About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

“And if they do go, a furnace might run a couple thousand, but you could probably finance it with managable payments. A water heater is what, $1,000?” [Jonathan]

Not in a $150k home. I bought a new furnace about four years ago for $800 installed. About six years ago I replaced the water heater myself—it cost maybe $150.




Post 41

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:52amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Thanks Jon... It was a rough estimate on my part. At any rate, that's even better for the point I was trying to make!



Post 42

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 5:52amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
If you do move around enough so that you can't buy a house, get your new employer to pick up some of the tab. In the three cross-country relocations I've done, it's been about $50K. I've probably spent about 6K on moving :-).

Jim




Post 43

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 2:33pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

“Thanks Jon... It was a rough estimate on my part. At any rate, that's even better for the point I was trying to make!”

Hi Jonathan. It was indeed even better for the point you made, which I was trying to buttress.

However, honesty requires that I disclose having found the paperwork in a file the other day while looking for something else…turns out I paid eighteen hundred, not eight hundred, for the furnace!




Post 44

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 3:16amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sounds more like what I thought for the furnace, but my parents confirmed that they only paid about $100 for their new water heater a couple months ago.



Post 45

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:58pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
In Post 19, Hong wrote,
Like Mike, I am also not stock market savvy. The only thing that I could have done is probably mutual funds. But given the pathetic performance of the stock market in last several years, we probably would lose money anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean by "last several years," but if you had invested $100,000 four years ago in any of the standard index funds, like the Russell 2000, the Nasdaq or the S&P 500, not only would you not have lost money, but your investment would have appreciated as follows:

During that period, the Russell 2000 rose over 110%, the Nasdaq, over 80% and the S&P 500 almost 70%, for an annualized rate of return of over 20%, 16% and 14%, respectively. That means that if you had invested $100,000 in the Russell 2000, you would now have over $210,000; if you had invested it in the Nasdaq, you would have over $180,000; and if you had invested it in the S&P 500, you would have almost $170,000. How much longer this "cyclical" bull market will last is anyone's guess, but it's done great since 2003.

- Bill



Post 46

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 6:46amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bill, thanks for that info. Yes, the stock market clearly is on the up now. It has been down since around 1999-2000, I think. As I said, I was not savvy enough to grab the first opportunity when it started going up.




Post 47

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Hong,

I listen to Bob Brinker on the weekends. I don't know if you can get him where you're located, but he is one of the best market timers in the business. He told people to get out of the market January 2000, and to get back in fully invested in March of 2003. As we know now, this was truly prophetic advice. He has a newsletter, which a friend of mine subscribes to, in which he makes his recommendations, and of course a website - bobbrinker.com.

Definitely worth checking out. Unlike a lot of market timers, he doesn't issue short-term advice. For example, he had people in the market for the entire decade of the 90's. But even if you had simply followed a buy-and-hold philosophy, invested in 1995 and stayed in the market through the entire downturn (from 2000 to 2003) up until today, you would still have an average return of better than 10% per year.

Long-term, the stock market is a good place to have your money, provided, of course, that you're well diversified, which you would be in the various index funds. I think you can make two kinds of investment errors. One is never to invest in stocks, because of the risk; and the other is to invest in a foolhardy manner, by putting all your money in just a few stocks, like Microsoft and Google. Even if a stock is riding high, you still don't want to invest disproportionately in it, because no stock will continue appreciating indefinitely, and you don't know when it will take a hit. Brinker recommends not investing any more than 4% of your portfolio in any one stock. I think that's good advice.

- Bill



Post 48

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Here is an interesting article partly about Bob Brinker (note the date).

Bill Dwyer wrote:
Unlike a lot of market timers, he doesn't issue short-term advice.
What do you call his Oct 2000 QQQ (then, now QQQQ) recommendation? :-)




Post 49

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 11:38amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I don't necessarily agree with the 4% rule. My rule is that I have a maximum of ten stocks. If you can't keep them all in your head, you probably have too many. The more you diversify, the more time you spend, the more costs you incur.




Post 50

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What do you call his Oct 2000 QQQ (then, now QQQQ) recommendation? :-)
Strange. I don't know what to make of it, especially since it was not part of Brinker's Market Timer portfolio. But I can certainly understand the angry responses to it. My God, it was disastrous -- investing in the Q's in 2000? -- especially since the Nasdaq had escalated to such stratospheric heights. Go figure!

Chris, if your diversification involves index funds, you don't have to spend a lot of time on your stocks. I don't. I'm currently invested in 9 index funds -- courtesy of No-Load Fund X (which is where I deviate from Brinker) -- some of which have as many as 25 stocks. You watch the fund, which is itself diversified. I use ETF's (Exchange Traded Funds), which can be traded like individual stocks.

Bill



Post 51

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I generally regard mutual funds as a sucker's bet. About 70-80% of them underperform the market.




Post 52

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 10:44amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Chris Baker wrote:
I generally regard mutual funds as a sucker's bet. About 70-80% of them underperform the market.
There is a simple reason why the majority of mutual funds underperform the market. Mutual funds have expenses, and market benchmarks don't. That does not make mutual funds "sucker traps." What about the 20-30% that equal or outperform the market? Are they "sucker traps", too?

I have shares in a mutual fund acquired more than 3.5 years ago. As of yesterday it has given me an annual return of 20.4%, versus 17.8% for the Russell 2000 (its benchmark) and 10.8% for the S&P 500.  This "sucker" is pleased.




Post 53

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Tell us what is, Merlin.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.