If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Everywhere you go, you hear that the stock market is tanking — and analysts are discussing what you should do to keep more of your money.
While my philosophy of index investing says to buy more when stock prices are low, I came across a guy using an additional method to get returns on his money: peer-to-peer lending at Prosper.com.
We've talked a little bit about Prosper before, but if you're new to it, the site allows users to make and borrow loans from other individuals at agreed-upon interest rates.
So if you've got some extra cash, you can bid on loans as part of or as the entire amount that a borrower is looking for. With interest rates as high as 35%, it's an attractive alternative to watching your money tank in the stock market.
Have you considered loaning out money at Prosper? Share your experiences with us in a comment.
ING Direct is rolling out a new advertising campaign and Web site focused on determining how much money you need to retire.
ING Your Number (http://www.ingyournumber.com) is a financial calculator for figuring out "your number" — meaning, the amount of money you need to live at a level you'd like in retirement.
On the Web site, you're given a Flash presentation where you insert six fundamentals for determining your number:
- Current Age
- Marriage Status
- Household Income
- Expected Retirement Age
- Desired Income at Retirement
- Age until you'll need the income
After your number is determined, ING points you to financial professionals whether you have one or you don't.
At first use, it seems helpful — you've got to know where you're going before you can get there. But at the same time, how are you supposed to know how much you'll need to live on in retirement? (It may not be the 80% often quoted.)
And, more importantly, how can I figure out when I'm going to die? (Death clocks not withstanding)
Now that ING owns ShareBuilder, it makes sense for them to be making a bigger deal out of investing for the future. We'll see how long the "your number" campaign plays out.
I'm in the process of bringing over an IRA to the company where I do most of my investments. I thought having as many things in one place would be convenient for me and my eventual heirs.
Then I got to thinking — what if my investment company had some type of Enron-like collapse? Would my balances go down the drain with their stock? Or am I exempt, because my balances are not invested in the company, but instead in mutual funds they offer?
So now I'm thinking, maybe not only is diversification amongst holdings a good idea, but diversification of the companies you do business with may be a good idea as well.
In reality, my investment company is a very large industry leader, so I couldn't imagine that they would not be bailed out by another company or the government.
But what if I was consolidating my assets with a smaller company that carried no clout? Could I lose everything if they went under?
Does anyone have any insights or thoughts on this topic?
Tom Valenti is a marketer and project manager who currently works for a financial institution in New Jersey. Read Tom's blog at http://thriftyhomeowner.blogspot.com or learn more about him at http://tomvalenti.com.
Trent at the Simple Dollar posited to his readers last week that investing in individual stocks is basically gambling.
Individual stock investing is something like playing blackjack at a casino where, on every hand, the dealer is wagering just a little tiny bit more than you, but there are thousands of people around you shouting out suggestions.
He argues that you might have a slight advantage (his italics), but being profitable is "far from a guarantee and the work needed to get those earnings is tremendous."
Obviously, the fools at The Motley Fool feel otherwise. In their story on how to get 50% annual returns, here's what they suggest:
Lesson 1: Sell your index fund
There is no surer way to not beat the index than by investing in the index itself. Not exactly a revelation, right? Investing in index funds leads to nearly certain long-run underperformance, because of transaction costs and management fees.
Putting aside the preposterous proposition of actually getting 50% returns (which they admit), are they actually arguing that transaction costs and management fees are the downfall of index funds?
That doesn't make any sense. Index funds are great because, in addition to owning an entire index, they're passively managed and have some of the lowest fees in the market.
I actually met Tim Hanson, one of the authors of the article, when I interviewed at the Motley Fool (full disclosure: they didn't offer me the job because they were "going to give priority to candidates with more experience in investing." — aka stock picking).
I told him index funds were my investments of choice, and while he agreed they are the right way to go for 80% of investors, the Fool recommends an "index-plus" approach … meaning, invest in an index fund and buy the stocks they are hocking in their newsletters (because that's what they're really selling you).
Not only are they suggesting ways to get almost impossible 50% returns, but they're spreading disinformation in the process.
Please remember to think about who benefits from the "advice" you get.
Stanley Bing has an amusing post up today about the qualities of the stock market and how they translate into a person.
Among them, he offers up:
Rich: There’s a lot of money in the stock market. Having all that money doesn’t really make it any happier, though.
Nervous: In fact, being so wealthy and privileged makes it incredibly anxious. If peace of mind rests in the feeling that one has nothing to lose, the Market is the exact opposite. It has everything to lose, first and foremost in its anxious, monkey mind.
Greedy: Over-riding that anxiety is a fine patina of opportunism and atavistic desire to get more, have more, to profit while others are screaming down into the ocean of defeat. When the greed overcomes the nervousness, the Market is happy and flies very high;
Gutless: On the other hand, even the specter of a shadow of a doubt that things could go the other way and the Market starts heading for the exit. In a disaster, this is not the person you want in the lifeboat with you. If it doesn’t push you overboard, it will try to eat your leg;
Intelligent: Nobody is saying the Market is stupid. It’s not. It’s just like a lot of my friends — too crazy to be smart a lot of the time;
Irrational: I don’t care how many PowerPoint presentations investment bankers, lawyers and security analysts offer to me at boondoggles past, present and future, nobody will ever convince me that the Market is rational. Buffett to the rescue! Hurrah! Let’s go up! Oooh. Wait. Buffett’s motives are impure. Ouch. Let’s go down. Sure, apologists for the Market will come up with a million reasons it does things. So do we all.
Of course it's possible to beat the market. It can be done, and it has been done.
But the more important question: is it worth it? What will it cost you to beat the market?
I don't know about you, but I don't have the time or money to try and beat the market. The chances of it happening are slim, and even if it happens, it'll cost you the difference in fees.
While the mainstream media is all over the place with news of the stock market's big drop Thursday, the community at social news site Digg isn't worried.
Check out some of the right-on-the-money comments from this story: Have any money in a 401(k)? You just lost a huge chunk.
cause letting it sit under my matress is so much better. It can take a dunk considering its been steady going up for the last five years.
The market will come back eventually. Now is actually the perfect time to BUY! Buy cheap sell high, and live below your means, you will retire well.
the title has nothing to do with the article. the whole point of a 401k is longterm investment for your retirement. one crappy period in the span of the 40 years until you retire really isn't worth losing any sleep over
These comments are encouraging, especially when the mainstream media is so focused on the stock market's fall.
Now, one could argue that Digg users tend to be younger than most mainstream media consumers, therefore have a longer time to go before they retire.
But it's really good to see smart personal finance fundamentals spread.
A lot of visitors come here by Googling information about transferring their retirement accounts, either the IRA or their Roth IRA, many to Vanguard.
Since there seems to be interest in the topic, and I just completed my Roth IRA transfers from Ameriprise to Vanguard recently, I'll recap the entire process.
When the Internet was in its infancy, consumers were much more likely to be caught in an online investment or money scam than they are today.
But even though we're more skeptical of the "work at home" emails and the "send us your social security number" requests, online scams can still cost you dearly if you're not careful.