On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/29/2015 4:12 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:20:10 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


In any case, you can be sure security is being increased, not decreased
when you sign in on line.

Except in the case of what BA is doing, it clearly decreases
security. By presenting you with an image that you select and
know *before* you give them your password, you know that you're
actually engaging with the real BA website, not some hackers
that have duplicated BA to steal your logon credentials. If
you don't see the image, you know something is wrong. Without it,
hackers could and do present what looks like a real logon page.
So, you try to log on and now the hackers have your user name
and pwd.


Considering the recent data breaches all over, do you really think BA
decided to shortcut and lessen security?

Perhaps they don't want to publicly give details,but I think they are
just doing new security in a different manner. There are probably
stronger methods employed that obsolete the site key. If the site key
was a great enhancement, they would all be doing it by now.

I don't doubt that they have other techniques. But it's clear
to me that presenting you with an image that only you and BA
know before you enter your PWD would prevent hackers from creating
a phony logon page. It workded with Micky. He noticed that he
wasn't getting the image and wondered if it was really the bank.
You can have X, Y, and Z that all provide some added level of
security. All I'm saying is that if you still had Z, the image
challenge, then security would be better even if you have X, and
Y and think they are very effective. It only adds, it doesn't
subtract.

On 7/29/2015 12:01 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Perhaps they don't want to publicly give details,but I think they are
just doing new security in a different manner. There are probably
stronger methods employed that obsolete the site key. If the site key
was a great enhancement, they would all be doing it by now.

I don't doubt that they have other techniques. But it's clear
to me that presenting you with an image that only you and BA
know before you enter your PWD would prevent hackers from creating
a phony logon page. It workded with Micky. He noticed that he
wasn't getting the image and wondered if it was really the bank.
You can have X, Y, and Z that all provide some added level of
security. All I'm saying is that if you still had Z, the image
challenge, then security would be better even if you have X, and
Y and think they are very effective. It only adds, it doesn't
subtract.


What is to stop a hacker from presenting the site key? I always thought
it would be the perfect method of stealing your info. There are shady
people out there with all sorts of tricks and one photo is not going to
keep them from taking your fortune.

I really don't think they would lessen security one tiny bit. Just look
at the Caller ID scams where your own number shows up.

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:34:30 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/29/2015 12:01 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Perhaps they don't want to publicly give details,but I think they are
just doing new security in a different manner. There are probably
stronger methods employed that obsolete the site key. If the site key
was a great enhancement, they would all be doing it by now.

I don't doubt that they have other techniques. But it's clear
to me that presenting you with an image that only you and BA
know before you enter your PWD would prevent hackers from creating
a phony logon page. It workded with Micky. He noticed that he
wasn't getting the image and wondered if it was really the bank.
You can have X, Y, and Z that all provide some added level of
security. All I'm saying is that if you still had Z, the image
challenge, then security would be better even if you have X, and
Y and think they are very effective. It only adds, it doesn't
subtract.


What is to stop a hacker from presenting the site key?

That they don't know what the site key pic is that you have
personally chosen from a long list of available ones and
that they don't know the tag line you've personally added
to the pic. They aren't going to get that easily. They can
get your user name and pwd by creating a fake logon page
that looks like BA.


I always thought
it would be the perfect method of stealing your info.

I don't see how it's the perfect method, when the hacker doesn't
know the image or tag line for the image that you created.


There are shady
people out there with all sorts of tricks and one photo is not going to
keep them from taking your fortune.

That added step alone isn't going to prevent all the possible ways, no.
But without it, I could create a hack webpage that looks like the BA
sign on page. So, without it, you put in your logon name and pwd.
Now the hack site has both. With the image challenge, you put in
your name and if you don't see the correct image and tag line, you
know something is up. That's what caused Micky to become concerned,
he didn't see the challenge image and his tag line. I think it's
a good idea, because with other sites, many times the webpage has
changed or the web address that shows up in the address bar seems
different, leading me to wonder, is this really Amex, etc? or a
hack attempt. With BA, once I see my image, I'm confident it's
really BA.




I really don't think they would lessen security one tiny bit. Just look
at the Caller ID scams where your own number shows up.

The analogy here would be you call someone and before starting
your private conversation, the person you called has to tell you
the pass phrase that only you and they know to prove that you've
really called them and not someone else.

On 7/29/2015 2:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:

What is to stop a hacker from presenting the site key?

That they don't know what the site key pic is that you have
personally chosen from a long list of available ones and
that they don't know the tag line you've personally added
to the pic. They aren't going to get that easily. They can
get your user name and pwd by creating a fake logon page
that looks like BA.


I always thought
it would be the perfect method of stealing your info.

I don't see how it's the perfect method, when the hacker doesn't
know the image or tag line for the image that you created.

What is preventing a hacker from getting it? Hackers have been in the
Pentagon computers, many stores, banks, insurance companies and on and
on. Nothing is truly bullet proof.


There are shady
people out there with all sorts of tricks and one photo is not going to
keep them from taking your fortune.

That added step alone isn't going to prevent all the possible ways, no.
But without it, I could create a hack webpage that looks like the BA
sign on page. So, without it, you put in your logon name and pwd.
Now the hack site has both. With the image challenge, you put in
your name and if you don't see the correct image and tag line, you
know something is up.

If it was that secure, every website would be doing it. Every financial
institution would have it. If it makes you feel good, fine, but like
every man made puzzle, another man has the solution.


That's what caused Micky to become concerned,
With BA, once I see my image, I'm confident it's
really BA.


Good for you, it never made me feel any better.

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/29/2015 2:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:

What is to stop a hacker from presenting the site key?

That they don't know what the site key pic is that you have
personally chosen from a long list of available ones and
that they don't know the tag line you've personally added
to the pic. They aren't going to get that easily. They can
get your user name and pwd by creating a fake logon page
that looks like BA.


I always thought
it would be the perfect method of stealing your info.

I don't see how it's the perfect method, when the hacker doesn't
know the image or tag line for the image that you created.

What is preventing a hacker from getting it? Hackers have been in the
Pentagon computers, many stores, banks, insurance companies and on and
on. Nothing is truly bullet proof.


What's preventing the hacker from getting it is all the
security firewalls and procedures at BA. And if they get inside
that, then essentially all the security goes out the window,
they have all the user names and pwds. Which do you think is
harder? Creating a webpage and webpage address that looks like
the BA one, to get you to enter your credentials or getting inside
BA itself and getting all the user names, pwds, images, etc.
It's a well known method that works. Send someone a
fake message, claiming to be the bank, taking them to a website
that looks like it's the real bank, etc.




There are shady
people out there with all sorts of tricks and one photo is not going to
keep them from taking your fortune.

That added step alone isn't going to prevent all the possible ways, no.
But without it, I could create a hack webpage that looks like the BA
sign on page. So, without it, you put in your logon name and pwd.
Now the hack site has both. With the image challenge, you put in
your name and if you don't see the correct image and tag line, you
know something is up.

If it was that secure, every website would be doing it. Every financial
institution would have it. If it makes you feel good, fine, but like
every man made puzzle, another man has the solution.


I didn't say it was "that" secure. I just said it's a good step
so that you know when you see a webpage that it's really your
bank and not a hacker making a website that looks like the bank.
As I said, I've had many times where the webpage at some financial
institution looked different, or the web address looked slightly
different. With no challenge image, you don't know. With the
addition of that simple image, then you know it's the real bank.



That's what caused Micky to become concerned,
With BA, once I see my image, I'm confident it's
really BA.


Good for you, it never made me feel any better.

I don't know why that would be. How likely do you think
it would be that a hacker would know the image and tag line
that only BA has? And if they do, then they surely don't need
to be phishing via fake websites, which is what the image
challenge prevents.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:05:41 -0700, J0HNS0N
wrote:

micky wrote:

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

I've got every dime I own in Vanguard funds

Any financial advisor, except maybe one who works for Vanguard, wil tell
you that that is a mistake.
You shoudl have a balanced portfolio with
not too much money invested in any one thing

He may already have a balanced portfolio (FUND). My Vanguard fund
actually has "balanced" in its name because of its diversity of many
stocks and bonds.

Some would say you should have some real estate too. Pete said every
penny (oops, every dime. That leaves open the possibilty he has 9 cents
invested elsewhere.) he had was in funds. I didn't mention this
before because I think real estate is a pain, even my own home. (He
may own a home too.)

Also, I'm told as one gets close to retirement, the fraction in stocks
should go down and the fraction in bonds should go up.

or any one company.

And if Vanguard fails he and I have $500K protection (right Trader?).

Although there are often stories of banks that fail and the FDIC or some
organization shows up on Friday afternoon and they work all weekend and
the bank reopens under another name on Monday morning, I'm certain
there are also times when functioning is held up for months. Even if
he gets every penny plus interest or dividends in the long run, he could
spend many months with no access to savings, no vacation trip, no
plastic surgery, no travel to a doctor who specializes in exactly what
he, his wife, or child needs a doctor for, no house purchase when he
finds the house he wants but hasn't sold his old one.


It was the 80s so I don't know if one can find much about Old Court
Savings and Loan on the web, but people waited years to get their money.
People had to keep working when they would have retired if they had
their saving available. Some died before they or their children got
their money. If they had no spouse or heirs, the state got it. Even
before it failed, the governor had put a limit on withdrawals, just like
Greek ATMs, 1000 a month I think.

And I think the whole Federal Savings and Loan Insurance corporatoin
failed. I'm not saying those organizations shouldn't exist. They are a
good thing. But you shouldn't have all your money in one place counting
on them to insure your money and pay you this afternoon when you need
the money. You might wait for months.

And although embezzlement was involved in the case above, I don't think
it requires fraud or a rogue for a given fund or the whole company to
fail. (I was sleeping in 2008 or I'd know more about this.)

NO financial advisor except one who works for the company will tell tell
you it's okay to have all your money invested with one company.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:29:23 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:26:48 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:


Neither hacking nor simple stealilng is fraud.

Fraud: a substantial misrepresentation of fact on which a person is
intended to rely and does rely to his detriment. Something like that
-- it's been 40 years.

I don't know why you're focused on fraud.

You would know if you hadn't snipped and forgotten the lines where you
yourself said

Kurt's point was that *SIPC* does not protect against online
fraud in a brokerage account. And he's correct:

From SIPC:

"Does SIPC protect me if my account is hacked and cash and/or securities are stolen?
-- end quote --

These 4 lines were just above the line of mine that you quoted.



Stealing would be covered by SIPC if the stealing lead to the failure
of the brokerage firm and your assets were involved. An example
would be if some employee of the firm stole customer funds
and it was so extensive that the firm could not cover it, so the
firm goes bust. It's not clear to me that SIPC would cover fraud
either, unless it again lead to the failure of the firm. If you
have a beef over alleged fraud and can prove it, then the firm
has to pay it, not SIPC.

In article ,
micky wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:03:41 -0400,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:


"Make sure your user name, password, and answers to your security
questions are unique and...."

Usually lawyer talk makes a certain amount of sense once parsed - but
that one just doesn't make it.

To my (possibly overly-literal) mind it even implies that the user
somehow has access to the universe of Vanguard IDs and PWs so they can
check themselves....

I've got every dime I own in Vanguard funds

Any financial advisor, except maybe one who works for Vanguard, wil tell
you that that is a mistake. You shoudl have a balanced portfolio with
not too much money invested in any one thing or any one company.


Vanguard has many mutual funds of many different kinds and
Vanguard is generally noted to have the lowest costs (which impacts on
return). So, assuming he has some in the Vanguard Big Cap Fund and some
in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund and some in the Vanguard Bond Fund and
some in the Vanguard Foreign Fund, that should be okay.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
micky wrote:

It was the 80s so I don't know if one can find much about Old Court
Savings and Loan on the web, but people waited years to get their money.
People had to keep working when they would have retired if they had
their saving available. Some died before they or their children got
their money. If they had no spouse or heirs, the state got it. Even
before it failed, the governor had put a limit on withdrawals, just like
Greek ATMs, 1000 a month I think.

This was a state chartered bank and part of the problem was that it
brought down the Maryland state equivalent.


And I think the whole Federal Savings and Loan Insurance corporatoin
failed.
Just the state run one.



NO financial advisor except one who works for the company will tell tell
you it's okay to have all your money invested with one company.

I subscribe to a news letter and know of at least two others that have a
portfolio (in the case of the one I subscribe it is called the Gone
Fishin' Portfolio) in which they suggest all Vanguard Funds. My
newsletter suggests a specific allocation among 11 different funds, but
all are Vanguard.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

Per micky:

Also, I'm told as one gets close to retirement, the fraction in stocks
should go down and the fraction in bonds should go up.

That's what I was told too - by the professional investment advisor that
my-neighbor-the-lawyer relies on.

I think the rationale is that as one gets older, liquidity becomes more
important and there is less chance that one can ride out negative market
fluctuations.

But my reaction was that, with interest rates effectively zero, there is
only one direction that bond values can go: down as the
hopefully-inevitable rise in interest rates occurs.

So it seems like replacing the short-term uncertainty of stocks with the
medium-term certainty that bonds will lose value is not such a clear-cut
decision.

I worked as the second-longest-running contractor in Vanguard's history
for something like 7-8 years and the reason I stick with them
financially is that I know firsthand that they *own* the concept of
integrity.

Frankly, they have become something of a PITA to deal with. They don't
really want to see you face-to-face, although they will if you insist,
but I can live with that because I do not make very many changes.

I also buy into Bogle's spiel about the effect of commissions/fees on
one's return - although I guess there are plenty of no-fee funds out
there besides Vanguards...
--
Pete Cresswell

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:

It was the 80s so I don't know if one can find much about Old Court
Savings and Loan on the web, but people waited years to get their money.
People had to keep working when they would have retired if they had
their saving available. Some died before they or their children got
their money. If they had no spouse or heirs, the state got it. Even
before it failed, the governor had put a limit on withdrawals, just like
Greek ATMs, 1000 a month I think.

This was a state chartered bank and part of the problem was that it
brought down the Maryland state equivalent.

Hindsight is 20:20. There are always things that can go wrong.

And I think the whole Federal Savings and Loan Insurance corporatoin
failed.

Just the state run one.

No, I just checked

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ce_Corporation
"In the 1980s, during the savings and loan crisis, the FSLIC became
insolvent. It was recapitalized with taxpayer money several times, with
$15 billion in 1986 and $10.75 billion in 1987; however, by 1989 it was
too insolvent to save. Pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), the FSLIC was abolished
along with the FHLBB, and the FSLIC savings and loan deposit insurance
responsibility was transferred to the FDIC. The FSLIC Resolution Fund
was created to assume all the assets and liabilities of the FSLIC, which
was to be funded by the Financing Corporation (FICO)."


NO financial advisor except one who works for the company will tell tell
you it's okay to have all your money invested with one company.

I subscribe to a news letter and know of at least two others that have a
portfolio (in the case of the one I subscribe it is called the Gone
Fishin' Portfolio) in which they suggest all Vanguard Funds. My
newsletter suggests a specific allocation among 11 different funds, but
all are Vanguard.

I'll get back to you. At least I plan to.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:16:22 -0400,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per micky:

Also, I'm told as one gets close to retirement, the fraction in stocks
should go down and the fraction in bonds should go up.

That's what I was told too - by the professional investment advisor that
my-neighbor-the-lawyer relies on.

I think the rationale is that as one gets older, liquidity becomes more
important and there is less chance that one can ride out negative market
fluctuations.

But my reaction was that, with interest rates effectively zero, there is
only one direction that bond values can go: down as the
hopefully-inevitable rise in interest rates occurs.

Good point iiuc. This makes me feel better since I've done nothing to
reapportion my savings!

So it seems like replacing the short-term uncertainty of stocks with the
medium-term certainty that bonds will lose value is not such a clear-cut
decision.

I worked as the second-longest-running contractor in Vanguard's history
for something like 7-8 years and the reason I stick with them
financially is that I know firsthand that they *own* the concept of
integrity.

Frankly, they have become something of a PITA to deal with. They don't
really want to see you face-to-face, although they will if you insist,
but I can live with that because I do not make very many changes.

I also buy into Bogle's spiel about the effect of commissions/fees on
one's return - although I guess there are plenty of no-fee funds out
there besides Vanguards...

In article ,
micky wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:

It was the 80s so I don't know if one can find much about Old Court
Savings and Loan on the web, but people waited years to get their money.
People had to keep working when they would have retired if they had
their saving available. Some died before they or their children got
their money. If they had no spouse or heirs, the state got it. Even
before it failed, the governor had put a limit on withdrawals, just like
Greek ATMs, 1000 a month I think.

This was a state chartered bank and part of the problem was that it
brought down the Maryland state equivalent.

Hindsight is 20:20. There are always things that can go wrong.

And I think the whole Federal Savings and Loan Insurance corporatoin
failed.

Just the state run one.

No, I just checked

This particular bank brought down just the state one. That was the
reason it took so long to get the money.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ce_Corporation
"In the 1980s, during the savings and loan crisis, the FSLIC became
insolvent. It was recapitalized with taxpayer money several times, with
$15 billion in 1986 and $10.75 billion in 1987; however, by 1989 it was
too insolvent to save. Pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), the FSLIC was abolished
along with the FHLBB, and the FSLIC savings and loan deposit insurance
responsibility was transferred to the FDIC. The FSLIC Resolution Fund
was created to assume all the assets and liabilities of the FSLIC, which
was to be funded by the Financing Corporation (FICO)."
It was recapitalized immediately so that the money from the
Federally guaranteed funds continued. More or less unabated.




I'll get back to you. At least I plan to.

The one-company standard is only if you are talking about a single
business (be it Facebook or Enron). A single provider of mutual funds
(assuming they offer enough different types of fund is not as bad.
Mutual funds (at least in theory) give you a lot of diversity within a
specific type of stock (they might own Ford, GE, Apple, and other
similar companies in the Big Cap fund for instance) and owning different
types of MF (a little big cap, a smidgen of small cap, a touch of
foreign and a bit of bund funds) covers that kind of diversity.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
micky wrote:


I think the rationale is that as one gets older, liquidity becomes more
important and there is less chance that one can ride out negative market
fluctuations.

But my reaction was that, with interest rates effectively zero, there is
only one direction that bond values can go: down as the
hopefully-inevitable rise in interest rates occurs.

Good point iiuc. This makes me feel better since I've done nothing to
reapportion my savings!

Bond funds are especially tricky since they are priced according to
the current price of the bonds. So, when interest rates uptick, the
price goes down and the bond itself pays less than current rates. If you
hold the bonds yourself, this is less of a concern because you are most
likely to keep it until it matures so the loss of price is largely
theoretical.
Both of the newsletters I subscribe to (FWIW) are saying still own
inidividual bonds, but keep them 5-7 durations as the hit on prices will
be less and you will lose less to inflation should it rear its ugly head
again.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

Per Kurt Ullman:
...inflation should it rear its ugly head again.

That's another prevailing fact that I have a problem with.

Pundit-after-pundit says that we have been and continue to be in a
period with no inflation above-and-beyond the "Normal" values.

Each time I hear that I wonder if the guy actually shops for food and/or
pays his own bills.

My own experience is that people on fixed incomes are and have been for
some years being slowly inflated into poverty. I base that on local
tax amounts, local service fees (like sewer), food prices at the local
supermarkets, and devices that I have purchased for the second or third
time and know the price for each purchase.

Something is missing here. The first thing that comes to mind is that
the people citing low inflation are citing numbers that are not related
to the real-world costs of daily life. And the cynic in me says that
it tends to be in the interest of The Powers That Be to minimize the
"inflation" numbers - whatever they may be. For instance the CPI not
including fuel or food.....
--
Pete Cresswell

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:03:52 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:

It was the 80s so I don't know if one can find much about Old Court
Savings and Loan on the web, but people waited years to get their money.
People had to keep working when they would have retired if they had
their saving available. Some died before they or their children got
their money. If they had no spouse or heirs, the state got it. Even
before it failed, the governor had put a limit on withdrawals, just like
Greek ATMs, 1000 a month I think.

This was a state chartered bank and part of the problem was that it
brought down the Maryland state equivalent.

Hindsight is 20:20. There are always things that can go wrong.

And I think the whole Federal Savings and Loan Insurance corporatoin
failed.

Just the state run one.

No, I just checked

This particular bank brought down just the state one. That was the
reason it took so long to get the money.

Nonetheless. There's always a reason. If you have your money in two
places, when one fails the other will probably still be running.

Or if the IRS freezes your account for some reason, they'll only freeze
enough accounts to pay what they think you owe. If that one account
contains everything you own, you'll be stuck until you work things out
with the IRS.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ce_Corporation
"In the 1980s, during the savings and loan crisis, the FSLIC became
insolvent. It was recapitalized with taxpayer money several times, with
$15 billion in 1986 and $10.75 billion in 1987; however, by 1989 it was
too insolvent to save. Pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), the FSLIC was abolished
along with the FHLBB, and the FSLIC savings and loan deposit insurance
responsibility was transferred to the FDIC. The FSLIC Resolution Fund
was created to assume all the assets and liabilities of the FSLIC, which
was to be funded by the Financing Corporation (FICO)."

It was recapitalized immediately so that the money from the
Federally guaranteed funds continued. More or less unabated.

It still failed which is what I said. If it were to have failed this
year, it might take months for such a law to get passed. Look at the
Import Export bank, etc.




I'll get back to you. At least I plan to.

The one-company standard is only if you are talking about a single
business (be it Facebook or Enron). A single provider of mutual funds
(assuming they offer enough different types of fund is not as bad.
Mutual funds (at least in theory) give you a lot of diversity within a
specific type of stock (they might own Ford, GE, Apple, and other
similar companies in the Big Cap fund for instance) and owning different
types of MF (a little big cap, a smidgen of small cap, a touch of
foreign and a bit of bund funds) covers that kind of diversity.

Of course the funds can be diverse. That wasn't what I was objecting
to. I was objecting to it being the same company handling the funds.
See my point about the IRS, and as I said, I plan to get back to you,
but it's only been an hour.

trader_4 wrote:

But there is some additional risk in
having it all with one mutual fund company. It's theoretically
possible that someone could go rogue at Vanguard, run off with all
the money, etc. You're right, that if Vanguard could not cover it,
failed, etc, then SIPC would cover you up to $500K. But....., while
that all sorts out, which could take an undetermined amount of time,
you wouldn't be able to access your money, liquidate positions, etc.
If you need the money, the market goes south while you're waiting,

Or the market could reverse and go north. Because you were unable to
sell during the panic you might actually have made money when you
again got access to your account.

etc, that could have consequences.

No argument there. Investing itself can have consequences. Even
holding cash in a bank can have consequences.

(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Pundit-after-pundit says that we have been and continue to be in a
period with no inflation above-and-beyond the "Normal" values.

Each time I hear that I wonder if the guy actually shops for food and/or
pays his own bills.

I remember when inflation was 10+ percent/year. These are GOOD times.

micky wrote:

wrote:

He may already have a balanced portfolio (FUND). My Vanguard fund
actually has "balanced" in its name because of its diversity of many
stocks and bonds.

Some would say you should have some real estate too.

There are funds that include real estate.

Pete said every
penny (oops, every dime. That leaves open the possibilty he has 9 cents
invested elsewhere.) he had was in funds. I didn't mention this
before because I think real estate is a pain, even my own home. (He
may own a home too.)

And P may have a defined pension plan and just supplements it with
investing. Unless you know all the facts it's hard to criticize a mans
investing choices.

It was the 80s so I don't know if one can find much about Old Court
Savings and Loan on the web, but people waited years to get their money.

My folks took all their money out of an insured bank account and put
it in an uninsured savings and loan to get a promotional free toaster
and a higher interest rate. The savings and loan failed shortly
thereafter and they lost it all.

But you shouldn't have all your money in one place counting
on them to insure your money and pay you this afternoon when you need
the money. You might wait for months.

Point taken. I am the proud owner of a GM stock certificate that is
now quite worthless. Whoever thought GM would fail??

I disagree with you that P doesn't have a balanced portfolio. A fund
can be a balanced portfolio. I don't know about Ps though. Many people
are overstocked (pun intended) on funds which doesn't improve
diversity, is counter productive, and just increases fees.


And although embezzlement was involved in the case above, I don't think
it requires fraud or a rogue for a given fund or the whole company to
fail. (I was sleeping in 2008 or I'd know more about this.)

I've had my Vanguard fund for over 20 years now, including 2008. Never
lost a dime. (Actually made quite a few dimes.)

NO financial advisor except one who works for the company will tell tell
you it's okay to have all your money invested with one company.

Dunno. I've never used a financial advisor. They are really just sales
people in disguise.

Per J0HNS0N:
I remember when inflation was 10+ percent/year. These are GOOD times.

Relative to 10%, yes - total agreement.

But I question the idea that we are not already experiencing significant
"inflation" - quotes because I am not sure what the technical definition
is.

In fact I do not even know if there is a number that purports to reflect
real-world living expenses for us common people. Certainly CPI does not
because it does not include fuel or food.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per J0HNS0N:
I've had my Vanguard fund for over 20 years now, including 2008. Never
lost a dime. (Actually made quite a few dimes.)

Some years back, their cash fund "broke the buck" - i.e. actually had a
negative return. Vanguard made up the diff internally, so users did
not lose any money.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:39:35 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per J0HNS0N:
I remember when inflation was 10+ percent/year. These are GOOD times.

Relative to 10%, yes - total agreement.

But I question the idea that we are not already experiencing significant
"inflation" - quotes because I am not sure what the technical definition
is.

In fact I do not even know if there is a number that purports to reflect
real-world living expenses for us common people. Certainly CPI does not
because it does not include fuel or food.

Fuel is way cheaper than it has been in several years. Food is going
up here too. Wages are still stagnant though. When they take off that
will accelerate inflation because companies will just pass it on.
Maybe I can get on at McDonalds when the get their $15/hour raise.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:42:17 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per J0HNS0N:
I've had my Vanguard fund for over 20 years now, including 2008. Never
lost a dime. (Actually made quite a few dimes.)

Some years back, their cash fund "broke the buck" - i.e. actually had a
negative return. Vanguard made up the diff internally, so users did
not lose any money.

It was to their advantage to do so. Avoiding the bad publicity was
likely worth it.