How did you do in 2004?

[Cut-Throat]

Re:  How did you do in 2004?

Well ya sure!  - You gave me the amounts and that does mean something!

Hey kindergartners! this is a very simple point.

If I asked you - 'what would you like to have 10% of X or 90% of Y' ? - what would you answer?

And then there was this post defining the differences between amounts and percentages.

Maybe you should just go back and read All of the words very slowly and comprehend them.

 

[Beachbumz]

The main problem with looking at net worth increase, is that it is a meaningless number.

This was your quote. I'm pretty sure I comprehended it and that was what my original post was in response to. Ever since, as you were so kind to prove in your last post, you have been backtracking and changing your words in defense of your statement.

Although I am growing tired of your childish remarks, I'm trying real hard not to stoop to that level. However, there are courses on effective writing skills that you might to check in to.

I think that is about enough on this topic though, don't you?

 

[haha]

BTW I did pretty good in Jr. high algebra (top of the class).

Well, I can't speak for the others, but I want you to know that I am very impressed.

By the way, I also got straight As in algebra and calculus

Kudos to you too, amigo. Way to go!

Both of you guys must have totally knockout resumes.

Mikey

 

[Beachbumz]

Mikey,
It was just a nice response to a not so nice comment, and I don't need a resume because I'm retired. 8)

 

[Cut-Throat]

This was your quote. I'm pretty sure I comprehended it and that was what my original post was in response to. Ever since, as you were so kind to prove in your last post, you have been backtracking and changing your words in defense of your statement.

Bum,

You only took part of my statement and you are changing my words to try and win the arguement. Here is exactly what I said: And I was talking about percentages. And you did not Comprehend what I said.

The main problem with looking at net worth increase, is that it is a meaningless number. IOW - A guy can have a net worth of $1 at the beginning of the year and at then end of the year he has 100 bucks. His Balance sheet has a 10,000 percent increase. It does not correlate to anything or any investment vehicle as far as performance.

You have stooped very low. You cannot win the debate, so you choose you change it.

The original post asked about investment performance stated as a percentage. That is what we have been discussing this entire post.

Am I communicating with a 12 year old, that's got his hands on his mommy's computer?

 

[Beachbumz]

Am I communicating with a 12 year old, that's got his hands on his mommy's computer?

Yet another of your childish, insulting and demeaning comments. Hopefully everyone can see that, but I will not stoop to your level.

I have not changed your words, just repeated them.

I do not question the original intent of ESRBob, but a lot of people responded by using THEIR method of determining how they did. You then chimed in with your comment that "the main problem with net worth increase is that it is meaningless" and then you provided a ridiculously skewed example to support it. Since then you have added words like "percentage" and "tracking" to change your original statement. I didn't do that, you did.

I have already won the debate, net worth increase is FAR from meaningless to the individual that it affects, whether it provides you any useful information or not. You resort to making your childish comments because you know you were wrong.

THE END

 

[Cut-Throat]

I have not changed your words, just repeated them.

You took one sentence out of context. This changes the meaning.

You did not win the argument. You attempted to change it, so that you could, but I wouldn't let you.

 

[haha]

Come on guys, don't let this thread die. I kind of like the back to basics angle here.

Mikey

 

[John Galt]

Hi Mikey! Your post seemed kind of "tongue in cheeky"
but I didn't see a smiley face. Anyway, a good thread for sure.

Just dealing with per cents (yes, I have read the previous posts), I would say my net worth increased
50% from the time of my divorce in 1998 until 2004
when it flattened out. And, remember I did no real work during this
period, nor did I do any formal budgteing. It is ironic
that divorce is frequently listed as a huge financial setback. In my case, even giving half of the assets to my ex. (I also took all the debt) and
paying child support, I had a nice increase. I suppose
this illustrates the anchor I was dragging around prior to ER.

JG

 

[dm]

I try and track both my net worth increase and % gain from investments. Since I have not yet retired I look at my net worth gains much more because for one it is easier to track. Also since my net worth has been increasing more than I make in salary I know ER is near.

 

[polloloco]

Getting back on the track, our net worth increased by approximately 40% in 04. The major contributor was the exercise of several years' stock options at record stock prices. Without these, various investments ranged from 10 to 14 % increase. One more year like this and I will screw work and embrace more golf, fishing and travel.

 

[ESRBob]

PolloLoco--
Well done on the stock option exercise (and presumably sale of underlying stock).  Don't forget, you've got a big tax bill coming.  I remember the sinking feeling in April 2000 when I paid a lifetime of taxes for my one great year.  What made it easier, though,  is that I never actually calculated the value of the stock directly while prices were moving up:  I always had my spreadsheet just show me 75% of the value, figuring I'd need to pay 20% to the feds and 5% to the state, so it made sticker shock easier.

But I may be unusual in that regard.  I converted most of my IRA to Roths, and one of the reasons was that I was tired of looking at my net worth and then having to mentally subtract unpaid capital gains on IRA holdings -- I just figured take the medicine and quit having to think about it.

My 2 cents on the CT-BB slugfest is that our personal networth calculations may be critically important to ourselves, but my original post was an attempt to get us sharing investment returns on different types of asset allocations/ ER Portfolios as a way of seeing how different folks investment strategies played out during a relatively good year, what different ERs actual investment returns are -- that sort of thing.  That to me is where the rubber meets the road for any of us who need to live off our SWR for the rest of our lives!

And for those of us not yet in our 60s but counting on Social Security -- I am hearing some disturbing rumbling from Washington on sparing the already-drawing or over-65's, rescuing the young and employed with their new govt-sponsored personal retirement savings accounts, and, by implication, pulling at least some of the rug out from under  those in the middle (which I am going to guess includes pretty much anyone between 40 and 60, especially those no longer working and contributing to SS).  

The issue seems to be adjusting people's benefits for increases in the wage index (gold standard) or just for inflation (bronze standard).  The 2 percent (?) or so per year difference can really add up over a long retirement, (which is why they are doing it).  .Article in today's WSJ that points pretty clearly to this as Bush's agenda for SS.

 

[larry]

Funny, this whole argument sounds identical to the "poison_fish" vs "longterm" fight on craigslist. That only ran for a couple of months and nobody really won, not even the readers. Ding, Ding, Ding....round two anyone?

 

[Cut-Throat]

The issue seems to be adjusting people's benefits for increases in the wage index (gold standard) or just for inflation (bronze standard).  The 2 percent (?) or so per year difference can really add up over a long retirement, (which is why they are doing it).  .Article in today's WSJ that points pretty clearly to this as Bush's agenda for SS.

ESRBob

This may be Bush's agenda as he does not have to be elected again. But my Congressman, who is a Moderate GOP'er happens to chair the Sub-committee on these issues currently - Ramstad from Minnesota. I heard a lengthly discussion with him the other day. He says that the SS issue needs Bi-partisian support like no other issue that faces the U.S. today. He went on to say that the moderate forces of the Democratic party have already pulled out of the discussions.

Ted Kennedy says flatly "This ain't gonna Happen" - And this time he'll have the backing of most Americans!

If anything is accomplished at all, it will be removing the cap on SS payment for high-income individuals. - This in itself could correct the problem. (If there is a problem at all - which other Congressmen are also questioning.
Remember when Bush said that Iraq was a Big Problem - A crisis!  - He was wrong!  - NOW IRAQ IS A REAL CRISIS. Bush lacks a lot of credibility. If he thinks he can go to work on domestic policy, like he screwed up foreign affairs, he's in for a tough battle.

This reminds me of when Reagan said that you should be able to file your tax return on a postcard in 1980. And remember, Reagan was at the start of his term and had Congressional backing! Bush is a lame duck.

 

[John Galt]

Re. "This ain't gonna happen!", maybe one of the only positions Ted Kennedy and I can agree on
(usually I am closer to Ted Kaczinski) .

In any case, I wish Kennedy well and hope that the
fight goes swimmingly

JG

 

[cc]

Removing the SS earnings cap would still leave the wealthy off the hook. To be even more "fair", the 12.4% tax should also be levied on all income, not just wages.

Somehow I don't see a Republican congress passing a pure tax increase to "save" SS. Much more likely they will do nothing...

 

[John Galt]

A "do nothing" congress. Now that would be nirvana.

JG

 

[dm]

Ive been looking over my tax stuff and things are still looking good for my May 2005 ER.

My gross was 160K
Cleared 105K
401K 22K

Net worth increase was 120K. This does not include my home but does include paying down the mortgage. My initial balance was 115K and ending balance was 21K so this was a big part. I sold some stock and increased my payments to make this happen. Its just my way of reducing my exposure to the stock market and balancing my investments.

I will pay off the house in May so no more interest and my monthly income needs will be $1500 less. I have been tracking my expenses and things are still on track. I turn 48 in May so that is my goal.