On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 22:48:21 -0500, Ignoramus7096
wrote:
On 2010-07-10, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:05:45 -0500, Ignoramus7096
wrote:
On 2010-07-10, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:16:05 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:
I'm by no means wealthy.
Too funny.
Buerste, last September: "I'm worth millions"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....8f4b0b649a5bbf
The link does not work.
Oops, missed it by an 8. :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....f4b0b649a5bbf8
Which should readers believe - fall Tom, or summer Tom?
I am not sure how much he is worth. But I can tell you for sure that
being worth one million does not really amount to much,
Well, a million might not last a celebrity or a lottery winner very
long, but it's 5 times the average net worth of somebody 55-64.
http://www.bargaineering.com/article...an-family.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bud...ealth-Spectrum
And I'm thinkin' it would put the owner somewhere around the 95th
percentile.
Yep. But that is not as huge as it sounds. Basically most people who
try to get there, can, if they do not suffer from major bad luck.
No, most people have no hope of getting there, which is why so few
make it. Yes, most everyone *could* do better, but most get mired
early on and from there it's pretty tough. You might note that the
average net worth is driven down substantially by the number of those
whose net worth is negative.
Most
people do not even try, which is completely fine, by the way. Not
everyone needs or wants money that badly. The millionaire next door is
a great book that sheds a lot of light on the subject.
or allows any kind of extravagant lifestyle.
I don't see where that's a requirement. I imagine Tom's ideal
lifestyle as living in a bunker, hunkered over a keyboard complaining
full time about "libtards" getting "cheese checks". Well affordable on
SS alone as proven thousands of times daily. :-)
I would really like to retire, personally.
I recommend it. It can be done for a lot less than you think. You
needn't take my word for it, just look at the stats. Only the tiniest
fraction of retirees have a net worth of a million. Your biggest
impediment could be aiming to high, and consequently taking too many
risks.
As it happens I have a friend who's worked towards a worst-case
scenario, which in his mind is many years for him and his wife in an
upscale nursing home. I thought that he was overestimating the time,
and being a bit demanding on his expectations of quality of life. I've
forgotten the number he came up with, but I bet he'd be surprised to
learn how much more you think it would take.
I would surmise that two millions (which is the lowest for saying
"millions") probably is the same as one.
What? Modest interest income on that would be ~$100k per year.
At current short term rates, it is more like 10k per year. (0.5%).
Not bad, especially with SS on top. And it might put the holder at
about the 99th percentile. Whittle down the principal during one's
declining years and it should be an even sweeter ride.
I would double check your math.
Longer maturities pay 3+ percent annually, but carry a lot of interest
rate and inflation risk.
I remember some months back you were telling us about some nice
returns. I remember because I noted that they were better than my own.
So why do you think that others would be limited to minimum returns?
There's nothing wrong with keeping the minimum required safe, and
taking some risk with the rest. I'm not talking about greedy-crazy
risk, just sensible risk.
That said, I do not really believe extraordinary claims on usenet,
unless they are backed up with at least something.
I looked at commercial RE recently and my guess as to the value of
Tom's building, after looking at google maps, is 200-400k depending on
location, more likely towards the low end of the estimate.
Some real estate isn't selling at all. Tom's "ghetto" is very likely
one of those where you can buy property seriously cheap.
http://www.realestatedecline.com/Housing_Crash_Bottom_Homes_For_$1000.htm
In some such markets one can have property that's only saleable for a
small fraction of most would consider its "value". Now consider that
when property is expropriated for highways, the owners frequently moan
about not receiving fair market value. But in this case, Tom is
*hoping* he can sell to the taxpayer, which is a pretty strong clue
about the market in his area.
Selling property in high crime areas is difficult, which is why I
leaned towards the bottom of the range that I gave.
My point was that all signs are that it would be fair to lean even
lower. It seems counterintuitive that even crummy real estate can be
worth so little, but all you have to do is imagine starting a business
in a declining area. Costs for the big items like police, fire, and
schools can be higher than that in better locations. Yet incomes are
lower, which means that all those budgets are stretched past the
breaking point. Leading to the usual product of bad schools, which
tends to cause more crime and a death spiral. All confirmed by Tom's
desire to move if the taxpayers will fund it.
Wayne