Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (23) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: 8128 Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 19218  
Subject: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/17/2002 12:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I will be 65 in 2 months and am in the throes of trying to figure out how to retire foolishly. It has been my experience that on the general subject of retirement more than 90 percent of the advise available is on how to accumulate enough assets to retire on and well under 10 percent of the advice is related to how to manage ones retirement, specifically on how to make sure ones nest egg lasts as long as the nest egg owner. The best advise seems to be to assume that one will live forever and withdraw from the nest egg at a rate that will allow this. The concern is how does one manage the nest egg to accomplish this. One obvious strategy is to not touch the principal. This could be accomplished by investing in dividend yielding investments and living off the dividends or investing in growth stocks and withdrawing only as much as the growth allowed. With the instability of the market one needs also to be aware of cycles and try to minimize cashing in when the market is depressed. So, what are the relative advantages and risks of A) living off the dividends vs. B) living off the growth? In my own case I have at least started off in the direction of plan A, living off the dividends. I currently own ten stocks with dividend yields over 5 percent with nine of them paying between 7.1 and 9.7 percent. These ten stocks comprise roughly half of my nest egg and in the other half I own stocks that range from "conservative growth" to "speculative growth." In other words I am trying to have the best of both worlds. The high yielding stocks are in the REIT or finance area and I have tried to assure myself that the companies I own are in good shape financially and will be able to continue to pay the high dividends. Some are preferred stocks of companies that also have high yielding common stock so that gives me some comfort that the preferred yield is sound.

I would appreciate any comments re this approach as I am totally new to this. Don't be concerned about hurting my feelings. I fully appreciate that my long-range financial health is much more important than a bruised ego, so if you feel I am way off base, please say so and why.

If this has been fully discussed before here please point me to such discussions. Also I am totally willing to share what my investments are in and why I have invested there if anyone is interested.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: KenAtPcs Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7698 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/17/2002 12:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Although I've been investing for many years, I'm no expert to be sure. I have spent a lot of time reading the "Retire Early Home Page" board here on the fool. There are a HUGE number of off-topic messages to wade through, but assuming you haven't been there, I'd suggest you spend some time there, reading. Posts nearer the beginning tended to stay more on-topic, but even recently, you'll find a lot of posts on this very subject.

The most common approach discussed on that board is the "4% withdrawal rate", which usually assumes a portfolio divided 80/20 between equities (specifically, the S&P 500) and fixed income instruments (short term Treasuries, CDs, etc.). The theory goes that if you withdrawal no more than 4% of the portfolio's initial value upon retirement, and then increase the withdrawals each year by the rate of inflation, your portfolio has a very high chance of out-surviving you.

I don't particularly subscribe to the entire theory, as I believe more that a highly diversified portfolio will provide a similar or better return, with a somewhat smoother ride. But I do believe that capping the withdrawal rate to 4% or less of the portfolio's initial value is a wise idea, and we are trying to do that for our own portfolio. But rather than investing solely in the S&P, we have investments spread throughout the equity spectrum, including a heavy percentage in dividend paying stocks that you mentioned, such as REITs and utilities.

When buying dividend paying stocks, we pay close attention to the company's past history of increasing dividends. We try to limit ourselves (we don't always succeed!) to those companies with records of increasing their dividends at a minimum of 4% / yr over the last 3-, 5-, and 10-yr periods (though many REITs haven't been around 10 years, so obviously that figure is often not available). Also, we prefer that the company's unsecured, long-term debt be rated "investment grade" by the credit rating agencies, FWIW (in the recent case of Enron, it was worth nothing).

Let me also add that personally, I try to diversify also within individual stock holdings. Many people say that having more than a few dozen stocks is way too many to follow, and I agree that I don't know each company that we own as well as I'd like to. Nevertheless, I'm not comfortable with having more than 2% of our portfolio in any one stock, which means that, yes, we have a lot of companies, many of which are only 100-share lots. It sounds like your average is more like 5% in each company, which I would not be comfortable with.

Hope that helps,

Ken

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BigLon One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7699 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/17/2002 4:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If you have no desire in leaving an estate to heirs, why not take a combination of dividends and growth (principal & interest)?Use age 95 as a life expectancy, use a conservative interest assumption and withdraw a fixed amount each year from your TOTAL portfolio.

Lon

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eccm Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7700 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/17/2002 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I'm so glad to see this... There is often an obsession among retirees, not so much here but over at the Retire Early board, with preservation of every nickle dying at 150 yrs old with 100 million dollars in the bank.

If you actuary yourself to 95 or even 100 and use conservative rates of return and just don't give a hoot about having a 50% chance of dying with 90 million and a 95% chance of dying with 50 million bucks it makes retirement a whole lot easier.

The main purpose between all this "growth growth growth" and sub 4% withdrawls drumbeat anyway is because one must overcome inflation AND the standard deviation of the equity markets. Little STD DEV and you solve a big chunk of the problem right there.

I don't care how much I die with. I just want to make sure I have enough while I'm still here. And if I don't mind spending it down I;ll have that much more to draw from.

If I DO live to 105 I don't think I will be worrying about my ROI, the S&P 500 "historical p/e ratio" or if I'll have enough money to last till I'm 110.
____________

If you have no desire in leaving an estate to heirs, why not take a combination of dividends and growth (principal & interest)?Use age 95 as a life expectancy, use a conservative interest assumption and withdraw a fixed amount each year from your TOTAL portfolio.

Lon

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rkmacdonald Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7701 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/17/2002 6:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Author: 8128 Date: 1/17/02 12:18 PM Number: 7697
I will be 65 in 2 months and am in the throes of trying to figure out how to retire foolishly. It has been my experience that on the general subject of retirement more than 90 percent of the advise available is on how to accumulate enough assets to retire on and well under 10 percent of the advice is related to how to manage ones retirement, specifically on how to make sure ones nest egg lasts as long as the nest egg owner. The best advise seems to be to assume that one will live forever and withdraw from the nest egg at a rate that will allow this. The concern is how does one manage the nest egg to accomplish this. One obvious strategy is to not touch the principal. This could be accomplished by investing in dividend yielding investments and living off the dividends or investing in growth stocks and withdrawing only as much as the growth allowed. With the instability of the market one needs also to be aware of cycles and try to minimize cashing in when the market is depressed. So, what are the relative advantages and risks of A) living off the dividends vs. B) living off the growth? In my own case I have at least started off in the direction of plan A, living off the dividends. I currently own ten stocks with dividend yields over 5 percent with nine of them paying between 7.1 and 9.7 percent. These ten stocks comprise roughly half of my nest egg and in the other half I own stocks that range from "conservative growth" to "speculative growth." In other words I am trying to have the best of both worlds. The high yielding stocks are in the REIT or finance area and I have tried to assure myself that the companies I own are in good shape financially and will be able to continue to pay the high dividends. Some are preferred stocks of companies that also have high yielding common stock so that gives me some comfort that the preferred yield is sound.

It really doesn't make any difference how you withdraw money from an equity/bond portfolio. Money withdrawn from the portfolio has the same effect of reducing the total value of the portfolio, whether it comes from dividends or capital gains.

A properly diversified portfolio can support an historically 'safe' initial withdrawal rate of around 4% per year (adjusted in subsequent years by inflation). Any more than this, whether from dividends or capital gains, and you risk premature portfolio exhaustion.

Spending all the dividends from a high yield stock portfolio leads to incidious problems:

First, you have to understand that, historically, the market has grown by about 11% per year (including reinvested dividends). Let's say that you construct construct a high dividend yield portfolio that tracks average market performance of 11% per year, and yields, say, 9%. In this case, the average appreciation in stock price will be, by definition, 2% per year (11% - 9%). Now, if you spend the full 9% dividend, and inflation grows at 3% per year, you will be obviously falling behind without even including the negative effects of volatility. Once you add in the effects of volatility, you will be losing ground by about 5% per year.

Spending the dividend from a high dividend yield portfolio (like REITs) is a very dangerous way to live in retirement, because you develop a false sense of security, and tend to forget to watch the total value of your portfolio. You can very easily overlook the slow reduction in total value over time. Over time, stock prices drop slowly and the dividend yield rises. At some point, this yield becomes too high to sustain, and it is reduced. You begin to notice your big problem only as your divdend stream begins to shrink (as stock prices drop to where dividends are too high a percentage), but by that time it is too late.

There are two answers to this problem: 1) become a great stock picker like Buffett so that you can put together a portfolio that grows faster than the market, or 2)always reinvest dividend distributions above 4% of the total portfolio value.

RK

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kenoops Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7702 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/19/2002 8:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dear 8128:

Though retired for three years, I am still wrestling with the same problem. It sounds like you have about half in fairly high income REITs and the other half in various growth stocks. I have more than half in REITs, some in natural gas and the rest in DIA, which mirrors the DOW and pays a 1.5% dividend. My REITs are about half high dividend REITs and half oriented toward growth and dividends. I have found it works better drawing from dividends rather than selling stock here and there to raise income; so I've really come to like REITs and the trusty DOW after starting out with a very aggressive momentum strategy (aka Mechancial Investing vis Motley Fool board).

Ralph Block (Investing in REITs) tends to favor what he calls "Blue Chip" REITs that show good capital gains and modest dividends (by REIT standards), but I keep wondering if I should just go whole hog into high dividend REITs exclusively (7.5%-9.5%). I guess most people on the REIT board counsel a mixture of both, which is what I have.

There was a good discussion of living off growth vs. living off dividends just a few days ago on the Real Estate board. I had raised the same question there.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gurdison Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7704 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/21/2002 3:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<but I keep wondering if I should just go whole hog into high dividend REITs exclusively (7.5%-9.5%).>


This strategy is no different then going 100% in high tech or 100% in small caps or 100% in financial stocks or 100% company stock in your 401k or 100% in any other asset class. It is a very high risk strategy even if it manages to work for some time.

REITs or REIT funds can be a useful component of a portfolio. I have several REITs in my own portfolio. Like all investment classes, they will go through periods of time when they are not in favor. Some will do much better or worse than others. Chasing high yields can be very dangerous. But is your call. Just like the Enron people who had every dollar of their retirement funds in company stock. Some of those people were already retired or very close to retiring. While I have no sympathies at all for Enron senior management (and hope that any criminal acts are fully prosecuted), those who lost their life savings have nobody to blame but themselves for following a such a reckless strategy.


BRG

Print the post Back To Top
Author: galeno Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7705 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/21/2002 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
gurdison wrote:
Chasing high yields can be very dangerous. But is your call. Just like the Enron people who had every dollar of their retirement funds in company stock. Some of those people were already retired or very close to retiring. While I have no sympathies at all for Enron senior management (and hope that any criminal acts are fully prosecuted), those who lost their life savings have nobody to blame but themselves for following a such a reckless strategy.

Yep. Those Enron employees got what they deserved. I like growth as much as any investor. But...the fact that I'm retired means growth can't be my first goal...staying retired is. Growth comes second.




Print the post Back To Top
Author: walnutstreet Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7706 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/22/2002 9:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3

Galelno said 'Yep. Those Enron employees got what they deserved.'



I think they deserved much better. They had a cheating, scheming, management team with all the ethics of Joseph Stalin. This management team also lied and misrepresented the value of the company, while getting their own money out.
The employees were both poor investors and overly sympathetic to the firm they worked for. They deserved much better.

Regards

Print the post Back To Top
Author: REITster Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7707 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/22/2002 10:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Here is an interesting post from the REAL ESTATE board that sets forth an important viewpoint on dividends vs. growth.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=16519387



Print the post Back To Top
Author: gurdison Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7708 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/22/2002 1:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<The employees were both poor investors and overly sympathetic to the firm they worked for. They deserved much better.>


I think you are missing the larger point. Nobody is defending the senior management of ENE. The point is that nobody should be keeping 100% of their retirement funds invested in one company or even one sector. It does not matter what industry the company is in or what is going on internally. It is a recipe for disaster to tie in all of your retirement savings to the same company you are working for. As I see it there is only one clear exception that one could make. That would be if you have substantial assets outside of the retirement plan.

Your retirement assets are not something to ignore. A number of the ENE people were already retired or were very close to retirement. They were playing with fire. Everyone has the personal responsibility to know what they have in their retirement accounts. If you do not have the knowledge to manage your own funds, there are many places where you can get learn. In the worst case, you can get some professional help. As one nears retirement the preservation of capital should become a priority for at least some of your portfolio. I saw one ENE retiree interviewed who spoke of losing 1.3 million (almost all of his assets except for his house). When people do dumb, stupid things in the stock market, there is often a high price to be paid. I feel some sympathy for these people, but they made a critical mistake.

What bothers me even more is that there are many others just like them out there. There are an incredible number of 401k plans that have 70% or more of their assets invested in company stock. One, PG has almost 95% of it's assets invested in PG stock. ENE should serve as a wake up call because it apparent that there are many people asleep at the wheel.


BRG



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: walnutstreet Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7709 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/22/2002 3:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2


Gurdison said:

I think you are missing the larger point. Nobody is defending the senior management of ENE. The point is that nobody should be keeping 100% of their retirement funds invested in one company or even one sector.

I say:
The POINT that I was addressing was the statement that I highlighted. Something to effect that the Enron employees got what they deserved. No one deserves to work for thieves and charlatons. No one deserves the outright theft of their property, regardless of whether they are poor investors or not. (Which I believe that I also stated.)
If the Enron managment team had not purposely misstated the performance and health of the company for over five years, these individuals would not have lost all of their money. Their poor investment techniques may have resulted in ten to fifty percent loss....maybe.

The real or maybe even the 'largest' point is that no one should be allowed to steal from others without being punished.
regards

Print the post Back To Top
Author: galeno Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7710 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/22/2002 6:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
walnutstreet wrote:
The POINT that I was addressing was the statement that I highlighted. Something to effect that the Enron employees got what they deserved. No one deserves to work for thieves and charlatons. No one deserves the outright theft of their property, regardless of whether they are poor investors or not. (Which I believe that I also stated.)

The POINT I'm addressing is ANYBODY who keeps 100% of their retirement account assets in his employer's stock deserves the ENRON result. I repeat again: the ENRON employees got what they deserved. Bad things happen to ignorant and stupid people. It's been that way since Adam and Eve.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ibnana Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7711 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/22/2002 6:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
From what I've heard, the Enron employees may not have had a choice in where their 401K money was invested, at least the company matching part. Like many companies, the only choice they had for the company match was Enron stock.

As a result of the Enron disaster, I believe there is a move afoot to outlaw the forcing of company stock on employees.

Carol

Print the post Back To Top
Author: walnutstreet Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7712 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/22/2002 7:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Galeno said:
The POINT I'm addressing is ANYBODY who keeps 100% of their retirement account assets in his employer's stock deserves the ENRON result. I repeat again: the ENRON employees got what they deserved. Bad things happen to ignorant and stupid people. It's been that way since Adam and Eve.

I say:
A person that makes a mistake does not DESERVE bad things!!! The bad thing that happened here also happened to those who only had ten percent of their savings in ENRON. Did they deserve it? Certainly not!!! Will they, the smart ones get their money back? Certainly not. The charlatons stole from all americans.

Bad things may happen to ignorant and stupid people. However, the worst thing that can happen to them is intolerance for their limited abilities.
Regards

Print the post Back To Top
Author: roelf Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7713 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/23/2002 7:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I think both of you have valid points. First, if the ENRON employees had a choice on how to invest their 401K money, they were imprudent in putting it all in ENRON stock. I have a good friend who did the same at Proctor and Gamble, and when the stock hit the skids several years ago he lost about 50% of his stash. But, many people are not as experience in investing as members of this board.

The second point is that ENRON top managment has acted in a way that is contemptable and possibly illegal. Employees,dumb or smart, don't deserve to be screwed by these fat cats.

So, you guys are both right and both your points are valid.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Fool4now2 One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7714 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/23/2002 9:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The second point is that ENRON top managment has acted in a way that is contemptable and possibly illegal. Employees,dumb or smart, don't deserve to be screwed by these fat cats.

Anyone who engaged in criminal activity should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Anyone who was truly defrauded should make their case in a civil court and sue those at fault. Those sufferring from self-inflicted wounds should not expect sympathy or taxpayer bail outs. This should simply be a matter for the courts to decide.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gurdison Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7715 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/23/2002 12:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<As a result of the Enron disaster, I believe there is a move afoot to outlaw the forcing of company stock on employees.>


As with many government fixes, the medicine may kill the patient. Many companies (among them Ford) have already announced if matches in company stock are not going to be allowed they will no longer make company matches. The matches are often the main selling point to get people to participate.

Similarly, the other change being talked about is limiting one to a maximum of 20% company stock in their accounts. I can hear the screams already from those who want to be protected from losses, but will be very po'd by the government limiting their gains. Every time the stockgoes up and your percentage goes over 20%, a block will have to be sold off to bring it back under 20.

We have a free market. It is most often driven by fear and greed. People are free to make their choices. If one makes a calculated decision to take on the risk of going 100% in their company stock it should be allowed. They are free to maximize their gains. If they figured wrong they are just as free to lose the entire nest egg. A lot of new people came into the markets in the late 90's and bought into the "it's different now" thinking. They bought the high flyers at very high prices (often on margin) thinking that they would continue on even higher. Those that bought in heaviest got taught a very hard and valuable lesson. Their money is gone too.

I do not want to minimize the possible illegal acts committed by ENE and Anderson management. I also recognize that ENE had strong retrictions on the company match portion. What that screams out to me is that every 401k participant should have been extreemly careful in deciding what to invest their portion of their contributions into. Obviously, most were not. That is no ones fault but their own.


bRG




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: billjam Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7716 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/23/2002 11:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I keep reading how dumb ENE employees were or how they were taking foolish risks. I can't agree since they had no choice in much of this. ENE funded its 401k matching with company stock. Then they prohibited employees from selling that stock until they were 50 years old. As a final insult they conveniently decided just as the public began to become aware of a problem at ENE to change the 401k administrator. During the change, while ENE was falling from around $20 to under $1, the 401k was locked completely so employees could do nothing. At the same time senior management was telling the employees that everything would be fine while selling tens of millions in stock themselves.

No argument from me that no one should have all his money in company stock but these people didn't have a choice. I don't favor a government bailout but I do hope the courts will ultimately fine management to recover most of their fraudulent profits and use those funds to aid the employees.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: popyee Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7717 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/24/2002 9:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I heard on CBS this morning that Enron empoyees could chooes from over 18 funds! The employees choose the company stock. I don't feel too sorry for them. They could have diversified. However, the exec should pay big. Prison for good.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hotfoot Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7718 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/26/2002 4:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The POINT I'm addressing is ANYBODY who keeps 100% of their retirement account assets in his employer's stock deserves the ENRON result. I repeat again: the ENRON employees got what they deserved. Bad things happen to ignorant and stupid people. It's been that way since Adam and Eve.

Definitely a "Takers" point of view. To hell with every one else.
H.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dan2 Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7725 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 1/28/2002 11:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Galeno wrote:
The POINT I'm addressing is ANYBODY who keeps 100% of their retirement account assets in his employer's stock deserves the ENRON result. I repeat again: the ENRON employees got what they deserved. Bad things happen to ignorant and stupid people. It's been that way since Adam and Eve.

hotfoot wrote:
Definitely a "Takers" point of view. To hell with every one else.
H.


What would you expect from a man who wrote the following one day after the bombing in New York?

Excerpted From nessage 50137 posted on September 12, 2001 on the Retire Early Board

Galeno replies:

Like I said before, if America wants to play with matches, it should expect to get her fingers burned.

Case in point: in Costa Rica, the Americans are flying seven Apache helicopters "assisting" us with her "War on Drugs". This has caused the price of marijuana here to go from $5/oz to about $15 per ounce. I know several GRINGO ex-pats who would love to knock down those Apaches with those cheap hand-held Stinger missles.

If you play like to play hockey or soccer, sooner or later one of the other teams will score a goal on you. America got scored on yesterday.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Follydolly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 7736 of 19218
Subject: Re: Living of dividends or growth Date: 2/1/2002 1:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Whoa, I think somehow we got off track here. 8128 asked a question that concerns many of us entering into retirement. I think most all of us agree to follow the 4% withdrawal rate at least in today's economy. Unless I missed it somewhere, I saw no mention of bonds...corporate bonds....laddering? Also, there is the issue of year 701/2 when mandatory withdrawal from IRA's and 401K's must start. If you are lucky to have the 150M...you are going to be paying whopping income tax on this withdrawal. Probably, you will not need all the funds you withdrew to live on, so after taxes you get to reinvest what's left over. Lots of things to think about.

I particularly liked RK's post which gave me a new outlook on what I should do with any funds earned over the 4% withdrawal rate. Personally, I don't count on my portfolios appreciating over 8%...anything over that is gravy. I got a lot of gravy in the 90's, but those days are gone for now.

Probably I don't know what the *H* I'm doing, but I try to keep well diversified between REITS, Preferreds, High Yield Bond funds, Stocks, a short term Muni fund, S&P 500 Fund and cash in a muni cash account...this is in my taxable account. My IRA is mostly inexpensive mutual funds, a REIT fund, a short term bond fund, stocks and laddered Corporate Bonds. The events of 9/11 have made me a more conservative investor. At this point I am not taking funds out of the IRA until I have to in 4+ years.....Oh I can't believe I actually said that!

Birgit aka follydolly

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (23) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement