Running_Man
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,844
The problem is at what point do you go back in and will that cause sleepless nights?
I get back in at 3100, be interesting to see if we get there.
The problem is at what point do you go back in and will that cause sleepless nights?
We've not sold and are re investing the dividends. Our RR over time should be better than before the lock down. Am I right pb4uski? ...
However, the pre-COVID economy was 70% consumer spending IIRC and we have 23 million people unemployed.
Dunno... my crystal ball broke a short while ago and replacement parts are backordered.
However, the pre-COVID economy was 70% consumer spending IIRC and we have 23 million people unemployed.
Exactly.
- FIRECalc with pension and SS and 60/40.... 100%
- FIRECalc with pension and SS and 0/100.... 100%
So I don't really "need" equities... I will likely get back in at some point that I am comfortable that valuations are consistent with fundamentals but most likely through options rather than direct investment.
- Spending at 95% success rate with 60/40.... 141% of target spend
- Spending at 95% success rate with 0/100.... 120% of target spend
Many of whom are making more in unemployment than their normal pay.
FIRECALC and Monte Carlo both rely on historic returns. My big concern with 0/100 is twofold:Spending at 95% success rate with 0/100.... 120% of target spend
So I don't really "need" equities... I will likely get back in at some point...
FIRECALC and Monte Carlo both rely on historic returns. My big concern with 0/100 is twofold:
1) Historic bond returns were much higher than they are now, and likely much higher than they ever will be again. There's too much liquidity in the system now, and ever-increasing debt will make it impossible to raise the rates back to the ~8% range we saw in the 1970s (our national debt might become unserviceable, and Congress would have to live with a neutral budget, which I just don't see happening). Therefore, the models are over-relying on bond returns to counter inflation.
2) Inflation has been kept at bay by the Fed, primarily. Is it realistic to believe that we'll never encounter >>>3% inflation in the future?
FIRECALC and Monte Carlo both rely on historic returns.
Right, thanks, I had forgotten it can also look at:You might want to reconfirm your understanding of a Monte Carlo simulation.
FIRECALC and Monte Carlo both rely on historic returns. My big concern with 0/100 is twofold:
1) Historic bond returns were much higher than they are now, and likely much higher than they ever will be again. There's too much liquidity in the system now, and ever-increasing debt will make it impossible to raise the rates back to the ~8% range we saw in the 1970s (our national debt might become unserviceable, and Congress would have to live with a neutral budget, which I just don't see happening). Therefore, the models are over-relying on bond returns to counter inflation.
2) Inflation has been kept at bay by the Fed, primarily. Is it realistic to believe that we'll never encounter >>>3% inflation in the future?
until July anyway or unless they decline to return to work and their employer or a neighbor rats them out.
I am 3% higher today than my highest point before the correction. May not last, but ....
until July anyway or unless they decline to return to work and their employer or a neighbor rats them out.
I am 3% higher today than my highest point before the correction. May not last, but ....
Companies are having a hard time getting folks to return to, or even start work. Our company has sent notices of return, and those that refuse (without sufficient reason) are reported to the unemployment office for turning down work and removed from unemployment.
Our contract (temp) agency is doing the same as we are going through 5 people to retain 1 person. So those that refuse the opportunity, or only stay for 1-2 days and don't return, likewise are reported to unelployment office to stop benefits.
I have to side with the employees here. (Most) Companies really have little loyalty or compassion when it comes to employees these days, maybe yours is one of the few who are different. Most treat them as bodies and nothing more. Replaceable, disposable, give them a hard time when it comes to benefits and paid time off, give them a guilt trip when they want to take earned vacation time or family leave, expect they are available 24x7, and they jettison them immediately at the first sign of trouble. Now that companies want to start up again they expect everyone they furloughed to just return with no push back? When many are getting paid more being on the sidelines?
If I were the employee, I would push back and stay on the side lines as long as possible. I'd say that I didn't feel comfortable/safe returning to the workplace at this time.
Is the concern that people are quitting their jobs and collecting unemployment?
If so, that’s not legal. Who knows what enforcement is like right now, but when you file a claim in my state, it clearly asks if you were offered work and if you declined, no more benefits. I’m also pretty sure they check with your employer.
. Our company has sent notices of return, and those that refuse (without sufficient reason) are reported to the unemployment office for turning down work and removed from unemployment.
Bold mine.
Be careful sorting out employees between those you challenge and those you consider having "sufficient reason" to not return. If you accept a reason like the employee needing a few weeks longer on unemployment benefits to get childcare arranged (or similar), then you must accept that reason for all employees as you have set a precedent. No matter how heartfelt the "sufficient reason" seems, don't make exceptions. If you offer work and the employee refuses, report it consistently for all.
Don't ask me how I know!
Good points! And the attorneys have already set out our "sufficient reasons" definitions. If something undefined comes up, we have to go back to them, but they have a pretty extensive list.