The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Strategy comparison S&P500 vs. IUL||Date: 4/2/2013 2:56 PM|
|Author: Dwdonhoff||Number: 71668 of 75805|
I'm not the best person to ask this question of, since I don't really invest that way. I don't have a dog in that fight, so I wouldn't "advise" a person anything. My biggest advice would be to maintain an adequate level of liquidity. That's probably around $25K-$50K for most people.
$25k-$50k reserves in order to put $10,000 at risk? $35k-$60k liquid net worth in order to safely put $10,000 into the S&P?
Isn't that a wee bit overly conservative? That would dramatically dilute the real yield of the $10,000 in play. (Not saying that's particularly bad... financial survival has its costs... it just seems a bit steep at its face, to me.)
But the phrase "going naked in the securities" troubles me. Going naked means something quite different than going long, but the implication here is that they are equivalent. They are not.
Risk is there, regardless of people's desire to be risk-free. At the "non-risked reserves" area there is interest rate risk, inflation risk, buying-power risk, etc. See, for example, "Cyprus, bank depositors of". Ask *them* about their non-risked reserves.
Of course. In our comparison we're talking about market price risk exclusively, right?
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|