I like T.Rowe.Price and Vanguard too.

@Tarantado wrote:

It's more than just saving though. Most people don't know HOW to invest their money, which is definitely an issue. But for sure, at least saving regularly is a good start.

Where have you been for the last five months?

@SoCalMama wrote:

Where have you been for the last five months?

Wow, it really has been five months.... I'm sorta back now. I felt like the threads in this forum got to be too repetitive, so I took a break and I transitioned over to Reddit for a bit.

With that being said, anything I missed on the forum?!

@Tarantado wrote:

@SoCalMama wrote:

Where have you been for the last five months?

Wow, it really has been five months.... I'm sorta back now. I felt like the threads in this forum got to be too repetitive, so I took a break and I transitioned over to Reddit for a bit.

With that being said, anything I missed on the forum?!

Nah, not really. Apparently, I am an alcoholic. LOL

I have a new coworker who reminds me of you. He is 26. He just paid off his car. He's saving up to buy a house ASAP. We're in So Cal, so he's looking at something around $500K, and it won't be pretty.

The linked article regarding wealth and happiness around the world grabs me more than an admonition to become a millionaire. Think the pineapples in Costa Rica account for the greater happiness in the poorer country, but who knows...


[www.visualcapitalist.com]

As long as I could have my same knowlege. The Problem I had with being 25 was lack of life experience. But sure I would like to look 25 and feel 25. Has anyone seen the tv show called YOUNGER.. I would recommend it's about a 40 year old who had pretended to be 26 in order to get a job working in Publishing. She looks 45 to me when she was around older people but she blended in well with younger looking people. It is really a great show one of my favorites.
Here is the trailer:
[www.youtube.com]

So technically it depends on how you look. Some can pull it off with work just to LOOK younger is like winning the lottery. Exercise, Supplements, botox, restylane, EXERCISE, weight loss, and getting out there and doing fun things. Maybe we won't be 25 but we can shave off a few years off our look and retain the knowledge. I'm trying to age super slowly myself. We don't think about these things when we're younger. I wished I had moisturized more, ignored many people who got under my skin, and moved to L.A. when i was a bit younger. But it didn't happen that way so ... I just thought this was interesting topic.

25 was many lifetimes ago. Heck, yesterday was already many lifetimes ago! Recently, a sales professional informed me that I do not look old enough to match my driver's license into. This was not an age compliance shop. It was personal. Mama needed some good new clothes! (I was applying for the store credit because I wanted the discount. They needed to see my ID.) Before I could stop myself, I demurred and said it was due to the great products that the store sold. Why couldn't I just say, "Thank you"?!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2019 08:21AM by Shop-et-al.

@shoptastic wrote:

What foods do you buy that are cheap, healthy, and filling?
Looking for more ideas to save.

Try Clara's Depression Cooking channel: [www.youtube.com]
Biggest food saving is to cook from scratch and use meat as a condiment rather than main dish.

@SoCalMama wrote:

Nah, not really. Apparently, I am an alcoholic. LOL

I have a new coworker who reminds me of you. He is 26. He just paid off his car. He's saving up to buy a house ASAP. We're in So Cal, so he's looking at something around $500K, and it won't be pretty.

Lol how so? If it's not more than an average 1-2 serving of alcohol a day, you're doing just fine.

Hmmmm, is he also Asian? But as for purchasing ~$500k homes, Denver's also creeping up that range, it's insane!... Finding ANY positive cash flowing investment homes are like finding needles in a haystack smh.

But my doppleganger should be fine if he's good with his money and credit to aim for a 5% down (if he doesn't have enough for 20%), considering how incredibly low the mortgage rates are right now!

I love her stories btw. I learned she passed away some time ago but she lives alive and well on YT. She has some wonderful foods and her stories that go along are timeless. I love this channel. Thanks for sharing it and I hadn't visited in a while. She lived during Depression.

@Tarantado wrote:

@SoCalMama wrote:

Nah, not really. Apparently, I am an alcoholic. LOL

I have a new coworker who reminds me of you. He is 26. He just paid off his car. He's saving up to buy a house ASAP. We're in So Cal, so he's looking at something around $500K, and it won't be pretty.

Lol how so? If it's not more than an average 1-2 serving of alcohol a day, you're doing just fine.

Hmmmm, is he also Asian? But as for purchasing ~$500k homes, Denver's also creeping up that range, it's insane!... Finding ANY positive cash flowing investment homes are like finding needles in a haystack smh.

But my doppleganger should be fine if he's good with his money and credit to aim for a 5% down (if he doesn't have enough for 20%), considering how incredibly low the mortgage rates are right now!

Yes he’s Asian. He thought he was Vietnamese until 6 months ago when he found out he was actually Chinese. He has good credit, so I told him to try for 20% but if he can’t do it, go for any first time home buyer program.

Today, I completed two bonused shops, fed the hubby, and achieved ten percent of my merch/shop goal which officially commences tomorrow. Last week, I earned one-fifth of that goal. I think this is good for incremental gains. If nothing else, it was painless and let the kitchen be clean for a few more minutes!

@Tarantado wrote:

@Jbrz123 wrote:

His math doesn't add up. $100/month * 40 years = $48,000 put away. Even if you factor in an annual rate of return of 7% you'd still only end up with ~$250,000. 7% is optimistic when you account for inflation.

You would need an annual rate of return of ~12.5% over 40 years to get to $1 million which is most likely a impossible.

I completely agree with you that the math isn't adding up. In regards to the returns though, when accounting for inflation, history has shown that a 7% return IS realistic (refer to the history of the S&P 500 index). This of course, will only occur with CONSISTENT investing, month to month, for the long term. As for Dave Ramsey's math, $100 per week as opposed to $100 per month is more realistic on becoming a millionaire by the time you retire by simply dumping into a no-fee index fund.

The math does "work" (caveats coming) as stated above (in my earlier post) for:
$100/month at 10% return rate over 40 years = about $500,000
$200/month at 10% return rate over 40 years = about $1M
$100/month at 12% return rate over 40 years = about $1M

Ramsey was using a high growth fund netting 12-14% annually (nominally - not effectively with inflation-adjusted, which no one in the financial industry does ...maybe big numbers sound better??, lol). I agree with those who say that is unrealistic to find. Such a fund is so rare as to be a unicorn. Plus, one would have to track the management to see that it does not change over decades.

The "problem" is that 10% is 1% off historic norms. We've averaged 9% (not 10) over the past century in U.S. stock performance. And that 1% is HUGE over many decades. It's the difference between a few hundred thousand potentially. You can use the same government compound interest calculator I posted earlier to get exact figures:

[www.investor.gov]

It's interesting what 1% can mean over many years!

$200/month at 10% over 40 years would nominally make you a millionaire.

@Niner wrote:

Buy VTSAX and call it a day. Don't sell and contribute a set amount monthly. If you start in your 20's, it's like $100/month, at 40, it's around $1200/month, to have the same amount of money at 65.

VTSAX is okay, Niner, as is a S&P 500 index fund. But, I personally would not stop there. Even Warren Buffet doesn't say to just invest in a S&P 500 index fund (although, he does say to do so primarily). He recommends a certain percentage allocated to bonds as well. But, he's much more conservative on bonds, as they don't yield much. I think his recommendation is around 10-20% to bonds, which is a much smaller allocation than typical financial advisors suggest. But, the math checks out, I think (will look up specifics). There's also the argument that people are living much longer these days and so you may need more equity exposure than you think. A traditional 60/40 (stocks/bonds) or 60/30/10 (stocks/bonds/cash) mix may not be enough if you live a decade or two...or three longer than expected.

But, for me, I also invest outside the U.S. strategically as well. There's a near perfect correlation for a region's stock market over-performance and how it does in the future. It's practically a see-sawing back-and-forth, back-and-forth. When the U.S. has out-performed and valuations have been ridiculous, as leading up to the 1929 crash, 2000-2001 dot com bubble, and right now (where valuations are sky high - Warren Buffet's favorite overvaluation indicator being the market cap-to-GDP ratio, which shows we're super high currently), stocks have almost always under-performed (been flat or seen negative gains) for a long period of time in that region afterwards. We saw after the 2000-2001 crash that stocks took until 2007 to recover. During the dot com boom, emerging markets were horrible. But from 2001-2008, emerging markets skyrocketed. Then from 2008-2019, they have been crushed.

Based on things like the Schiller/CAPE ratio, the U.S. SHOULD (although, nothing is absolutely guaranteed) have a lengthy period of under-performing after the next recession and emerging markets should rise. EM is cheap right now, but the demographics (both population and standard of living growth = rising consumerism and economic growth) should drive strong growth there for the next decade or more.

Historically, stocks always mean revert and return to normal valuations after bubbles burst.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2019 10:33PM by shoptastic.

re: 1%...

Maybe those $2 ms bonuses aren't so bad after all?

(I know, I know...$2 doesn't even make the shop worthwhile...just saying...$2 here and $2 there...it adds up...even 1% more is huge over time!)

For those without gold or silver exposure (I own the GLD and SLV ETFs - bought at $121 and $16.00 average prices, respectively), you may want to consider a 5% portfolio exposure. It isn't too late - especially silver, as it's price ratio to gold is near record differentials still (it's come down a little bit from about 90 to 1 earlier this year, but still a huge valuation gap that always closes and thus has more upside).

I always try to hold at least 2.5 to 3% and never higher than 10% (too much, imho) and currently have 8% or so (have gained about 15% in precious metal appreciation this year from lower levels). My optimal level is 5% usually. But, I'll often fluctuate between 2.5 and 7 or 8 frequently.

As global central banks lower interest rates and possibly go back to QE (quantitative easing) soon to try to fight off global recession, precious metals like gold and silver:

a.) serve as a hedge against inflation (QE's money printing)
&
b.) serve as a superior alternative to negative yielding bonds throughout the world (both nominal and real) and cash (which loses value to inflation at 2% a year)

With around $17 trillion in negative yielding debt (where someone pays to loan money out, instead of getting interest back) around the world and low interest rates in the U.S. (which generate negative real returns after accounting for 2% inflation), precious metals have an edge as a store of value and even a source of gain. Just from a supply and demand and valuation perspective, PMs will likely "outcompete" terrible negative yielding bonds and cash for a while in the coming years.

Two very good articles from Lyn Alden Schwartzer on gold and silver:
[seekingalpha.com] (Feb. 20, 2019)

[seekingalpha.com] (Sep. 18, 2019)

I follow her work and think she writes some of the best pieces on investing at various places, including Seeking Alpha. Able to relay complex information that even lay people can understand.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2019 06:44PM by shoptastic.

That’s a whole lot of blah blah. Are you not a millionaire already?

There are always interpretations and predictions. All financial pros do the best they can with the information they receive. No one has a crystal ball, but many accomplish good outcomes and some can even explain trends, histories, and decisions well. So, thank you for another resource for financial information.

@shoptastic wrote:

....

Two very good articles from Lyn Alden Schwartzer on gold and silver:
[seekingalpha.com] (Feb. 20, 2019)

[seekingalpha.com] (Sep. 18, 2019)

I follow her work and think she writes some of the best pieces on investing at various places, including Seeking Alpha. Able to relay complex information that even lay people can understand.

Shoptastic,
Buying the market was what we used as a comparison to active investing, when I was in grad school for finance and investing. But, to be perfectly straight, the VTSAX is not what broke a million, it was the education and hard work, which allowed for a higher salary. Increased income is the easiest route. I invest around 25% in stocks and am about 50% in real estate, but what enables the any % in anything, is the education and hard work. Mystery shopping lets me reduce my spending, which increases/preserves income.

Has anyone ever made meaningful money doing surveys? I get three questions into the survey and find that I am booted out because I do not qualify. I know it's my age. The ones that I do get usually ask questions like, "Are you alive at this time?" or "What is your opinion of Depends as opposed to Serenity?" or "How much Ensure do you drink each day?" Seriously. I have deleted most of the survey apps I have. Talk about age prejudice. Do product manufacturers think that anyone over age 65 wears diapers and drinks flavored gunk out of plastic bottles? Hey, we still buy clothes, electronics, watch Netflix, have hair, drive, walk (for the most part) and do not all have grandchildren. But this is not our world any more so surveys do not, for the most part, want to hear from us.

Surveys won't pay much. I have been kicked out of many, and am not a senior.

I dislike surveys.

Even though someone posted somewhere that eventually the survey pay becomes substantial. I do not want to do them.

Pay for surveys is not substantial.
I have been doing them for decades. The big envelope that came in the mail had 20 pages of questions. Those paid $0. Sometimes there was an entry into a draw. I just liked doing them. LOL

So, getting pennies for them, while I drink coffee in bed, is a bit of a treat. I have seen new products on the shelf that I said were a terrible idea during a survey. So, it's not as though I feel listened to LOL

Once my Swagbucks reaches $39, I cash it in for $50 on my Starbucks card. It generally lasts me until my next $39 builds up. So, a treat.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2019 03:43PM by prince.

I occasionally do private surveys sent to me by Tech/Consulting companies that pay $50-$150 only because I am in the business. These come far and few in between. I used to do them for a market research company that paid $5 years ago until they reduced payment to $3.00. Bye! I am sure many of you know who this company is. I don't think I can disclose their name.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2019 04:09AM by Madetoshop.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

There are always interpretations and predictions. All financial pros do the best they can with the information they receive. No one has a crystal ball, but many accomplish good outcomes and some can even explain trends, histories, and decisions well. So, thank you for another resource for financial information.

@shoptastic wrote:

....

Two very good articles from Lyn Alden Schwartzer on gold and silver:
[seekingalpha.com] (Feb. 20, 2019)

[seekingalpha.com] (Sep. 18, 2019)

I follow her work and think she writes some of the best pieces on investing at various places, including Seeking Alpha. Able to relay complex information that even lay people can understand.

Lyn Alden's style is great. She explains things with the heart of a teacher (I've emailed her numerous times, too, and she's happy to answer questions about things she posts on).

One of her most enlightening pieces I read was this one:
"This Strategy Tripled The S&P 500 Over 25 Years"
[seekingalpha.com]

Most people invest 85-90% of all their money into their OWN country. It's a familiarity bias of sorts perhaps. Warren Buffet used to invest 100% of his money in the U.S. alone. Now, he has investments in places like Australia and elsewhere, but still very much focused almost exclusively on the U.S. What's interesting is that Warren had a full decade where he lost money (the "lost decade" as some call it).

Lyn Alden's piece above shows how investing globally where valuations are cheap has outperformed investing solely in the U.S. major indexes (namely, the S&P 500 - which Warren Buffet says to invest in). That's because bubbles often form in various regional stock markets and after they burst, it takes many years for them to return to "normal valuations" and begin to rise again.

If a person invested globally wherever valuations were cheap, they'd have tripled (3x) the returns of the S&P 500 over the last 25 years. The U.S. is up close to 1,000%, while the the global strategy would have netted you around 3,000%.

There are many valuation metrics of stock market overvaluation - Warren Buffet's favorite one that is named after him is the Buffet Ratio/Indicator (the market cap-to-GDP ratio) - and they show the current U.S. market is highly valued. Depending on the metric, it can be said to be around the 1929 pre-Great Depression levels and/or the 2000-2001 dot com bubble levels right now. Once those bubbles burst, it took quite a while for stock prices to return to their pre-bust levels. The dot com bust took until about 2007 (6 years) for stock prices to go back to their pre-bust norms.

During that time, 2002 to 2007, if you invested in emerging markets, where valuations were cheap, you'd have made a killing. The EEM (MSCI Emerging Markets Index) was $11 in 2003 and $53 in 2007. You would have made 5x your money during that boom. Although, the whole "China" craze drove valuations too high and a bubble was created there. After the 2008 crash, emerging markets were then crushed themselves and have been flat for the past decade. The deflation of the "air" (excess value) in those bubbles always takes many years.

But, from 2009 to 2019, U.S. stocks then went on a tear and have increased 4x (you'd have quadrupled your money if buying in 2009). Since U.S. values were cheap during/after the EM bubble (as they deflated from the dot com bubble), they had more room to grow. Although, now many say we're in a U.S. bubble. And EM is cheap.

For the next decade - the 2020's - EM is argued to likely outperform the U.S., as valuations are cheap and they have many drivers of growth. That's what Lyn Alden, Meb Faber and many others have argued using things like the CAPE ratio (which is a P/E ratio that is smoothed across many years, instead of a single year, which can show anomalies) and history.

HOWEVER, as Meb Faber has said, it's always hard to follow this strategy of investing where valuations are cheap. That's because people always want to invest where things are rising fast and there is good news. He says you'd get divorced or fired if a husband or research analyst said to his spouse or mutual fund boss: "Hey, I have a great idea. Let's invest 20% of our assets into a place like Russia, India, and Brazil! The valuations are cheap right now!" This is especially true if the U.S. is rising quickly and where everyone else wants to invest.

Psychologically and socially, it's hard to do. It's the same with investing in a good company whose stock was crushed based on temporary bad news. People are scared to do it. But, that's often the best time to buy (like in 2008-2009). Instead, people sell!

To make a long story short, I have my eyes on emerging markets right now. I think many, including Lyn Alden, make great cases for them going forward:

"The Case for Emerging Markets"
[seekingalpha.com]

@Niner wrote:

Shoptastic,
Buying the market was what we used as a comparison to active investing, when I was in grad school for finance and investing. But, to be perfectly straight, the VTSAX is not what broke a million, it was the education and hard work, which allowed for a higher salary. Increased income is the easiest route. I invest around 25% in stocks and am about 50% in real estate, but what enables the any % in anything, is the education and hard work. Mystery shopping lets me reduce my spending, which increases/preserves income.

I agree. You need to first have money to invest. That requires a job that pays the bills and creates surplus for yourself.

I first invested at age 18 ($3,000). Don't ask my age now. I took my summer job earnings from a hotel restaurant and my parents helped open up an IRA for me. We put it all in there over a decade ago (I've managed it myself since age 21/22-ish). We have multiple family members who have created a lot of wealth from stock investing.

I don't know anything about real estate, as it's not my interest, but I follow and read a lot on stocks and bonds (and, more recently, precious metals).

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2019 09:18AM by shoptastic.

I just MAKE SURE to stay away from CNBC! Major conflicts of interest on their channel (gotta love the fine print, which no one can read, as it is shown on screen in light colors, small font size, and disappears quickly). Their advertisers are often brokerage/investment firms, who want the network to keep pumping the stock market so they can make commissions! Same with many of their guests, who have conflicts of interest.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2019 06:48AM by shoptastic.

In reality, CNBC is one of the best sources for business information. Of course you need to not follow blindly, but that is true of reading the WSJ, Forbes or listening to any broadcasting 'advice'. There are lots of gurus out there who will tout their successes. I can forecast that the skies will fall next January 12th and by then you won't remember my forecast, but just in case the skies fall that day, I am 'of record' as having predicted it. In case you bring it up next January 13th that they didn't fall, I can tell you all the mitigating factors, which I explained on December 18th. If I am right I am the next great guru. Gurus don't tout their failures and hindsight is 20/20.

Most folks do not have the time or interest to really study corporations and their management to make their investment decisions. This is why investing in ETFs such as the Index Funds makes sense. A whole lot of the market going up and down is based on what I refer to as the 'sex appeal' of certain stocks/sectors of the market. Most frequently by the time the novice or intermediate investor decides to jump into a volatile stock the party is over and the investor is left to watch their investment wither. Deciding that Emerging Markets or Financials or Technology or any other specific sector of the market is 'the place to be' is like deciding that the skies will fall on January 12th. There is almost never any clear cut sector that will be doing best over the next 6 or 12 months. If there was, the trade would instantly be so crowded that the novice or intermediate investor would be paying too substantial a premium for shares to ever make money. This is, after all, informed gambling.

I favor demonstrated expertise over relying on me. YMMV. Professional money managers are not necessarily the enemy, and the ethical ones earn their designated portion of your money. In addition to the variety of investments, there is ease of entry. Some companies will let investors begin with a few thousand dollars. Someone without a great job but a few spare bucks can get started in investing. If they choose a fund, they might benefit from their knowledgeable fund manager's ability to turn a few thousand dollars into a few more and a few more and a few more. At that point, there is money to spend, re-invest with more buying power, spread more broadly across additional investments, etc. If the fees are low enough, the investor can earn at the fastest pace in light of available capital and market conditions.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

I favor demonstrated expertise over relying on me. YMMV. Professional money managers are not necessarily the enemy, and the ethical ones earn their designated portion of your money. In addition to the variety of investments, there is ease of entry. Some companies will let investors begin with a few thousand dollars. Someone without a great job but a few spare bucks can get started in investing. If they choose a fund, they might benefit from their knowledgeable fund manager's ability to turn a few thousand dollars into a few more and a few more and a few more. At that point, there is money to spend, re-invest with more buying power, spread more broadly across additional investments, etc. If the fees are low enough, the investor can earn at the fastest pace in light of available capital and market conditions.

Studies have proven that active managed funds have a low chance in beating the market, after accounting for fees... Yes, previous results don’t determine present and future results, but the odds are against these money managers. I still don’t understand why active managers exist with fees out that ass when low fee index funds are out there. Nothing wrong with gambling your money on stock picking, but if you’re going to do that, might as well do it with minimal fees. As for the majority of people, anyone can literally start investing without ANY knowledge of the stock market. Simply, throw the extra funds in the S&P500 and watch your money grow. Simple as that.

I like my index funds. My money increases. My goals are modest, and I can make choices. It is possible that I would get richer quicker without experts, and it is possible that I would not. I am satisfied with steady gains. My next choice? Select the next year's investment amount. I would like to double this year's amount and work less. BWAHAHA! It might be prudent to increase to 150% of this year's amount and be willing to fund some of the increase with merch money.

I grew up in a home where my mom lived on disability (after mom and dad separated, he was a marine). The money came on on the first of the month some percentage, like 80%, went out to bills and the rest was budgeted for incidentals and splurges. I grew and worked, tried school a few times got knocked up a few times and never made over maybe 2k a month. I was happy if I made over 1k a month and could pay all my bills. In my 20's it super-stressed me when I could not pay all my bills at one time. I had to call make payment arrangements and nothing ever really got cut off. But still, I would freak out. As I got older the freak-out got a little less intense because I knew I was a "make a way out of no way kind of girl". I would go to churches for help with bills (many times over the years). This was my life. Not to mention the money that got wasted on alcohol or drugs (at different points in my life) (part of sobriety, being honest with yourself etc). I never could save more than a few hundred. I raised my kids pretty by myself over the years with a little help here and there. I stayed in an abusive relationship for a few years because I "needed" the help. (My youngest daughter's father). In 2010 I lost everything due to poor choices. By 2012 I knew I could not live like this, many changes had to be made on many fronts.
Many people live like this, money comes in and it goes out on bills. When my transmission went out I had a hard time buying a car. I had limited income, disability, and no credit. I found a car lot willing to give me a chance. I used that car to get a W-2 job for a year and tried to get a better car. I still had trouble because I had no credit. I found a dealership that would help me and downloaded a course on credit. In the process of looking up credit and doing the research, I found Ann Wilson, the wealth chef.
From everything I've learned the goal should be to change the way we interact with money. Instead of money that coming in and going out on bills we need to try to get money coming in and going out to investments to make us money. The ultimate goal should be to have our money making enough money for us so we can live off of what our money makes us without us having to work to make money to pay bills. We can do this by owning rental properties, investing in (preferably index trackers in a self-managed account without a broker) the stock market, and owning passive businesses. Passive businesses can include vending machines, self-serve car washes, ATM machines, and containers. I have come to believe that you need to diversify, if the car wash has a bad year doesn't mean the stock market will have a bad too. If rental properties have a bad year it doesn't mean the passive businesses or stock market will have a bad year.
I still don't have a lot of money. I am 47 and know that IRA's and savings will not accomplish my goal of becoming financially independent and owning a farm. I do not believe that I will ever have a job with an IRA. My new journey is just beginning in my older life and I've bought my first tax deed. It's not much I paid a k for a 12,000 house with a guaranteed 20% on my investment. Because of my lack of initial capital to do anything that I want to do I feel this is the best way to start. I can buy tax deeds super cheap and hopefully some of them won't be redeemed and I can make well over a 20% profit. Eventually, I will buy a property for about 10% of its value, foreclose and will be able to sell it for a huge profit. This will be money that I can use to invest in other passive businesses. I think it might be possible to achieve some sense of financial independence by the time I'm 60. It will be a long rough road I know but the end result will be well worth the struggle.