Great retirement investment advice at the bottom of this article!

However, Burrows concedes, attempts to turn average workers into accomplished investors have failed. "The focus should be on making people professional savers, not professional investors," he says. "Picking the best funds is not the key to retirement security. Contribution rates have the biggest impact."
Click to expand...
But as usual, the best part of the article is the reader's comments...
 
I wish people who post a link with a title like this would take the time to summarize what the important points are so the rest of us can decide whether it is worth reading. In this case, Kiplinger's is recommending a bucket type withdrawal approach starting 5 years before retirement. Set aside 22% of your stash in a CD or 5 year fixed annuity. At retirement, convert that cash into a 5 year CD or fixed annuity (aim for 4% yield). At the same time convert 26% of the remainder to a 5 year CD or equivalent. Diversify the rest at 50% equities, 40% bonds, 10% other. Five years later rinse and repeat.
 
Nords said:
But as usual, the best part of the article is the reader's comments...
Click to expand...
Wow. I didn't read those comments until after I made my post. Are those commenters representative of the lumpen proletariat outside of this ivory tower board? I'm baring the doors. :D
 
donheff said:
I wish people who post a link with a title like this would take the time to summarize what the important points are so the rest of us can decide whether it is worth reading.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but in my opinion all that does is impose the entire cost onto the person who finds the story and points to it. Clearly he implicitly thinks it is worth reading, he just read it and decided to pass it on. He should additionally be required to write a brief?

Why should that be? Personally it would just cause me to think, well some might be interested in finding out about this, many will likely find it themselves, and those who don't-lo siento, but not exactly my responsibility.

I really cannot see the work involved in clicking on a link and finding out for oneself whether he does or does not want to read it. Is a retirees time so valuable that he feels entitled to executive summaries?


Ha
 
haha said:
I understand what you are saying, but in my opinion all that does is impose the entire cost onto the person who finds the story and points to it. Clearly he implicitly thinks it is worth reading, he just read it and decided to pass it on. He should additionally be required to write a brief?

Why should that be? Personally it would just cause me to think, well some might be interested in finding out about this, many will likely find it themselves, and those who don't-lo siento, but not exactly my responsibility.

I really cannot see the work involved in clicking on a link and finding out for oneself whether he does or does not want to read it. Is a retirees time so valuable that he feels entitled to executive summaries?


Ha
Click to expand...
Not everyone here is retired. Plus there are so many people (not here so much, but some) that post links to "joke" articles--look, this guy says to invest in dryer sheets! Isn't that hilarious? I don't think it's much to ask someone for a sentence or two summary of why they posted the link or enough about the link to give the gist of it.
 
RunningBum said:
............ I don't think it's much to ask someone for a sentence or two summary of why they posted the link or enough about the link to give the gist of it.
Click to expand...


Especially when you can copy and paste a key paragraph in a couple of clicks.
 
donheff said:
Wow. I didn't read those comments until after I made my post. Are those commenters representative of the lumpen proletariat outside of this ivory tower board? I'm baring the doors. :D
Click to expand...

Wow, reading these comments certainly answers the question many of us here on E-R.org were wondering:

Where did E******s go? :D
 
RunningBum said:
Not everyone here is retired. Plus there are so many people (not here so much, but some) that post links to "joke" articles--look, this guy says to invest in dryer sheets! Isn't that hilarious? I don't think it's much to ask someone for a sentence or two summary of why they posted the link or enough about the link to give the gist of it.
Click to expand...
Again, retired or not, the OP is not on your payroll, and clicking or not clicking is your sole responsibility.

Ha
 
REWahoo said:
Yeah! And while you're at it, tell those kids to get off your lawn! :)
Click to expand...
Clearly a few of the posters have forgotten (or not been around long enough to remember) the NewGuy888 era...

If I want a headline-scrolling service I'll go hang around Times Square.
 
I've learned to not click on a link if there's not some info there about what it's about. But that's just me.
 
Bestwifeever said:
I've learned to not click on a link if there's not some info there about what it's about. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
As I see it, the OP did do this.

"Great retirement investment advice at the bottom of this article! "

Additionally, the link itself tells more. IMO, anything beyond this is more likely to reflect an OP's preferences and tastes than rather anything objective. What could be objective, other than violating copyright laws and quoting the whole thing?

I have read enough book reports and article summaries here and elsewhere to realize that very often I would have a completely different interpretation of the material than the summarizer expressed.

Ha
 
I don't know, I guess I think if someone doesn't want to take a couple of minutes to pound out a short summary (especially some of us who have no trouble whipping out paragraphs of stuff when we want to), then the link probably isn't worth the effort. I've also fallen victim to the (softball alert!) naked video link, in which a talking head drones on for 45 minutes and I have no idea what the point is or where it might be made. Those are especially fun to moderate.

I know you're a very courteous man, Ha, so I wouldn't suggest to you that it would be a little courteous to provide a dab of information or more importantly in some cases, a whisper of where one might stand on an issue when posting a link (which otherwise to me seems to be like tossing in a hand grenade just to see how the lumpen lumps will react to it).
 
(Edited to add: It took me so long to write this that I hadn't yet read BestWifeEver's post just above this one, when I posted it. So this post pretty much says the same things. +1 to her post.)

I guess I have lived too long in the South, because to me a post consisting of only a link without any discussion seems, well, impolite. This is a discussion board, so the only purpose of posting a link would be for discussion, yet one possible implication of such a post is that that the originator feels he/she is above all that. If it is worth others' time in discussing, then I would imagine that it is worth posting more than a plain link and starting the discussion.

Also, like BestWifeEver, I am reluctant to click on links when I don't know what is there.
 
Last edited:
W2R said:
This is a discussion board, so the only purpose of posting a link would be for discussion,
Click to expand...


Assuming that you are saying this as a poster, and not as a moderator, I really don't think that this is necessarily true. (If you are posting as moderator, please disregard my comments.) Another purpose of posting a link would be to alert others of an event, a change, or an impending action- such as the heads up about the impending demise of SS do-overs. This enabled me to do get in under the wire. Would my benefit have been greater if the OP had written at length about his attitude to do-overs, their efficacy, social benefits vs. costs, or anything else other than "this is what I read"?


... one possible implication of such a post is that that the originator feels he/she is above all that. If it is worth others' time in discussing, then I would imagine that it is worth posting more than a plain link and starting the discussion.
Click to expand...
perhaps, but it is only one out of many possible reasons- only one of many others being that the OP does not feel that he understands the issue enough to state a possibly premature conclusion or opinion, and is hoping to learn more by others comments and attitudes. Another might be an ingrained tendency to respect others' ability to decide for themselves.

I guess everyone will have to decide for himself/herself if this is discourteous, or merely respectful. I admit that I am the kind of person who watches football with the sound off -unless Chris Collingsworth is on. :)

I am not sure if I personally have tended to be a practitioner of insufficient discussion (at least in some eyes) of links, since I don't think I was aware of this issue until the last couple days.

Also, like BestWifeEver, I am reluctant to click on links when I don't know what is there.
Click to expand...
Of course, and that is what is nice about freedom, we can click or not, as we desire. Perhaps I am adverturous with my promiscuous clicking, but I cannot remember a time when I thought- "should I click on this, even though OP has not given me his opinion or a summary? "

Ha
 
W2R said:
Also, like BestWifeEver, I am reluctant to click on links when I don't know what is there.
Click to expand...

Where is your sense of adventure? :flowers:

As for the original post, I found it interesting and would like to see a change from "opt in" to "mandatory" rather than from "opt in" to "opt out". The rather scary comments below the article were, well, scary.
 
haha said:
Of course, and that is what is nice about freedom, we can click or not, as we desire. Perhaps I am adverturous with my promiscuous clicking, but I cannot remember a time when I thought- "should I click on this, even though OP has not given me his opinion or a summary? "

Ha
Click to expand...


I have to agree with Ha . This OP just posted a link and took a lot of heat over it and as far as I know this is an Op who has never caused any problems so I just don't get it . Has cabin fever set in ?:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

target2019
BlackRock sees 'exceptionalism' powering US stocks higher in 2025
2
Lsbcal
Lsbcal
38Chevy454
Fidelity: 6 Habits of Successful Investors
marko
M
G
401k balance survey from polled working Americans.
2
FIREarly
F
F
New fiduciary rules for advisors on IRAs
jazz4cash
J
H
Keep Doing the Math
2
RetiredHappy
R

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom