There has got to be a better way to save & invest

RDPD is a liar, cult of personality, and tout....:bat: but

This being said, some of his principles do make sense to me and I have read a couple of his books. If nothing else, it does get the discussion going because most either love him or completely despise him. I'm in the minority that just tolerates him enough to not turn off the TV when his botoxed face starts yapping about something.

No accounting for taste, I guess. Considering the huge crowd of lemmings that assclown led over a cliff in the past 5 or 10 years, I can think of far more colorful adjectives to describe him.
 
Soup, don't believe this poppycock! I don't remember brewer54321 mentioning how many rentals he's managed and for how long but I've been doing it for 25+ years in three different states and currently have five rentals 3,000 miles away!!(not that I specifically recommend this) and I have a full time professional career. The few actual hours I spend barely qualifies this as a hobby unless you count all the time I spend counting the money, making graphs showing the pay down in mortgages and increases in income and appreciation! Conservatively $10,000,000(if historic rates drop by 50%) to $21,000,000 in 27 years with about $4,000,000 in rents over the same period

Hono, for over 900 posts you have been touting real estate. I don't understand a few things. If real estate has done so well for you, why a full time professional career too? Or do you just live high?

So are you saying that your properties have appreciated between 10 million and 21 million dollars? If you have that kind of net worth, why not ditch it all and spend time on a beach? Or is this expected appreciation for the future?

IIRC, in other posts you mentioned that some of your properties do not cash flow and you are banking on appreciation. Am I remembering correctly? If so, how do you finance the losses? To do your deals you borrowed originally from equity in your home to put money down on others, yes?

Make your best case for real estate. Give us some details. Do your properties cash flow? How much is leverage, how much equity?
 
Seems like the game has changed for people that are in their 20-30s today. Someone planning for retirement in the 1970s had the "three legged stool" of SS, pension, and whatever investments they made. So if the investments didn't pan out (stocks -30%) they might have to reduce their standard of living a little, but they weren't going to be eating cat food.

My new job has a decent pension, but will I be there long enough for it to vest and become anything substantial? Maybe, but I'm not counting on that. Over 20 years, the cumulative probability of layoffs or voluntary job changes is just too high.
.

While I can obviously relate to the frustration anyone in or planning on retirement is feeling. It seems that each light at the end of the tunnel is actually a train creating further destruction as it wrecks spectacularly.

Still it is important not to view the past through golden gilded glasses.

Here is a condensed version of my book The History of Work and Retirement in America.

Chapter 1: The Pioneer Age 1783-1935.
"You can always spot pioneers by the arrows in their back"

Work from sunup to dawn do back breaking chores for 6 1/2 days a week under filthy, dangerous conditions conditions. Get sick, have your blood sucked out by quack doctors and leeches. Get taken care of your family, and then die (generally) young.

Chapter 2: The Dawn of Social Security 1935-1954
"Living Large on a $1 a day in America in your Golden Years"

Perform mind numbing tedious task for 5 1/2 days a week. Get sick, die; collect Social security. The brilliance behind the Social Security system was when it was first implemented on average men died before collecting. The typical black or Hispanic men got diddly even if he lived to 65 because agricultural and service jobs were exempt from SS. Needless to say the checks barely covered cat food. The first check being for 22.54 a month.


Chapter 3: The (fools) Golden Age of Pensions 1954-1984
"We are the borg you will be assimilated resistance is futile"
Put on a uniform every day (suit for white collar workers, dungaree for blue collars) learn the fine art of brown-nosing boss/union leaders. Spend your life working for one employer, after 30 years collect watch and a pension. Enjoy fishing for a few years, die.

But here is the rub. "The previous generations had a pension", is mostly an urban myth. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have researched the subject of pension several times over the last few years. As far as I can tell at no time in America history were more more than 1/3 of private sector workers covered by a pension. While pension plans have been around since the 1920s they really only started getting popular in the 1950s and probably reached a peak of popularity in the 1980s before gradually being phased out through out the 1990s and this century.

In general to be covered by a defined benefit pension plan you needed to fall into one of these categories.

  • Work for the government
  • Be a member of skilled trades union
  • Work for a Fortune 500 company, that had a large skilled work force. Examples 3M, and IBM had pension plans Walmart, McDonald didn't.
Finally, and most importantly you typically had to work for 20 years+ to qualify. Since the majority of Americans work for smaller firms they never were eligible for pension plans. In addition people change not only companies but career field far more than they did a generation ago, so in this respect. Pension are pretty outmoded.

Nor were private pension generally every particularly generous or super secure. Prior to the establishment of the Pension Guarantee Corp in 1974, many retirees pensions were wiped out when their old employers went under. This is especially true of auto, steel, railroads, and airlines companies. My dad worked for more than 25 years for the same company,my mom's survivor pension is ~$500 month, not exactly a windfall (Although to be fair he did start taking the pension at 55 and she has been collecting for almost 30 years...)

Chapter 4: The IRA/401K multi[-]millionaires[/-]thousandaires 1984-2008
"How I day traded my IRA into billions"
Spend 40+ hour in air conditioned office chatting with loved ones and friends. Learn to hot-tab from Tetris to a spreadsheet. For some commute consists of putting on robe and moving from bedroom to home office.

After a couple of decades of presenting hockey stick graphs of your future billions and overwhelming employees with choices, Companies finally got smart and just started deducting pay and sticking into index funds.

Sadly the promise of future millions; lost to the lure of big screen TVs, and exotic vacations in the present. Quack financial doctors, annuity salesman and other leaches sucked many old folks dry. For many IRA got depleted and that was before the great recession of 2008.

However, a small but diligent group of savers paid attention to compound interest and prospered.

Chapter 5:
The Future (2009-...)
"It is always darkest before midnight."

Faced with a per capita public debt load of 40K, and many times that in private debt. Americans went back to future and adopted their ancestors retirement philosophy die young.:D
 
clifp, I like your whole "history" esp. the myths you explode, but have you considered this may be a bit of one also:

clifp said:
... In addition people change not only companies but career field far more than they did a generation ago ...

I've heard this before, but wonder what data there really is to back it up.

It's anecdotal I know, but I've known lots of people from my parents' generation that worked in two, three, or more very different fields in their lives. In addition, I'm a bit of a history buff & from my reading I have the impression the same is true for many folks in generations of common folk previous to my parents.
 
Hono, for over 900 posts you have been touting real estate. I don't understand a few things. If real estate has done so well for you, why a full time professional career too? Or do you just live high?

So are you saying that your properties have appreciated between 10 million and 21 million dollars? If you have that kind of net worth, why not ditch it all and spend time on a beach? Or is this expected appreciation for the future?

IIRC, in other posts you mentioned that some of your properties do not cash flow and you are banking on appreciation. Am I remembering correctly? If so, how do you finance the losses? To do your deals you borrowed originally from equity in your home to put money down on others, yes?

Make your best case for real estate. Give us some details. Do your properties cash flow? How much is leverage, how much equity?

Martha
I answered you in a big long post that got ate. I'll duplicate it tomorrow. But better yet, why not pose your questions to all the real estate naysayers. The facts are in my 900 posts if you care to investigate. The naysayers seem to more unsubstantiated.
 
Of course what the RE fans don't bothermentioning isthat RE is a PITA and effectively a second job. If you have limited alternatives, I suppose that's what you do, but for those of us with a day job RE would have to be very attractively priced indeed to make it worth it. At least where I live, it ain't there yet. Maybe in another year, maybe never.

Soup, I hate to tell you this, but there are no free lunches. Either you live with the greater volatility of equities and other risky assets, or you stick with TIPS and I bonds and work/save a lot longer. It is what it is. But before you make a decision, go take another look at the historical data.

Soup and pasadena,

From one youngun to others...

Just curious, but have you considered getting a job with a solid
pension? That seems to be what you're looking for. (Soup,
I think you said your job had a pension, but you don't
expect it to be around...)

I preach the virtues of pensions to anyone who'll listen, but
it seems like everyone I talk to under the age of 50 could care
less. You guys are reading this site, so I'm assuming you're
more interested in the subject. Just about every private
sector job has some kind of corollary in the public sector.
So I'd like to hear your experience, what's holding you back
from making the switch?

-LB
 
clifp, I like your whole "history" esp. the myths you explode, but have you considered this may be a bit of one also:



I've heard this before, but wonder what data there really is to back it up.

It's anecdotal I know, but I've known lots of people from my parents' generation that worked in two, three, or more very different fields in their lives. In addition, I'm a bit of a history buff & from my reading I have the impression the same is true for many folks in generations of common folk previous to my parents.

Doing a bit of googling on the subject it is certainly possible that may be spreading a bit of rumor. Most of the information appears to be in academic journals and only available if you subscribe.

The one study I found which supports my contention that fewer people are hanging around (or are pushed out) to get their 20 years in is this paper

In particular the chart near the bottom show a dramatic decrease in the tenure of men in 45-54 from 1983 to 2006. Not sure how significant this but clearly if you are trying to get your 20+ years to collect a pension it is a heck of a lot easier to do so if you have 13 year (on average) under your belt back in 1983 than the current 8 years. I guess I'd probably back off my statement about people doing more more job hoping now than in previous generations, and say that it was never easy for private sector employees to qualify for pension and the situation is no better and probably worse today.
 
A buy-and-hold investment in stocks that can drop 30% for reasons that you have nothing to do with is not such a great long-term investment in my book, especially when your dividends get cut along with capital losses. I don't think I'm smart enough to time the market or daytrade my way to profits. You can argue that stocks will come back over the long term, but if the next 10 years is anything like the last 10 years, that's far from guaranteed. You can stretch your investment horizon out as far as you like but that still doesn't ensure you'll eventually make your money back. Obviously the risk/return tradeoff exists. But for risk to be real (and for investors to be compensated for it) sometimes investments will blow up. If we all agreed stocks were risky but you could get around this risk just by never selling when they were down, they wouldn't really be risky after all. I'm not arguing that "this time it's different" but I am skeptical that patience solves all of equities' problems.
What I'm reading appears to be short-term thinking (1-10 years) applied to long-term performance (20-30 years).

Investors were thinking like this in 1974 and again in 1979. (I still remember one of my college classmates boasting that his 1979 net worth was invested in gold bullion & diamonds.) I bet investors were going through the same hope/despair cycle in 1929-1938 as well.

We didn't make any substantial contributions to our ER portfolio between 9/11/02 and 9/11/08. It was whacked by 40% in both of those years. Yet last Nov our net worth nearly 50% higher at what is arguably the bottom (so far). That works out to a 6%+ after-tax return from a high-equity portfolio, which is also in line with the Gordon Equation. Of course that's just our anecdotal evidence, but I don't know whether you'd gain any more hope or optimism from a longer historical perspective.

20 years after their bubble burst, Japan has called their economy "the lost decade". Despite the U.S. administration's last eight years, the American economy is nowhere near in as much trouble as the Japanese financial system. There are problems, yes, but ours pale in significance to what the Japanese are contending with. I think that America's record of avoiding even worse mistakes is worth a little optimism.

We started our working/investing years at what turned out to be the beginning of a 20-year bull market. There's a fairly good chance that you'll be seeing the same phenomenon in the next five years, if it hasn't started already. If you can't sleep at night knowing that your portfolio may be subject to a random 40% "black swan", then you're right-- equities are not for you. If you can't handle the thought of losing over more than two years' income in a few months then equities are not for you.

Having been a landlord for most of the last 20 years, I'd also have to say that if rental real estate held any compelling attraction for you then you'd already be doing it. I wouldn't get into it just because it seems to be the gold-paved road to riches. If you're interested & motivated then it can work. If you're running to real estate just to run away from stocks then... good luck with that.
 
Chapter 1: The Pioneer Age 1783-1935.
"You can always spot pioneers by the arrows in their back"

Work from sunup to dawn do back breaking chores for 6 1/2 days a week under filthy, dangerous conditions conditions. Get sick, have your blood sucked out by quack doctors and leeches. Get taken care of your family, and then die (generally) young.

Unless you were a slave...
 
Soup and pasadena,

From one youngun to others...

Just curious, but have you considered getting a job with a solid
pension? That seems to be what you're looking for. (Soup,
I think you said your job had a pension, but you don't
expect it to be around...)

I preach the virtues of pensions to anyone who'll listen, but
it seems like everyone I talk to under the age of 50 could care
less. You guys are reading this site, so I'm assuming you're
more interested in the subject. Just about every private
sector job has some kind of corollary in the public sector.
So I'd like to hear your experience, what's holding you back
from making the switch?

-LB

Much to my surprise, I have stumbled into a job that offers a pension that I know without any doubt the employer will be around to pay. So rooty-toot. Its an undeniably good thing, but there are two main wrinkles:

1) It is entirely possible that any employer offering a pension changesthe rules mid-game. Curtailments walk among us.

2) For me to be able to get anything from the plan,I'd have to stay here at least 15 years. Considering I have never stayed anywhere in my career longer than 3.5 years, its hard to take any comfort in the idea of the pension.

So I certainly like the idea and I will likely take into consideration the possibility of a pension before I make any moves from now on, its not an ideal solution for many of us.
 
Soup and pasadena,

From one youngun to others...

Just curious, but have you considered getting a job with a solid
pension? That seems to be what you're looking for. (Soup,
I think you said your job had a pension, but you don't
expect it to be around...)

I preach the virtues of pensions to anyone who'll listen, but
it seems like everyone I talk to under the age of 50 could care
less. You guys are reading this site, so I'm assuming you're
more interested in the subject. Just about every private
sector job has some kind of corollary in the public sector.
So I'd like to hear your experience, what's holding you back
from making the switch?

-LB

Hey LB, I may come across like a worry-wart and potential organ-for-cash donor :D but I actually do work for a government job in California which has a DB pension plan. Since its a public office with many of its benefits written into law, its about as secure a pension as you can get these days. My conservative estimate is that if my salary increases only 3% a year for the next 30 years, I will retire early at age 58 with an annual payment of 100K with COLA and free health care. If I can live another 20 years, the DB pension will be worth about 2.5M conservatively, if I can live longer even more.

You will not find any disagreement about public service from me. Yes, you will not get paid the supposed market average for your job versus the private sector, but the benefits and DB pension cannot be beat. Many offices have 9/80 or 4/40 schedules, 20+ PTO days off per year (to start), paid health coverage for family dependents, etc.

LB, maybe I'm just being greedy. My goal in 30 years is to have 2M worth in my DB pension (looking good), 2M in my 457/401K plans (hmmm) and 2M in RE through my primary residence or cash-flow properties. Its a long time horizon and much can change but that's what I'm looking for.
 
Chapter 2: The Dawn of Social Security 1935-1954
"Living Large on a $1 a day in America in your Golden Years"

Perform mind numbing tedious task for 5 1/2 days a week. Get sick, die; collect Social security. The brilliance behind the Social Security system was when it was first implemented on average men died before collecting.

clifp - minor point overall, but this is so oft repeated (and misleading), that I thought I'd straighten it out. That statistic is based on life expectancy at birth, which is far different from life expectancy of someone who has been in the work force until age 65 (and survived childhood diseases).

Life Expectancy for Social Security
... the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.

Number of Americans Age 65 or Older

1940 9.0 million

2000 34.9 million​

only about 4x the number of people above 65 in 2000 than in 1940. That was less than I would have guessed.

-ERD50
 
Interesting discussion.

I have only a little bit of RE experience, mostly buying terrible looking logged over plots from small loggers who needed to turn it for working capital, cleaning it up with a bulldozer short-platting and reselling to someone who wanted to build a house. Worked out fine, but you sure don't do it from your home office. Also, these people are smarter now.

As for putting aside enough money from saving from a normal job to achieve a reasonable retirement swag by middle age, I can't see it with today's interest rates unless you reach out to risk. Maybe by trading enjoyment in your youth and prime years for earlier retirement it might be possible. This would be such a stinky bargain for me that I never considered it.

If you are entreprenurial and can get a business going that might really fly that is likely the best way.

But for for someone who is more analytical than entreprenurial, I'd say a pretty agressive equity investment program is likely best much of the time. It should be opportunistic, such that one always compares returns likely to be achieved in different areas and with different vehicles.

From my POV the last 10 years have definitively proven that an unchanging allocation to equity index funds is a loser. It makes no sense to ignore valuation, or to be so agnostic about valuation that you cannot say, "this is likely a good investment at this time". or "I think this is overpriced, I will pass for now."

I know some recently have decided to go to equity allocations that are so small that 3-4 years ago I don't think they would have been put forward on this board.

IMO, if you are going to use stocks, use a good slug of them now. We can't know the future, but we can see that for the most part equities got pretty cheap last November, and some of them at least are still pretty cheap. If we say "what about 1929-'32, or "what about Japan", all I can answer is plan to keep working, or alternatively wait until you are comfortable again and buy some high priced stocks. Then experience a crash, then keep working.

In investing, comfort is expensive.

Ha
 
Soup and pasadena,

From one youngun to others...



I preach the virtues of pensions to anyone who'll listen, but
it seems like everyone I talk to under the age of 50 could care
less. You guys are reading this site, so I'm assuming you're
more interested in the subject. Just about every private
sector job has some kind of corollary in the public sector.
So I'd like to hear your experience, what's holding you back
from making the switch?

-LB

PasadenaDC
Hey LB, I may come across like a worry-wart and potential organ-for-cash donor
cheesy.gif
but I actually do work for a government job in California which has a DB pension plan. Since its a public office with many of its benefits written into law, its about as secure a pension as you can get these days. My conservative estimate is that if my salary increases only 3% a year for the next 30 years, I will retire early at age 58 with an annual payment of 100K with COLA and free health care. If I can live another 20 years, the DB pension will be worth about 2.5M conservatively, if I can live longer even more.

You will not find any disagreement about public service from me. Yes, you will not get paid the supposed market average for your job versus the private sector, but the benefits and DB pension cannot be beat. Many offices have 9/80 or 4/40 schedules, 20+ PTO days off per year (to start), paid health coverage for family dependents, etc.

LB, maybe I'm just being greedy. My goal in 30 years is to have 2M worth in my DB pension (looking good), 2M in my 457/401K plans (hmmm) and 2M in RE through my primary residence or cash-flow properties. Its a long time horizon and much can change but that's what I'm looking for.

I'm not sure if I should be encourage that young(er) people are smart enough to figure out what wonderful gravy train public pensions are; or depressed that these lucrative state and local defined benefits pensions are going to bankrupt us.

I think the legacy costs we are seeing for the Detroit 3, are a sneak preview of what we will be seeing for most state and local governments in the not too distance future. Federal pensions are in somewhat a better financial shape and generally less generous (except for military) than state and local pensions.

California is basically bankrupt. The yields on my long-term CA Muni bond (which I bought a decade ago when I was a resident) are over 6% roughly twice a comparable treasury bill for good reasons. Prop 13 demonstrates the taxpayers in the state will and can revolt. So while the pension benefits are probably mostly written into law that can change. In fact, I argue they must change.

No criticism intended PasadenaDC but it seems crazy that a relatively secure job (that doesn't require risking bodily injury or death) should let somebody work for 30 years and than enable them to retire for another 20 and more likely 30 years at a salary close to 100K a year.

In a wired global economy, why can't your job be outsourced to India at fraction of the price? I think it very smart for you also to plan on real estate and investment for your future retirement. Because I think as society we are going to have to accept that we will either be saving more, or working more, or consuming less. The smart hard working folks in India, and China and the rest of the developing countries, aren't going to let us do anything different.
 
I'm not saying everyone should but anyone with reasonable business skills CAN do it. Your friends invested the same time I did. The difference is that I did not "jump" into multiple properties. I'd guess they bought in a new development that had no rental history and did not have a fixed mortgage and were counting on short term appreciation. I bought in an established area with mortgages I could afford and where I knew the rental market. I have not had a day of vacancy and rents are stable plus as a bonus I'm up almost $400K.

Now if you go to your spouse saying "little Billy won't stop using my best 9 iron to bang on my porsche" then you probably shouldn't be a landlord. You probably shouldn't have kids either but I don't see anyone advocating that here. YMMV

I usually tell little Billy to use the sand wedge for this.
 
I'm not sure if I should be encourage that young(er) people are smart enough to figure out what wonderful gravy train public pensions are; or depressed that these lucrative state and local defined benefits pensions are going to bankrupt us.

I think the legacy costs we are seeing for the Detroit 3, are a sneak preview of what we will be seeing for most state and local governments in the not too distance future. Federal pensions are in somewhat a better financial shape and generally less generous (except for military) than state and local pensions.

California is basically bankrupt. The yields on my long-term CA Muni bond (which I bought a decade ago when I was a resident) are over 6% roughly twice a comparable treasury bill for good reasons. Prop 13 demonstrates the taxpayers in the state will and can revolt. So while the pension benefits are probably mostly written into law that can change. In fact, I argue they must change.

No criticism intended PasadenaDC but it seems crazy that a relatively secure job (that doesn't require risking bodily injury or death) should let somebody work for 30 years and than enable them to retire for another 20 and more likely 30 years at a salary close to 100K a year.

In a wired global economy, why can't your job be outsourced to India at fraction of the price? I think it very smart for you also to plan on real estate and investment for your future retirement. Because I think as society we are going to have to accept that we will either be saving more, or working more, or consuming less. The smart hard working folks in India, and China and the rest of the developing countries, aren't going to let us do anything different.

Good points clifp, however I wouldn't get too hung up on 100K number. Depending on how your project inflation, we're looking at 45-50 grand in today's dollars and purchasing power. The State is technically bankrupt due to its budget needing to be balanced each and every year versus Federal which can just print more money and find foreign buyers on it. But the coffers of CALPERS and CALSTRS are both solvent and depending on which actuarial report you read above 80% funded toward future liability, even after the market's recent poor performance.

Prop 13 was a 1% cap on property taxes, no? How does this relate to DB pension plans and the State where almost 250,000 Californians work? I guess that it is possible that some of these city, state, municpal jobs are shipped overseas but can't say that this scenario seems very realistic. General and safety members alike.

All entitlement programs can and will change, which is why I always encourage fellow DB pension plan participants to setup other investment vehicles to fund their respective retirement coffers. Based on my understanding of DB plans, the biggest threat to their longevity isn't the PO'd taxpayer, but rather rampant inflation and managing spiraling health care costs. These are the two biggest threats not only to DB plan participants but anyone looking for ER as a whole.
 
Among the students I know from my undergrad, we have all changed jobs at least once, and some will be on job #3 when they get out of graduate school.

I haven't figured out exactly what the solution is, but right now I am thinking of something like a modified Wellesley allocation (35/65):

35% dividend stocks
30% government, mortgage, corporate bonds
25% TIPS
10% junk bonds
 
Clifp-

I really think the actual pensions are not the problem so much as pension
fraud and healthcare benefits. Multipliers can be changed, age qualifiers
modified, and new tiers created, but you really can't make up for years
that you never funded the system. Nor can you realistically promise
to pay for healthcare benefits for life when you have no control over
the cost of those benefits. Generally speaking, public pensions in
right to work states that typically provide no healthcare promises
are in pretty good shape, even now.

As far as Generation Y and later figuring out about the great deal
public pensions are, from my experience, you needn't worry.
Almost no one of the younger generation cares. The "young
dreamers" section of the ER forum is the extreme minority.
I'm concerned that if no one in this generation of workers cares
enough, eventually, this good thing will be lost.

-LB
 
As far as Generation Y and later figuring out about the great deal public pensions are, from my experience, you needn't worry.
Almost no one of the younger generation cares. The "young
dreamers" section of the ER forum is the extreme minority.
I'm concerned that if no one in this generation of workers cares
enough, eventually, this good thing will be lost.

-LB

I weep bitter tears to hear of this.
 
Among the students I know from my undergrad, we have all changed jobs at least once, and some will be on job #3 when they get out of graduate school.

I haven't figured out exactly what the solution is, but right now I am thinking of something like a modified Wellesley allocation (35/65):

35% dividend stocks
30% government, mortgage, corporate bonds
25% TIPS
10% junk bonds

Did you look at your company's pension plan in detail? If it's a cash balance plan, then you can get the vested balance when you leave.
 
Back
Top Bottom