Reran my numbers, running out of $$??

If your CDs are worth that now, that IS correctly valuing your net worth. Leave it alone.
I understand what you're saying and so far that is how I'm tracking it.

Problem is the whole process of trying to value the CD.

For example, broker values it at 103.5. Looking at a quote for CD the ask might be 104.5 and the bid 101.2. Doubtful I would even get 103.5.

I guess my problem is I don't trust the quotes. Easy when it comes to stocks and funds. Not so easy on thinly traded products.

I would rather undervalue than overvalue if unable to accurately determine it's price.
 
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying and so far that is how I'm tracking it.

Problem is the whole process of trying to value the CD.

For example, broker values it at 103.5. Looking at a quote for CD the ask might be 104.5 and the bid 101.2. Doubtful I would even get 103.5.

I guess my problem is I don't trust the quotes. Easy when it comes to stocks and funds. Not so easy on thinly traded products.

I would rather undervalue than overvalue if unable to accurately determine it's price.
Isn't that just round off? I mean unless you have 10's of millions in CD's and then who cares anyway... For me, I just count my CD's at the value I paid for them since I will keep them to maturity and will get my initial purchase price back (plus interest). So each 100k CD is worth 100k to me. Close enough since I only add things up once a year now. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Isn't that just round off? I mean unless you have 10's of millions in CD's and then who cares anyway... For me, I just count my CD's at the value I paid for them since I will keep them to maturity and will get my initial purchase price back (plus interest). YMMV
I get it and most likely I will do exactly what you're doing. Value at purchase price and don't download any quotes.
 
I've been using Quicken since 1994. I love Quicken and its reports.

One thing I'm having trouble with since I currently only have CDs, mm and individual corporate bonds is how Quicken calculates fair value.

My non-callable 5 year CDs are valued at 103.5 now. I'm never selling them so this really skews my net worth reports. I don't like that.

Trying to figure out a way to track it.

Could just leave at 100% and not download updates but then it won't match my brokerage account. My first world problems [emoji16]
A brokerage account is always fluid. I have dividends awaiting reinvestment, mark to market values on thinly traded bonds, etc. You just need to pick a point in time and say that is the value. It will change in a day anyway. It really doesn’t matter.
 
A brokerage account is always fluid. I have dividends awaiting reinvestment, mark to market values on thinly traded bonds, etc. You just need to pick a point in time and say that is the value. It will change in a day anyway. It really doesn’t matter.
I agree. It really doesn't matter.

I'm one of those rare individuals that like everything to match up to the penny. I get that's a waste of time to most people but I enjoy it. No stress involved here, just need to figure out what works for me.

I appreciate everyone's responses.
 
The same issue of valuation applies to my covered options. And because they are very short-term, they fluctuate a lot with the price of the underlying stocks. I just let them be. In the end, at expiration, they all go to their intrinsic value, which I prefer to be 0.

For example, I had a stock at $95/share. I sold an OTM call at $100 expiring in less than 2 weeks, pocketing $1 in premium.

The next couple of days, the stock surged to $97. The call price went to $2. The balance of my stash went up $2/share for the stock ($97 vs $95), but down -$1 for the option ($2 vs. $1). I have gained less than if I had not sold the option.

I just waited it out. At expiration, when the stock only reached $99, it stayed under the strike price, and the option became worthless. Quicken showed that I have gained $1 on the option, in addition to the gain of $4 on the stock.

If the stock had surged to $103 at option expiration, the option would be worth $3, Quicken would show that I lost -$2 on the option, and gained $8 on the stock. So, I still made money, but less than I would if I did not sell the OTM option. The problem is if I liked the stock, had to look to buy it back. But that's another discussion.

The point I made is that I always looked at the "marked-to-market" values to get the balance of the portfolio. In the end, it will all work out.

However, back to my original post, I only compare my expenses to dividends+interests. I do not expect having to make money on the option trading to meet expenses.

What the capital gains - short-term as well as long-term - do is to get me more principal. The increase in principal would bring more income.
 
Last edited:
Even successful people need something to worry about. Those who think current interest rates and inflation will continue to infinity and beyond are not students of financial history and probability.
 
Sounds like we are very similar in planning profile. I always have used pessimistic assumptions in my planning. 3.5% Inflation, 5.5% Rate of return, 20% haircut on SS taken at 66.6 yrs.
 
Sounds like we are very similar in planning profile. I always have used pessimistic assumptions in my planning. 3.5% Inflation, 5.5% Rate of return, 20% haircut on SS taken at 66.6 yrs.

20% haircut on SS? Hmm.
 
Last edited:
Well if that is the case, then I would draw down more 401K dollars which would reduce my RMD distributions. All good.

However, currently in the NewRetirement Planner+ tool, I have modeled 100% SS benefits for me and my wife. Wife taking SS at 62 and me at 70. Wife is 3 years older.

I have been using 80% of my expected SS benefits for planning purposes, but maybe that is even optimistic. :LOL:
 
SS actually says a 25% haircut without reform.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html


Your link is from 2010. The current estimate is a 23% haircut. The 2022 OASDI Trustees Report says:


Based on our best estimates, the 2022 reports determine:

• The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
 
Your link is from 2010. The current estimate is a 23% haircut. The 2022 OASDI Trustees Report says:




https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

Thanks. I was just looking for a source to back up what I have read in so many other places. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. If you need 100% of SS to make your plan work, I would have a plan B in place.
 
Thanks. I was just looking for a source to back up what I have read in so many other places. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. If you need 100% of SS to make your plan work, I would have a plan B in place.

Yea, just google "SSA trustees report" to see the latest and greatest wreckage.
 
Even successful people need something to worry about. Those who think current interest rates and inflation will continue to infinity and beyond are not students of financial history and probability.

I'm not certain I understand your point. If you look at history, you find that most currencies eventually fail and are replaced. Even those currencies who's names remain the same are not actually related to the failed currencies they replace. You can even make a case that US Dollars have little relationship to dollars that were originally created by the US gummint in the late 1700s. There were gold certificates and later silver certificates (theoretically, and at first, actually exchangeable for gold or silver) now replaced with Federal reserve dollars which are backed only by the "full faith and credit of the USA."

Inflation kills currencies. Few currencies exist that have existed longer than 2 or 3 hundred years.

Whether successful people worry about such things, I don't know. But I am concerned from time to time though YMMV.
 
Even successful people need something to worry about. Those who think current interest rates and inflation will continue to infinity and beyond are not students of financial history and probability.

I think it's just human nature, in general, to think that whatever the current trend is, will keep going on indefinitely. And, sometimes you get just enough anecdotal evidence to back that up.

I remember Thanksgiving, 2008, talking finance with some relatives. Even though the official bottom of the Great Recession was March 3, 2009, I had actually bottomed out around Thanksgiving. Anyway, my relatives were moaning and groaning about it all, and I just said, well, I've already lost half of it, how much lower can it go? I also said something to the effect of, even if I lost another 50%, it would be off of a much smaller number, so it doesn't hurt as bad. Some of those family members were chuckling at my apparent "ignorance" But, by roughly Thanksgiving 2009, I had made back most of those losses. My net worth was actually hitting new highs, but I was still technically "not made whole" yet, as I had been continuing to invest while the market was down.

In a similar vein, back around 2005 or so, I caught one of my co-workers giving out bad advice. She said "wanna double your money in four years? Buy a condo in my neighborhood!" And, indeed they had doubled, roughly, over those past four years. But what she wasn't taking into account was that, in our area, just about EVERYBODY's homes had doubled in value during that time. And, that pace just could not keep up. Her condo was probably worth about $250,000 at that time, and that was buoyed partly by low interest rates and easy financing terms. However, doubling from $125K to $250K is one thing, but doubling again, to $500K? Just not sustainable.

My co-worker was also the type who would cash out equity whenever the value rose. In the end, around 2018-2019, she went into foreclosure. Sad thing is, this was a condo that she had paid about $90K for, back in 1992. It took several years for the foreclosure process to work out, but a week or so ago I noticed her condo pop up in the real estate listings. The listing mentions "great potential", which tells me it's been trashed. And also "cash only" and "must pay off existing liens." If my co-worker had just left her mortgage alone, she would now have her condo, free and clear. But instead, she's getting kicked out of it, with nothing to show for it.

As for that "double your money in four years?" Well, it's listed for $260K. I looked up recent sales in that neighborhood, and comps for the last few months are around $300-320K, so again, I'm guessing her place is trashed. Just to keep up with inflation, that $250K in 2005 would need to be around $381k. So, yep, most trends don't last forever.
 
Your link is from 2010. The current estimate is a 23% haircut. The 2022 OASDI Trustees Report says:




https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

I know this has been discussed many times here on this site, but you have to imagine SS will be tinkered with between now and 2034/35. It would be political suicide to cut Grandma's SS to 77% cold turkey in 2034.

For those of us who were initially thinking about taking SS at 70 when it occurs at year 2034+, it makes you wonder if a strategy of taking it sooner (when you get 100%) will be more advantageous as its harder to take away a benefit once you got it? Just spit-balling here. None the less, I am underwriting a haircut to 75% at age 70 as I expect some kind of means test by then.
 
Reran my numbers, NOT running out of $$??

It sort of begs the opposite question? While you will never really know if you are overfunded until the dirt nap, deciding when/how much to press on the spending gas can also be a "problem" (1st world problem that is!). While defaulting to leaving remaining assets to the kids/charity is an easy default, I would suggest if your preference is to BTD while in your go go years, deciding when and how much can be just as challenging.
 
My bet is that instead of cutting SS benefits, there will be means testing and cuts to SS for only those that did the right thing, lived below their means, and were good stewards of their money. :facepalm:
Can you cite any proposed legislation to support that view or any SSA materials or is it just your personal speculation?
 
I've never really paid attention to how SS gets taxed, but I wonder if they might make more of it taxable, and perhaps at higher rates, to partially cover the shortfall?
 
Back
Top Bottom