Author Topic: Serious SS question  (Read 6529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2008, 11:53:18 PM »
I am not opposed to investing in the stock market at all. In fact, over the years I have paid about $55K to SS, and three times as much into a constantly changing assortment of mutual funds. But he fact is this: SS is a retirement plan, not an investment. When I start collecting from SS, it will continue to pay me until I die. Whether my investments will do this is not guaranteed as is SS. Had the 65K I had invested in SS in mutual funds, I might have more money or less, depending on the investments I might have chosen fifty years ago. Most Americans have no useful knowledge of the stock market, mutual funds or investing, as nothing about this is taught normally in school, and most people seem to gain a very superficial knowledge from salesmen interested in their commission and rather brain-dead magazines, such as Money.

The government-run TSA plan is probably a good idea for the average person, and I would have chosen it over SS for at least some of my SS contributions had I been given a choice around the age of 40, but I have never been given a such a choice. It would cost the government a huge amount to allow such transfers at the present time, and I do not foresee this happening.

TSA is quite a bit different from the vast array of investment possibilities in the Stock Market, by the way. It is diversified and a lot more conservative than most of the advice one will get from a broker.

In 1990 when my father died, I inherited some money and decided to invest it with a cousin of my father's, who was a successful broker. I followed his advice, investing in Homestake Mines, GTE, Unisys preferred and even Enron. After two years, and making a lot in GTE, some in Homestake and Enron, and losing too much on the Unisys preferred, I had an annual profit of about 6.5%. On the other hand,  the money in my IRA, invested in the Lindner Fund, earned an average 13% with no fluctuations, commissions, or discounts, and it was then I decided that individual stocks were a poorer choice than mutuals and I sold them and put the money in no-load funds.

The newsletter that my cousin the broker's firm sent me was typical: every month, it would rate a small assortment of stocks as buy, hold or sell. But this was always the same mix: 85% buy, 15% hold and 5% sell. This is unrealistic, as the buys and sells should be close to the same. But what was really happening is that the brokerage owned just these stocks in the company name, and shifted them from one investor to another, thereby never paying any Wall Street fees, but always charging the customer for every damn thing. In truth, the fees were less than half of Merrill Lynch, but they were way higher than I now pay Scottrade, and the advice was for the birds.

I estimate that had I continued to follow the advice given by this firm (which was bought and rebought several times, and is now called The Principal) I would have about a quarter as much money as I have now from investing in my various mutual funds.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #31 on: January 24, 2008, 12:10:40 AM »
"When I start collecting from SS, it will continue to pay me until I die."


If this were true , I would have no complaint.

I suppose you can make it true , by not liveing too long.

But the government has not got what it takes to make it true for everyone enrolled.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #32 on: January 24, 2008, 01:28:38 AM »
Roger Boyce, 71 and Dale Roberts, 54 - http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-01-25-enron-employees-usat_x.htm

Dan Gannon, 60 - http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/032107kvueenronpowerball-eh.dc12b6.html
(This one has a twist - he won $182 million in the Powerball lottery ;) )

Lisa Brown's retirement fund fell from $45,000 to $210 from Worldcom's debacle.

I've provided the names and the data, now you answer my question Sirs.


Actually Js, you haven't.  You provided some names of folks who did precisely what I referred to as would not be occuring with current SS reform dialog....putting one's eggs all in 1 basket, no diversifying, no leaving it in for a period of 30+years, no nothing of what was asked of.  So, no you haven't answered the query in any way.  But by all means, there must be some examples of how terrible this system must be to those who are in it for the long haul, like what people are required to do for SS
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #33 on: January 24, 2008, 01:30:49 AM »
.  But by all means, there must be some examples of how terrible this system must be to those who are in it for the long haul, like what people are required to do for SS

Sirs

  Is it your point that successfull investing on the stock market is not very difficult?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #34 on: January 24, 2008, 03:10:09 AM »
But by all means, there must be some examples of how terrible this system must be to those who are in it for the long haul, like what people are required to do for SS

Sirs  Is it your point that successfull investing on the stock market is not very difficult?

Not exactly......my point is that if left alone, like SS, in a diversified portfolio of selected funds, the stock market returns will be substantially greater than that of what SS would return.  Especially considering that at the current rate, SS will be going bankrupt....there will not be enough workers to pay for those that'll become eligible for SS.  The fact that no one can demonstrate to the contrary pretty much proves that point
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2008, 07:29:56 AM »
Investing in the stock market can be quite easy, but most small investors lose money, so it isn't easy for the majority of those who try it.

You need to diversify a lot, and this takes a minimum of $100K if you use individual stocks and even these much be very carefully chosen. The best way to do this is to invest in a S&P 500 index fund with a no-load company such as Vanguard or Fidelity. Most people will never even be aware that they can buy a no-load fund directly from the company, or even that such funds exist. Instead, they will invest in individual stocks, pay a lot in commissions, and probably lose.

Saying that Social Security IF LEFT ALONE will go 'bankrupt' is not a realistic statement, since there will be major political pressure to force the government to rectify problems with SS. There was no such pressure when Juniorbush tried this, because the people did not trust him (why would anyone trust this lying geek?) and the situation is not critical, although by fighting a war on credit, Juniorbush has done more than any other president to destroy the financial reputation of the US.

Bankrupt is not something governments do  the way individuals do, so the term is basically just a scary word here, and SS will not be left alone. So you and Plane constantly seem to have this annoying parrot siting on each of your shoulders constantly squawking "Social Security is going bankrupt! Social Security is going bankrupt!, Raaaaak! Wheeet!" only serves to make you annoying, plus it doubtlessly covers your shoulders with unpleasant, yet metaphorical birdsh*t.

There are fixes that can and will be made to Social Security once the proper people are elected. These proper people would not be Republicans in the pockets of hungry and greedy brokerage companies or lying geeks like Juniorbush, since they WANT the system to fail and will do everything in their power to insure that it does.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 07:41:36 AM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2008, 05:44:52 PM »
Roger Boyce, 71 and Dale Roberts, 54 - http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-01-25-enron-employees-usat_x.htm

Dan Gannon, 60 - http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/032107kvueenronpowerball-eh.dc12b6.html
(This one has a twist - he won $182 million in the Powerball lottery ;) )

Lisa Brown's retirement fund fell from $45,000 to $210 from Worldcom's debacle.

I've provided the names and the data, now you answer my question Sirs.


Actually Js, you haven't.  You provided some names of folks who did precisely what I referred to as would not be occuring with current SS reform dialog....putting one's eggs all in 1 basket, no diversifying, no leaving it in for a period of 30+years, no nothing of what was asked of.  So, no you haven't answered the query in any way.  But by all means, there must be some examples of how terrible this system must be to those who are in it for the long haul, like what people are required to do for SS

So, you aren't giving people the freedom to invest how they like? You are still directing them on where to invest?
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2008, 06:39:04 PM »
So, you aren't giving people the freedom to invest how they like? You are still directing them on where to invest?
=========================================================
There is no way that the government can ethically allow people to invest in "what they like". Some would like to invest in a small arms collection, others perhaps in baseball cards, beanie babies, kewpie dolls, '64 mustangs, vintage marijuana, Airstream trailers and Nazi memorabilia , all of which have been known to appreciate in value at one time or another.

If indeed people are permitted to invest their SS money, no matter what the persuasion of those writing the laws regarding this, there will be some restrictions.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2008, 07:01:32 PM »
Roger Boyce, 71 and Dale Roberts, 54 - http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-01-25-enron-employees-usat_x.htm

Dan Gannon, 60 - http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/032107kvueenronpowerball-eh.dc12b6.html
(This one has a twist - he won $182 million in the Powerball lottery ;) )

Lisa Brown's retirement fund fell from $45,000 to $210 from Worldcom's debacle.

I've provided the names and the data, now you answer my question Sirs.


Actually Js, you haven't.  You provided some names of folks who did precisely what I referred to as would not be occuring with current SS reform dialog....putting one's eggs all in 1 basket, no diversifying, no leaving it in for a period of 30+years, no nothing of what was asked of.  So, no you haven't answered the query in any way.  But by all means, there must be some examples of how terrible this system must be to those who are in it for the long haul, like what people are required to do for SS

So, you aren't giving people the freedom to invest how they like? You are still directing them on where to invest?

That WAS the plan being advocated, despite the egregious distortions of how supposedly this was some form of all or nothing plan.  What?, now you're NOT a proponent of the government running things?  Personally, I would have advocated more freedom, but alas, Bush's reforms only allowed a mere fraction of one's SS $'s, being applied to several pre-selected avenues of investment.  One's I can only assume considered reasonably safe & secure over the long haul
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2008, 08:58:59 PM »
So, you aren't giving people the freedom to invest how they like? You are still directing them on where to invest?

The plan Bush proposed only allowed investment in a pre-selected group (selected by the government) of diversified mutual funds.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2008, 09:31:28 PM »
So, you aren't giving people the freedom to invest how they like? You are still directing them on where to invest?

The plan Bush proposed only allowed investment in a pre-selected group (selected by the government) of diversified mutual funds.

So only certain investment groups would make a fortune?

That sounds even worse. Pure corporatism, I can see why Sirs is in love with the idea. There's still no freedom, and specific groups make a fortune. Nice.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2008, 09:47:49 PM »
So only certain investment groups would make a fortune?

That sounds even worse. Pure corporatism, I can see why Sirs is in love with the idea. There's still no freedom, and specific groups make a fortune. Nice.

No; you could continue to leave your money in the current treasury bonds and hope you get your money back when you retire.

That's what "optional" means.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2008, 10:11:27 PM »

The plan Bush proposed only allowed investment in a pre-selected group (selected by the government) of diversified mutual funds.

So only certain investment groups would make a fortune?

That sounds even worse. Pure corporatism, I can see why Sirs is in love with the idea. There's still no freedom, and specific groups make a fortune. Nice.
=========================================================================
Actually, the mere fact that only this pre-selected group of funds would be permitted would tend to insure that precisely these funds would be low-yield, because the fact that they were pre-selected would prevent the usual competition from the marketplace to forsce a higher rate so they would compete. With no competition, the ,market produces mediocrity, and no one would make any fortune.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2008, 10:58:32 PM »
Thanks, Ami, for pointing out that the government still exerts considerable control over the SS funds "optionally" invested in the stock market.  As I now understand the choice, it's really a no-brainer:

1.  Put all of your money in Treasury bonds, backed by the government of the United States of America; or
2.  Put some of your money into Treasury bonds and the rest (I'm already starting to laugh here) into a basket of securities (gov't-selected diversified mutuals) and hope for the best.

First of all, and I could be wrong here, I cannot see the U.S. government defaulting on any of its SS obligations.  There is no doubt in my mind that the potential to raise any shortfall by a combination of increased income taxes on the rich, inheritance tax, taxes on accumulated capital, luxury and so-called sin taxes would be painful for the wealthy owners of the Republocrat Party, but would be a necessity that they will not be able to avoid.  Not only for the sake of the pissed-off pensioners, all of whom can vote, but also for the very credit of the U.S. government in international markets.  A government which lacks the resources to pay its own pensioners is a government that is one step away from bankruptcy.  Whatever confidence is left in the U.S. dollar at that point in time (and, frankly, it won't be much) would simply evaporate overnight, were such a default to occur.

I seriously doubt that any basket of government-selected diversified mutual funds would out-perform social security investments by any significant amount, especially when netted out after commissions, management fees, etc., but even if it did, the net gain would affect only a fraction of the investor's total SS-invested retirement capital anyway.  Not only that, but since the net gain itself is only being pursued for investment purposes, you're effectively looking at the interest on the net gain over the retiree's lifetime.  NOT a hell of a lot at stake here.  Some risk involved for gains that I really can't see as significant.

From the POV of Wall Street, OTOH, this is a real bonanza.  Billions pumped into the markets, the fresh flow of capital cushioning any shocks the funds might otherwise feel from market fluctuations and maintaining a momentum that previously had been sustained only by individual investors cherry-picking their way through a whole orchard of funds.  The jockeying to get into that basket could become intense, leading to a fiesta of bribery, nepotism, cronyism, junketing and good, old-fashioned American corruption in general that we all have come to know and love.  Which is not all that distasteful to any of the regulars inside the Beltway.

This is, all in all, a pretty tasteful rip-off.  Not an Enron- Worldcom-style rip-off that leaves the victims bleeding to death on the bathroom floor, just little, survivable bites from millions of investors, generating a steady investment stream from which all the usual profit is there to be made - - commissions, management fees, opening fees, close-out fees and all the tie-ins that the mutual funds in the basket can sell to their captive audience - - credit cards, prepaid funerals, life insurance with no medicals, etc.  And if the investors are really fortunate, who knows? there might even be a modest return on investment waiting for them at the end of the road (although I really don't believe that there will.)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 11:06:17 PM by Michael Tee »

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Serious SS question
« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2008, 11:06:26 PM »
I seriously doubt that any basket of government-selected diversified mutual funds would out-perform social security investments by any significant amount, especially when netted out after commissions, management fees, etc.

ROFL

The Treasury Bonds that the current SS funds are "invested" in return like 3%.

That would be pitifully poor showing for mutual funds, who routinely, after fees, return at least 6% and more like 10%. A really good fund will return even more.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)