Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
meadandale
Participant@asiannautica
I don’t know many mid 20’s couples who have a combined income of $150k or anywhere close to that. I’d be surprised if there were that many of them are topping $100k combined.
Participant@asiannautica
I don’t know many mid 20’s couples who have a combined income of $150k or anywhere close to that. I’d be surprised if there were that many of them are topping $100k combined.
Participant@asiannautica
That’s pretty funny. Throughout my 20’s and early thirties, my net wasn’t even 2k/month. I’d have had a hard time saving that much. Even now, I’d have a hard time saving 2k/month.
Participant@asiannautica
That’s pretty funny. Throughout my 20’s and early thirties, my net wasn’t even 2k/month. I’d have had a hard time saving that much. Even now, I’d have a hard time saving 2k/month.
ParticipantThe problem, as I see it, is that there are alot of small players in that fund. Most are only a few percentage points of the fund. Just because they are in the top ten in holding, doesn’t mean that they are going to have the best gains for the fund. For instance, suppose the top ten all are represented at 3% or greater in the fund. It could be that one that is sitting at 0.5-2.0% is significantly outperforming any of those above 3%.
Remember, stocks constituting a fund at higher percentages tends to be a growth stocks, not a value stocks They provide stability at the expense of explosive growth. The riskier stocks in the fund are represented at lower percentages due to their risk but their returns MAY eclipse the conservative picks.
If you are putting this investment in the category of ‘speculative’, I’d just do some research on this sector and try and find some potential winners regardless of the percentage that they are represented in this fund.
A 1.2% fee is not EXCESSIVE (although I tend to avoid funds much above this level like the plague) but the load is. There is absolutely no reason ever to pay a load.
FWIW, my core portfolio tends to be in index funds with no load and VERY low fees (0.10% in many cases). If you’ve read any Bogle, he spends alot of time beating this point home–a fund has to significantly beat the market to just break even with high fees.
ParticipantThe problem, as I see it, is that there are alot of small players in that fund. Most are only a few percentage points of the fund. Just because they are in the top ten in holding, doesn’t mean that they are going to have the best gains for the fund. For instance, suppose the top ten all are represented at 3% or greater in the fund. It could be that one that is sitting at 0.5-2.0% is significantly outperforming any of those above 3%.
Remember, stocks constituting a fund at higher percentages tends to be a growth stocks, not a value stocks They provide stability at the expense of explosive growth. The riskier stocks in the fund are represented at lower percentages due to their risk but their returns MAY eclipse the conservative picks.
If you are putting this investment in the category of ‘speculative’, I’d just do some research on this sector and try and find some potential winners regardless of the percentage that they are represented in this fund.
A 1.2% fee is not EXCESSIVE (although I tend to avoid funds much above this level like the plague) but the load is. There is absolutely no reason ever to pay a load.
FWIW, my core portfolio tends to be in index funds with no load and VERY low fees (0.10% in many cases). If you’ve read any Bogle, he spends alot of time beating this point home–a fund has to significantly beat the market to just break even with high fees.
ParticipantI love how the article states that the guy sends home $300/month ($3600/yr) but then states “where would I get $5000?”.
Another guy says he paid a border smuggler almost two grand to get across the border?
AFAIK, the $5000 can be repaid over 8 years. If you can’t afford it, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way back across the border.
These people are just selfish. They will pay to get across the border but now that they are here, they don’t see any point in having to pay TO STAY.
I say we start fueling up the busses and sending these folks home. In the long run, it will cost less than the drain on the treasury from their retirement and healthcare costs.
ParticipantI love how the article states that the guy sends home $300/month ($3600/yr) but then states “where would I get $5000?”.
Another guy says he paid a border smuggler almost two grand to get across the border?
AFAIK, the $5000 can be repaid over 8 years. If you can’t afford it, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way back across the border.
These people are just selfish. They will pay to get across the border but now that they are here, they don’t see any point in having to pay TO STAY.
I say we start fueling up the busses and sending these folks home. In the long run, it will cost less than the drain on the treasury from their retirement and healthcare costs.
Participant>At least they would pay taxes now :(.
Even that is debateable. However, no amount of taxes they start paying now is going to recoup the costs to the government for the SS and Medicare that they will be sucking from the system in 20 years. That’s right, they would immediately qualify for benefits (per what I heard discussed last night).
>Besides, if they aren’t going to pick the strawberries you >eat, who will? You wanna pay $10/lb for strawberries when >farmers hire unionized ex-UAW to pick the fields??????
This is a tired argument. Say strawberries cost $2/lb now and we are paying the (illegal) workers $7/hr to pick them and say that wages are the highest portion of the cost of those strawberries. If you doubled the wage to $14 I bet you’d find quite a few people who were willing to take that job at it’s significant premium above minimum wage, even if it was for short term seasonal work. Your $2/lb strawberries are now $4/lb (a 2x increase, not a 5x increase).
Participant>At least they would pay taxes now :(.
Even that is debateable. However, no amount of taxes they start paying now is going to recoup the costs to the government for the SS and Medicare that they will be sucking from the system in 20 years. That’s right, they would immediately qualify for benefits (per what I heard discussed last night).
>Besides, if they aren’t going to pick the strawberries you >eat, who will? You wanna pay $10/lb for strawberries when >farmers hire unionized ex-UAW to pick the fields??????
This is a tired argument. Say strawberries cost $2/lb now and we are paying the (illegal) workers $7/hr to pick them and say that wages are the highest portion of the cost of those strawberries. If you doubled the wage to $14 I bet you’d find quite a few people who were willing to take that job at it’s significant premium above minimum wage, even if it was for short term seasonal work. Your $2/lb strawberries are now $4/lb (a 2x increase, not a 5x increase).
Participant@coop
I agree with item 2 uncategorically. However, item 1 needs to have a caveat. First, there is no rate reset on a fixed rate loan. I consider an IO option on a fixed rate loan much less risky than on an ARM. Second, the expectation of a raise that never comes is only an issue if you’ve overbought and are overextended on your payments (where you really NEED the reduced payment in order to be able to keep afloat).
Participant@coop
I agree with item 2 uncategorically. However, item 1 needs to have a caveat. First, there is no rate reset on a fixed rate loan. I consider an IO option on a fixed rate loan much less risky than on an ARM. Second, the expectation of a raise that never comes is only an issue if you’ve overbought and are overextended on your payments (where you really NEED the reduced payment in order to be able to keep afloat).
ParticipantNot all IO loans are the same.
I, for instance, got an IO option on my first mortgage when I bought my house in 2003. My second was always fully amortized. Both are 30 year fixed loans.
I elected to pay IO for the first few years I was in the house on the first mortgage. Then I called the bank and increased my mortgage payment to start paying principle.
It gave me some breathing room while I adjusted to a much higher payment than I was paying in rent. I could have afforded the whole nut but I knew my salary would be rising so took advantage of the lower payment for a short time.
There is nothing wrong with these loans if used correctly. I haven’t pulled a penny out of my house and I have zero consumer debt other than a car payment.
ParticipantNot all IO loans are the same.
I, for instance, got an IO option on my first mortgage when I bought my house in 2003. My second was always fully amortized. Both are 30 year fixed loans.
I elected to pay IO for the first few years I was in the house on the first mortgage. Then I called the bank and increased my mortgage payment to start paying principle.
It gave me some breathing room while I adjusted to a much higher payment than I was paying in rent. I could have afforded the whole nut but I knew my salary would be rising so took advantage of the lower payment for a short time.
There is nothing wrong with these loans if used correctly. I haven’t pulled a penny out of my house and I have zero consumer debt other than a car payment.
-
AuthorPosts
