begin with. i suppose that wasn't real money they bought those portfolios with? no thank you. i'll stick with my credit union that's not a bank. the one where they still know me by name and the sound of my voice over the phone even though i haven't been back to the states in 2 years.

[Hans Jaeger]

Credit unions are good, but not many people use them, as compared to banks.

The money you make on stocks, mutuals, bonds, GIC's etc. is VERY real. The trick with stocks and mutuals is to cash them in at the right time; then they're not just "paper" any more.

[6s.]

Maybe it's just me........ but 6% still was not good enough for me........
I did my investments with a target of 8% at the low end..
Most of my funds were running 12-14%........
Even with 2 big set backs I averaged 10So you are *seriously* expecting an investment to serve a 14% interest rate and all the same blame the Wall Street boys for what's happening today ?

[Hans Jaeger]

There are winners and losers in stocks and money instruments. The losers' losses feed the winners' gains.

The blame for the financial crisis doesn't fall on Wall Street per se, it falls upon shady practices that took all possible advantage of lax legislation. The stock market itself works fine, and the banking industry would too, except for the pyramid schemes that the legislation should never have allowed.

The lesson (AGAIN) is that capitalism works fine, BUT it does need some regulation and oversight.

[6s.]

I'm afraid you missed my point, Hans Jaeger, which is that I don't understand how someone may seriously expect insanely high interest rates and not see how his own greed actually fuelled the past years frenzy of Wall Street boys.

[Skarbo]

So you are *seriously* expecting an investment to serve a 14% interest rate and all the same blame the Wall Street boys for what's happening today ?
Don' quite know what your driving at 6 ??.........
I never said I was "expecting" 14%....it was what received at 1 time....


And I have not once "blamed" Wall Street (Boys ??)for anything.....
Where did you get this from what I posted?
:cool:

,which is that I don't understand how someone may seriously expect insanely high interest rates and not see how his own greed actually fuelled the past years frenzy of Wall Street boys?

Ummm Does the purpose of investing for your own future make you geedy??
Good lord man...I was just trying to control my own life instead of letting OTHER people pay for it!

Greed my butt.......

[Hans Jaeger]

I'm afraid you missed my point, Hans Jaeger, which is that I don't understand how someone may seriously expect insanely high interest rates and not see how his own greed actually fuelled the past years frenzy of Wall Street boys.

No I didn't miss it. Whether it's the 'Wall St boys' fuelling the greed of the small investor, or whether it's vice-versa, it's the same point. You're alleging an inconsistency in thinking.

[6s.]

Whether it's the 'Wall St boys' fuelling the greed of the small investor, or whether it's vice-versa, it's the same point.But not mine.

You're alleging an inconsistency in thinking.Let's say so.

[Skarbo]

So you are *seriously* expecting an investment to serve a 14% interest rate and all the same blame the Wall Street boys for what's happening today ?

Ok........I'm gonna try again here............My exact words were

I did my investments with a target of 8% at the low end..
Even with 2 big set backs I averaged 10

Then you said this.....
So you are *seriously* expecting an investment to serve a 14% interest rate and all the same blame the Wall Street boys for what's happening today ?
AND this.......
I don't understand how someone may seriously expect insanely high interest rates and not see how his own greed actually fuelled the past years frenzy of Wall Street boys.

To which I replyed....


And I have not once "blamed" Wall Street (Boys ??)for anything.....
Where did you get this from what I posted?
:cool:


Ummm Does the purpose of investing for your own future make you geedy??
Good lord man...I was just trying to control my own life instead of letting OTHER people pay for it!

Greed my butt.......

So just what was Your point??? :confused:

You calling me Greedy???

[Hans Jaeger]

OK, we're done.

Skarbo, I wouldn't bother. Anyone with a radio-controlled Mickey Mouse toilet bowl can't have much of an attention span. ;)

[6s.]

[QUOTE=Skarbo;1912]You calling me Greedy???Would you prefer "lured with unrealistic figures" ? or "trained to believe that the moon is made of green cheese" ?

Trying to get the best interest rate is normal. Expecting a target of 8% at the low endis totally unrealistic. Worse: it is damaging for the economy.

Good lord man... I was just trying to control my own life instead of letting OTHER people pay for it!Of course you're sincere, but what are you having right now, if not the exact opposite ? What do you think the 700 bn are for, if not prevent US banking system to go insolvent and your deposits to disappear ?

[Skarbo]

[quote=Skarbo;1912]Would you prefer "lured with unrealistic figures" ? or "trained to believe that the moon is made of green cheese"
Trying to get the best interest rate is normal. Expecting is totally unrealistic. Worse: it is damaging for the economy.

Lured with unrealistic figures??......These were my actual returns (at 1 time) and 8% is not by any means "unrealistic".........
But then again.......
I still have not figured out how this can be "it is damaging for the economy"
I never studied Socialistic Economics 101

Of course you're sincere, but what are you having right now, if not the exact opposite ? What do you think the 700 bn are for, if not prevent US banking system to go insolvent and your deposits to disappear ?
I think your a bit misinformed here.........This is NOT 1929......

But Hans is right.....I'm not gonna bother..you have misread everything I've posted so far... SO....as another one of esteemed members here is fond of saying.....

Pylon :D

[Snuffy]

... Of course you're sincere, but what are you having right now, if not the exact opposite ? What do you think the 700 bn are for, if not prevent US banking system to go insolvent and your deposits to disappear ?

Thank you Mr. Know-it-all! :horse:

[6s.]

Lured with unrealistic figures??......These were my actual returns (at 1 time) and 8% is not by any means "unrealistic".........
But then again.......
I still have not figured out how this can be "it is damaging for the economy"
I never studied Socialistic Economics 101
My previous posts were also implicitely addressed to Willy and Panthera Pardus Nigresco, as they both agreed with you.
I've never intended to go personal, and I apologize if I gave you reasons to think I have.

Yet, I am totally flabbergasted that so many people - and that does include Willy, Panthera Pardus Nigresco and you - have come to think that an interest rate 3 or 4 points above inflation level isn't a good enough annual interest rate, while being unaware of, or not giving a damn about, the consequences of such figures.

I bloody well understand that you actually got your "8% at the low end" and that "most of your funds were running 12-14%", and that too puts me off. Not that you are responsible for those high rates, but that it is possible to get such rates.

You probably have a mutual fund, a pension fund or an insurance company to take care of your savings, since only stock-based investments can be so "attractive".
To be able to serve you 8%, the "fund" - let's call it this way - where you've put your savings has to get a solid 10% from its investments. And to serve you 14%, it has to get 15-16%. In other words, every company where your "fund" has invested has to pay its shareholders 10 to 15% of its net result.

In order of priority, a company should use its result to strengthen itself : improve its products, research new products, improve its production systems, increase its cash. Payment of dividends should NOT impair its future. That is why, in a not so distant past, dividend rate was more or less on par with GNP growth rate, around 5%.
Most companies can afford paying 5% of their net result in dividends. Most can't afford 15%, but they do pay for fear that discontented shareholders might sell their stocks, causing their value to plummet, which is not good for the company, nor for the stock-option plans of its management.

Since the company has to pay for something it cannot afford, it has to find some workarounds.
Downsizing first comes to mind, and whether you like it or not, dismissed people actually DO pay for your life.
Relocation comes second. Instead of increasing its competitiveness, lowering production costs allows the company to increase its margin. Customers pay the difference, and whether you like it or not, they also DO pay for your life.
Selling assets comes third. That includes selling buildings, know-how, company departments, etc. That's eventually how most of manufactured goods consumed in the USA are manufactured outside the USA.

If you don't call that "damaging for the economy", what is ?

I think your a bit misinformed here.........This is NOT 1929......
Misinformed of course. Why do you think Congress has increased the deposit insurance limits (http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2008/fil08102a.html) from 100,000 USD to 250,000 USD ?

Pylon :DIt's probably funny, but since my cultural background isn't yours, it falls short with me - unless you'd care to explain ?

[Hans Jaeger]

Finally some meat instead of smug I-know-it-and-you-don't comments. ;)

Which makes it possible to point out that the idea that a fund (call it a fund, yes) can only afford to pay out let's say 14% by running companies into the ground (by encouraging excessive dividends, downsizing, and selling of assets) is OK but it doesn't give the complete picture.

In actuality there is another factor that contributes to the success of a fund, and that is that not all funds, nor all individual investors, are successful. The value of stocks fluctuates in a broadly predictable cycle, but there are many other factors that affect the value of stocks and they go up and down in some hard-to-predict ways. Some "experts" predict well, and others predict poorly.

A fund that weights itself heavily in stocks (a "growth" fund) might do well and it might not. It depends upon the stocks that are bought as part of the "basket". If the basket contains a lot of stocks which rise significantly in value over a relatively short period, or a large amount of a few stocks which do the same, then double digit returns are possible to those who invested in the fund. (The value of a stock can be simply its attractiveness and the number of people wanting to buy it or sell it, independent of its true value.) If the basket contains many stocks that do poorly and lose value, then the fund pays out very little or perhaps nothing. The fund manager might sell stocks at a loss to try to put money in better places, or individual fund investors might sell their units at a loss in order to invest in another fund that promises better chances of gain. The losers pay for the winners, just like in a poker game.

The fund manager is the key here. An astute (and lucky) fund manager can generate good money for his fund and for the fund investors, and it's done by the old method of buying low-selling high.

The fund manager who makes the wrong predictions loses money.

The funds and individual stockholders who lose money pay for the funds and stockholders who gain money. This is all without directly affecting the value of the company or "sucking money out of it", so to speak.

Dividends, downsizing, selliing assets, these are definitely used to take value out of a company, but they are not the only way money can be generated for investors. The stock market is a gamble, with winners and losers, and you do well to have your money in a fund that can pick winners, along with the right blend of other money instruments, of course, depending on your aversion to risk and your willingness to settle for lower but more secure returns.

[6s.]

Finally some meat instead of smug I-know-it-and-you-don't comments. ;)Those who register here are supposed to be full grown adults, those who post are apparently reasonably informed, I think reading between the lines sometimes isn't asking too much.
Weren't you the one saying, lately, that it was useless to state the obvious ?
If it works for you, and no one calls you a know-it-all, it works for me.
I assume I deserve this label because I think readers are able to connect some dots and because I don't share the dominant view. Talk about tolerance and open-mindedness :rolleyes:

As to your comment:
a) there is a basics you seem to miss: work creates wealth, that is how companies - from freelance workers to multinationals - make money. That should be the ONLY way to generate money.
That's because some wise guys crafted some "other ways" to create money, based on the disconnection between actual wealth and stock quotations, that we're witnessing today's crisis.

b) stock market isn't a gamble, since gambling requires following very strict rules and accepting constant watch. Stock markets have had no rules lately, except "outbidding" and "sheeplike".
Prediction is a joke. Quotations depends on rumours and hearsays. Killing a sound viable company only requires a few words within voice distance from the right ear. Ask Soros.

[Ease]

Nevermind. Yeah, I'm just a PW.

[Hans Jaeger]

Those who register here are supposed to be full grown adults, those who post are apparently reasonably informed, I think reading between the lines sometimes isn't asking too much.

There's a difference between reading between the lines and outright guessing when someone is being obscure or purposely cute. It's usually not worth the time to figure out what someone wants to say if they're not forthright enough to simply say it.

Talk about tolerance and open-mindedness :rolleyes:

Who me? Not in this thread. :)

As to your comment:
a) there is a basics you seem to miss: work creates wealth, that is how companies - from freelance workers to multinationals - make money. That should be the ONLY way to generate money.

Ah, yes, I've run into an idealist. We must live on different planets. Ever since the creation of money there have been speculations, buying low and selling high, money-lending at interest, venture capital, and later stocks, bonds, and other money instruments.

They all generate wealth for individual investors or syndicates when used wisely and/or with a bit of luck.

That's because some wise guys crafted some "other ways" to create money, based on the disconnection between actual wealth and stock quotations, that we're witnessing today's crisis.

Crashes are a feature of risk-taking. But people will continue to take risks to gain profit. That's the way it works. Somebody is always making money when others are losing.

b) stock market isn't a gamble, since gambling requires following very strict rules and accepting constant watch. Stock markets have had no rules lately, except "outbidding" and "sheeplike".

It's a gamble whether you like it or not. It has its own rules, and you'd better be paying attention!

Prediction is a joke. Quotations depends on rumours and hearsays. Killing a sound viable company only requires a few words within voice distance from the right ear. Ask Soros.

Ever heard of the business cycle? That's one thing that can help shoot a big hole in your opinion.

[Odie]

My money doesn't stay in the checkings account long enough to gather anything !!! In one day, out the other !

[Willy]

My money doesn't stay in the checkings account long enough to gather anything !!! In one day, out the other !

Sounds like mine!

[6s.]

Ah, yes, I've run into an idealist.No.

We must live on different planets. Ever since the creation of money there have been speculations, buying low and selling high, money-lending at interest, venture capital, and later stocks, bonds, and other money instruments.

They all generate wealth for individual investors or syndicates when used wisely and/or with a bit of luck.You don't get it. You confuse transactions and prices with creation of wealth, ie added value.

Extracting iron ore from some hillside is adding value: its creates wealth.
Producing steel sheets from iron ore and coke is adding value.
Manufacturing washing machines from steel sheets is adding value.
Tranferring washing machines from production site to retailers so that they come closer to potential customers is adding value.

Shifting property titles around or fiddling with bookkeeping entries does NOT create added value. The best proof is that GDP calculation does NOT take stock markets value into account. If it did, US GDP (currently around 13.5 trillion USD) would be some 20 times higher (for comparison, the total value of world's stock and bonds market is estimated around 100 trillion USD and the total derivatives market is estimated around 600 trillion USD). This (http://www.slideshare.net/guesta9d12e/subprime-primer-277484/) is ugly but straight from horse's mouth. You'll get the idea ;)

Crashes are a feature of risk-taking. But people will continue to take risks to gain profit. That's the way it works. Somebody is always making money when others are losing.I'm fed-up with that glorification of "risk-taking" which purpose is to dazzle the have-nots and lure them into the illusion that anybody taking risks may eventually reach the top.
You don't ask a military to take risks, you assign him a goal and are able to decide upon his failure or success depending on whether he's reached the goal or not. Managing a company is not taking risks for the sake of risks, it's aiming an objective and carefully poising the ways to reach this objective.
The risk-taking culture has virtues, but it's been totally perverted. CEOs get better rewards for taking insane risks and eventually sinking the corporation they're managing than they would for reaching their goals. It HAD to go ballistics - bingo.

It's a gamble whether you like it or not. It has its own rules, and you'd better be paying attention!Stock market's original, sole and much needed purpose was to put in contact people in need of capital with people wanting to invest their capital. Total deregulation has made it a jungle - and not a gamble, see why above. Its original purpose has become a side effect at best. It is not somethng that can't be changed.

Ever heard of the business cycle? That's one thing that can help shoot a big hole in your opinion.I really like it when you address people like they're morons after calling them "know-it-all".
In the present case, "business cycle" is a) a pathetic post-justification for a perfectly predictable crisis; b) irrelevant regarding the point it is supposed to address :)

[Opie]

Check out the ad that appeared at the top of the page when I visited last! :ugly25:

[Hans Jaeger]

You don't get it. You confuse transactions and prices with creation of wealth, ie added value.

I didn't say it added (economic) value. It does, however, create money in the pockets of wise investors. But according to your view, they should feel guilty about it.

Your examples of added value are quite true, but we're not talking about the same thing.

I'm fed-up with that glorification of "risk-taking" which purpose is to dazzle the have-nots and lure them into the illusion that anybody taking risks may eventually reach the top.

Well there's the idealist coming out again. Speculation is an everyday fact of life. We often purchase or keep things that we hope will eventually increase in value. All you have to do is find a willing buyer. Ebay did not take off like a rocket for nothing! :)

The risk-taking culture has virtues, but it's been totally perverted. CEOs get better rewards for taking insane risks and eventually sinking the corporation they're managing than they would for reaching their goals. It HAD to go ballistics - bingo.

I agree. There's always the potential for abuse

Stock market's original, sole and much needed purpose was to put in contact people in need of capital with people wanting to invest their capital. Total deregulation has made it a jungle - and not a gamble, see why above. Its original purpose has become a side effect at best.

I agree that regulation is too lax. But no reason to "throw the baby out with the bath water". The stock market has its place, and a wise investor can make perfectly acceptable (guiltless) gains.

In the present case, "business cycle" is a) a pathetic post-justification for a perfectly predictable crisis

No, the business cycle is a good guide for long term investors. It's one of the things you ignored to such an extent that it seemed obvious you weren't thinking about it in the context of this discussion.

The business cycle does not predict crashes, but it does give a rule of thumb for which sectors of the market are on the rise, which are on the decline, and in which order they rise and fall.

Don't get too miffed about feeling that you're "being addressed like a moron". You frequently let this tone slip into your own posts. ;)

BTW it was Snuffy who called you a "know-it-all", not me.

[Hans Jaeger]

Check out the ad that appeared at the top of the page when I visited last! :ugly25:

I think 6" just had a heart attack!

[Opie]

I think 6" just had a heart attack!

Just injecting a little levity... :mgw:

I think we need a "mooning" emoticon...Sling?

[6s.]

I think 6" just had a heart attack!It's 6s. I switched to SI to make it clearer to some ignoramuses ;)

I escaped the heart attack, thanks, but will you ? :D

[Opie]

LOL! I wonder who that was supposed to be aimed at? Recently minted US citizens from France? French-Canadian defectors? That's got to be a small demographic... :laugh:

BTW - I think I read in another thread here that the forum really has no control over what ads come across. I think Sling signed us up for some service to defray operating costs. I just thought it was ironic to se an ad for stock trading at that particular time. :D

[Hans Jaeger]

Opie, I am pretty sure that this kind of ad sometimes picks up on key words contained on the site page when you call it up. I've seen it happen too many times for it to be coincidence.

I recall in particular calling up a page that mentioned North Shore drilling or climate change and a banner came up from the World Wildlife Fund about saving polar bears.

-----

6", 6s makes no difference to me.

Thanks for the French ad. I didn't know the USA had French overseas possessions. Are you voting for Obama? :D

[6s.]

I think Sling signed us up for some service to defray operating costs. I just thought it was ironic to se an ad for stock trading at that particular time. :DI think it is quite ironic too to see an ad for Obama on Quartermoon. RAF_Slingblade must be coughing his beer :D

=====

6", 6s makes no difference to me.It should. I'd appreciate.

BTW, I'll try to craft a answer to your post #33 as soon as I can. If you don't mind and can wait, that is.

Are you voting for Obama? :DMcCain/Palin is a far better ticket for european interests ;)

[Snuffy]

... McCain/Palin is a far better ticket for european interests ;)

So does Al-Quada ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477_pf.html

[Hans Jaeger]

Like I said, winners and losers --- and the losers pay the gains of the winners.

But here's some sound advice...

Retirement Planning

If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00.

With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1000.00.

With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left.

If you had purchased $1000 of Delta Air Lines stock you would have $49.00 left.

But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer/wine one year ago, drank all the beer/wine, then turned in the cans/bottles for the recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.00.

Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to Drink heavily and recycle.

[Kofschip]

Hans, what do you do when you are retired? I am way beyond planning for retirement.:confused::confused::mad::mad:

[Willy]

Keep in mind that aluminum cans dropped from $0.70 a pound to $0.40 in the past few weeks. The scrapmetal yards are full of metals that they bought high a month or so ago and now can't sell for near what they paid for it.

[Hans Jaeger]

Hans, what do you do when you are retired? I am way beyond planning for retirement.:confused::confused::mad::mad:

When I retired, my wife and I sold our house in the city and bought a waterfront cottage on a half-acre lot with lots of trees. We then expanded it and upgraded it into a year-round home.

I have a little plaque hung up in the entrance to our home - "I'm retired - don't ask me to do a damn thing." It's more for show than anything else. I've done a lot of construction work here, but the heaviest is over.

Right now -9.30 AM - I'm sitting with a morning coffee checking messages. I got up at 8.30 (stayed up til 1.30 AM last night). That pretty much tells you that I make my own hours, which is one of the best things about being retired. My wife and I live on the shore of a large lake so on the mornings when the weather is nice we're usually out on our front deck or at the shore, looking things over, checking on the ducks and geese, feeding the blue jays and other songbrds.

Later in the day we've got chores to do, things to fix, neighbours to talk to, maybe a run to town to do some shopping. In the summer we go for a swim almost every day. Then there's boating and fishing (ice fishing in the winter). In the evenings, some TV, some good books, the internet (news and messages). The best thing is, it's all done at your own pace.

I retired four years ago, at age 55, and I haven't felt bored, nor have I had a desire to resume working, though I did enjoy my job right up until the end. I think the best thing you can do is retire as early as you can.

[Toastmaker]

Congratulations ! I'm sure you earned it and I hope you enjoy every minute of it.

Doesn't it seem ironic that many men/women become more insightful, reasonable and intelligent AFTER retirement. . .?

[Opie]

Doesn't it seem ironic that many men/women become more insightful, reasonable and intelligent AFTER retirement. . .?

Probably because one has more time and isn't distracted by work pressures. :)

I'm probably a lot farther away from retirement than I was this time last year. F-ing Gov'mint! :mad:

[Hans Jaeger]

Thanks, Toast. If I recall correctly you're retired too?

Doesn't it seem ironic that many men/women become more insightful, reasonable and intelligent AFTER retirement. . .?

That probably passed me by. I didn't notice any kind of a sudden boost. :D

---

Hang in there, Opie. Speaking from experience, it seems a long way away and then suddenly it's there! :)

[Kofschip]

Thanks, Toast. If I recall correctly you're retired too?



That probably passed me by. I didn't notice any kind of a sudden boost. :D

---

Hang in there, Opie. Speaking from experience, it seems a long way away and then suddenly it's there! :)

Yeah Opie, time flies "when you are having fun", or was it "when you get older?"

Hans, I have been retired for 4 years, worked till I was 65. Did a lot of traveling with my wife, till my 401(k)'s turned into 201(k)'s. Now I have to watch a bit what we do with our money, especially considering that we live in the most expensive state in the US. But six of the seven grandchildren live here and that is very important.:)

[Toastmaker]

Hans, I was sort of retired when I lived in Mexico but was offered something interesting, so returned to the cadre of wage slaves back in the U.S.

In some respects, "retired" can be a state of mind in which you no longer fight so much with life and find that you have a more mellow outlook on the things that happen around you. At least, that's how I've become and I feel much more at peace with the world than I ever was before.

Is that because I'm older, or smarter. . . ? I'm not sure which.


I do know that I like this a lot more: :beach3:

[Opie]

No worries, Guys. This is my second go-round with the markets tanking - in fact, I was working for a market data company back in 2000 when the dot-com bubble burst and got to watch the train wreck from a front row seat.

We're in pretty good shape now, but it's just frustrating to know that things could have gone differently. :killersmiley:

I just hope you guys are doing OK. Our in-laws are in the same boat (retired and coping) so we understand.

[Hans Jaeger]

Hans, I have been retired for 4 years, worked till I was 65. Did a lot of traveling with my wife, till my 401(k)'s turned into 201(k)'s. Now I have to watch a bit what we do with our money, especially considering that we live in the most expensive state in the US. But six of the seven grandchildren live here and that is very important.:)

Oh hey, I thought you were in the Netherlands! It's all Ok though.

I would be guessing as to which state would be the most expensive. I'm thinking one where a lot of people want to retire? Arizona? Don't laugh, it's just a guess. :)

Yes, grandchilden are most important!

[Skarbo]

Well ,I just "retired" officially last month @55...
But not willingly......
After 6+ years of pain and surgery's I was finally declared fully disabled.
While the money is not great, it will allow me and mom to keep the house(almost paid for) and have a frugal, but good life....plus I have a part-time job (3hrs a day,mostly just to keep me occupied), and,with some modifications to the boat,am still pursuing the fishing guide thing - even though that's going slower than I had hoped.
But even with all that,I am surprisingly happy. Better still the wife and me are closer than we ever have been! Go figure :rolleyes:
I guess money is not everything...:faintthud:
Don't have any grandkids yet...My oldest is just now getting around to marriage(she's 31) next May,and my youngest who is married,is waiting to finish her residency,which will be also be this May,before they start a family,so it may be awhile yet........good thing I'm patient :laugh:

All in all retired life is good :thumbs up:

[Hans Jaeger]

Hans, I was sort of retired when I lived in Mexico but was offered something interesting, so returned to the cadre of wage slaves back in the U.S.

Well, Toast, it sounds like you're working out of preference rather than necessity, which is good!

---

Doing OK here, Opie. Not floating in cash by any means, but like Skarbo says, money isn't everything. It depends on what you're contented with.

---

Kof, the other thing I misinterpreted was your comment about planning for retirement. I read it to say that you were not retired yet and not able or willing to plan for it. :)

[Kofschip]

Oh hey, I thought you were in the Netherlands! It's all Ok though.

I would be guessing as to which state would be the most expensive. I'm thinking one where a lot of people want to retire? Arizona? Don't laugh, it's just a guess. :)

Yes, grandchilden are most important!

I left The Netherlands in 1960, came to the US in 1963, via SE Asia (that's a different story, some parts still classified). Have been a US Citizen since 1968. The most expensive state to live in the US is New Jersey, where there are too many cars and not enough blacktop.:D Yes, the grandchildren are very important to both my wife and me.:thumbs up:

BTW, Hans, I guess that you are in British Columbia. Is that right?

[Kofschip]

An afterthought:

Well, it looks like we all have a lot of things in common. That must be the reason why I feel so comfortable with you guys. Thanks for making me feel good.

[Hans Jaeger]

BTW, Hans, I guess that you are in British Columbia. Is that right?

I was born in Austria and I have lived in Alberta and BC, but actually I'm in Ontario, the northern part, well north of Toronto.

[Kofschip]

I was born in Austria and I have lived in Alberta and BC, but actually I'm in Ontario, the northern part, well north of Toronto.

Hans, I would like to send you a PM, but I see that I can't.:( Can you send me a PM with an email address? Thanks, K

[Hans Jaeger]

..............ok

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

Re-thinking this,
I remember as a kid in the 70's with $25 bucks or so in the bank, I *think* I had an interest rate between 5-10%...

[Kofschip]

Re-thinking this,
I remember as a kid in the 70's with $25 bucks or so in the bank, I *think* I had an interest rate between 5-10%...

No, it was not that high, I believe it was about 4%.

[Wiens]

In the past Bankers lived by the 3 - 6 - 3 rule.........


















Take money in at 3%; loan it out at 6%; be on the golf course by 3.

K