Some Notes On CNBC's Jim Cramer

[mathjak107]

Mathjak does the work and has the skills needed to invest wisely. His contributions to SF are very valuable.

Thank you

 

[OneEyedDiva]

You have mentioned pensionized income a couple of times. That may be a factor in the UK, but very few of us in the US have pensions. My father had one, but that was in the 70's. Very few big corporations in the US provide pensions. It is up to us to put as much as we can into our 401k's. That means that my only income is from Social Security and whatever I draw from my investments.

I feel so blessed to be one of those very few dseag2! Pensions have gone the way of the dinosaur. I wasn't in the corporate world but worked for the state of N.J. Here are two articles on how to create your own "pension". In article #2, I think I'd forego the reverse mortgage idea. But for some, it works.
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2019/03/how-to-create-your-own-pension/

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/t023-c032-s014-4-ways-to-create-your-own-pension.html

 

[bowmore]

The old (and wrong) rule of thumb was you subtract your age from 100, and that percentage should be in fixed income. You would be losing to inflation every year, especially when banks are paying 1% and inflation this year was 6%.

 

[mathjak107]

The old (and wrong) rule of thumb was you subtract your age from 100, and that percentage should be in fixed income. You would be losing to inflation every year, especially when banks are paying 1% and inflation this year was 6%.

yep , that rule was a poor attempt at some bogus one size fits no one investing

 

[OneEyedDiva]

The old (and wrong) rule of thumb was you subtract your age from 100, and that percentage should be in fixed income. You would be losing to inflation every year, especially when banks are paying 1% and inflation this year was 6%.

Yes, that rule was adjusted a few years back. There's talk that even the 4% rule is no longer a good one for some...that it should be a lower percentage starting out.

 

[mathjak107]

Yes, that rule was adjusted a few years back. There's talk that even the 4% rule is no longer a good one for some...that it should be a lower percentage starting out.

Most of those who do proclaim it has to be adjusted downward either have no clue as to what a safe withdrawal rate is based on or they have an agenda .

As one example ,while dr wade Pfau is a brilliant writer he sells annuity products for a living ..

to understand just how hard it is for 4% to fail you can read michael kitces analysis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY​

As retirees and their planners adjust to the 'new normal' - a world of lower-than-average returns for the foreseeable future, many have questioned whether the historical safe withdrawal rate research is still valid.

After all, if returns will be below average in the coming years, doesn't that imply safe withdrawal rates must be below average as well?

In point of fact, though, safe withdrawal rates do not depend on average returns in the first place; the worst safe withdrawal rates in history that we rely upon are actually associated with 15-year real returns of less than 1%/year from a balanced portfolio! Accordingly, given current bond yields, dividend yields, and inflation, if the current environment for today's retirees will result in a "new record low" safe withdrawal rate, the S&P 500 would still have to be no higher in 2027 than it was in 2007 or even 2000!

On the other hand, merely projecting equities to recover to new highs by the end of the decade or generating a mid-single-digits return would actually represent an upside surprise, allowing for higher retirement spending than 4.5% safe withdrawal rates!

https://www.kitces.com/blog/what-returns-are-safe-withdrawal-rates-really-based-upon/

 

[OneEyedDiva]

Most of those who do proclaim it has to be adjusted downward either have no clue as to what a safe withdrawal rate is based on or they have an agenda .

As one example ,while dr wade Pfau is a brilliant writer he sells annuity products for a living ..

to understand just how hard it is for 4% to fail you can read michael kitces analysis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY​

As retirees and their planners adjust to the 'new normal' - a world of lower-than-average returns for the foreseeable future, many have questioned whether the historical safe withdrawal rate research is still valid.

After all, if returns will be below average in the coming years, doesn't that imply safe withdrawal rates must be below average as well?

In point of fact, though, safe withdrawal rates do not depend on average returns in the first place; the worst safe withdrawal rates in history that we rely upon are actually associated with 15-year real returns of less than 1%/year from a balanced portfolio! Accordingly, given current bond yields, dividend yields, and inflation, if the current environment for today's retirees will result in a "new record low" safe withdrawal rate, the S&P 500 would still have to be no higher in 2027 than it was in 2007 or even 2000!

On the other hand, merely projecting equities to recover to new highs by the end of the decade or generating a mid-single-digits return would actually represent an upside surprise, allowing for higher retirement spending than 4.5% safe withdrawal rates!

https://www.kitces.com/blog/what-returns-are-safe-withdrawal-rates-really-based-upon/

Ulterior motives such as having "an agenda" is certainly no surprise. I take everything "experts" say with a grain of salt because there's no one size fits all. And sometimes it seems like they don't live in the "real world".

 

[mathjak107]

Ulterior motives such as having "an agenda" is certainly no surprise. I take everything "experts" say with a grain of salt because there's no one size fits all. And sometimes it seems like they don't live in the "real world".

My favorite is michael kitces

 

[oldmontana]

Ulterior motives such as having "an agenda" is certainly no surprise. I take everything "experts" say with a grain of salt because there's no one size fits all. And sometimes it seems like they don't live in the "real world".

Everyone has a different situation. One is risk tolarance. I enjoy investing some in stocks that are considered risky.

 

[OneEyedDiva]

Everyone has a different situation. One is risk tolarance. I enjoy investing some in stocks that are considered risky.

It's good when we can do that Oldmontana. My most "risky" moves lately have been investing in the ETFs connected to Crypto, as well as buying a pittance of Dogecoin. Over the years, I surprised myself because my risk tolerance is higher than I would have thought. I have 71% in the stock market and will not likely reduce that allocation because I don't need to touch my investments.

 

[mathjak107]

It's good when we can do that Oldmontana. My most "risky" moves lately have been investing in the ETFs connected to Crypto, as well as buying a pittance of Dogecoin. Over the years, I surprised myself because my risk tolerance is higher than I would have thought. I have 71% in the stock market and will not likely reduce that allocation because I don't need to touch my investments.

Way to go …..

I don’t have that much allocated to equities anymore but i do have other powerful movers when it’s day in the sun , like gold , bitcoin , commodities which go with a portfolio that runs about 40% equities …i dont need such high levels anymore so we toned things down