| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
wrote in message ... On Jul 15, 6:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: I could not figure out what you were referring to when you said " Right. What you described is not risk. It's pretty much guaranteed." Dan I mean this: There is very little downside risk in Social Security, as there is very little downside risk in, say, Treasury bonds. But. in contrast, all private investments have downside risk. There are no guarantees. So your claim that investment experts think there is risk in SS, if that's actually what they say, is not correct. Any downside, if you want to call it that, is known and fairly predictable. Risk is the result of downward movements that you can't predict. -- Ed Huntress |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
On Jul 15, 9:22*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
I mean this: There is very little downside risk in Social Security, as there is very little downside risk in, say, Treasury bonds. But. in contrast, all private investments have downside risk. There are no guarantees. So your claim that investment experts think there is risk in SS, if that's actually what they say, is not correct. Any downside, if you want to call it that, is known and fairly predictable. Risk is the result of downward movements that you can't predict. -- Ed Huntress There is little upside reward in Social Security too. There are two main problems with Social Security. The first is that it is no way close to enough to retire on. And the second is the money that is taken reduces the amount you have to spend on being sure you have enough to retire on. And yes the investment experts say Social Security is inadequate. You are taking a considerable risk if you depend on Social Security to provide a significant part of your retirement. Can you really predict how they are going to revise Social Security when there is only a couple of workers per retiree? There is considerable risk in government bonds. When the interest rates rise, the value of bonds goes down. Sure held to maturity they will pay the same amount. But you could have not bought them and bought the higher interest rate bonds later. So although you get the interest rate you thought you would get, you lost the opportunity to buy bonds that pay more. Or if you need the money now, you will have to take a loss on the bonds. Dan |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
On Jul 15, 10:47*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Yeah, well, no disagreement there, except that the risk in government bonds really is very low compared to private equities. The risk is lower for default. The risk of interest rates going up is exactly the same. What you're calling "risk" is the risk that you can't live on it. That's true enough, but you know roughly how much it will be. That's the security part, and anyone who had his 401k creamed a few years ago (raising hand here) has a personal sense of the difference. There is no risk that you can't live on it. That is certain. It does not help to know how much it is unless it is worth something. I rolled my 401k over to an IRA as it provided better options. And my IRA did go down, but always remained much more valuable than my Social Security. So my personal sense is that even with a significant recession, the 401k is much better than Social Security. Have you funded your 401k with the same amount of money that is taken for Social Security? Ed Huntress I am going to stop here. I think further discussion is useless. I can see that I am not going to learn anything about investing from you, and I do not see you learning anything from me. Dan |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
wrote in message
... On Jul 14, 10:57 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: But that would upend the idea that Social Security is *secure*. Investment in business is always a risk. Philosophically, I'm not in favor of adding risk to the system. When you're ready to retire, it's too late to be rolling dice. To the degree that the government is involved with the real economy, my feeling is that their primary job is to encourage growth. -- Ed Huntress Mutual fund managers believe there is also a risk of not being invested. That is the risk Social Security is now taking. It is not invested and it is not providing any return. A diversified investment is safer than one that is not diversified. Dan Reply: The excess SS money is a cash cow for the Federal government, hiding even higher deficits. My suggestion, is any SS / Medicare surplus be used to buy down the national debt. Any buy down lowers the debt limit by that much and the government can not spend the money as part of the general fund. |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
"Califbill" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Jul 14, 10:57 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: But that would upend the idea that Social Security is *secure*. Investment in business is always a risk. Philosophically, I'm not in favor of adding risk to the system. When you're ready to retire, it's too late to be rolling dice. To the degree that the government is involved with the real economy, my feeling is that their primary job is to encourage growth. -- Ed Huntress Mutual fund managers believe there is also a risk of not being invested. That is the risk Social Security is now taking. It is not invested and it is not providing any return. A diversified investment is safer than one that is not diversified. Dan Do these mutual fund managers say what they think SS fund should be invested in" -- Ed Huntress Reply: The excess SS money is a cash cow for the Federal government, hiding even higher deficits. My suggestion, is any SS / Medicare surplus be used to buy down the national debt. Any buy down lowers the debt limit by that much and the government can not spend the money as part of the general fund. |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
On Aug 11, 12:11*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Mutual fund managers believe there is also a risk of not being invested. *That is the risk Social Security is now taking. *It is not invested and it is not providing any return. *A diversified investment is safer than one that is not diversified. Dan Do these mutual fund managers say what they think SS fund should be invested in" -- Ed Huntress I said that they believe there is a risk in not being invested. I did not say they had any opinions about Social Security. Dan |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
wrote in message ... On Aug 11, 12:11 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Mutual fund managers believe there is also a risk of not being invested. That is the risk Social Security is now taking. It is not invested and it is not providing any return. A diversified investment is safer than one that is not diversified. Dan Do these mutual fund managers say what they think SS fund should be invested in" -- Ed Huntress I said that they believe there is a risk in not being invested. I did not say they had any opinions about Social Security. Dan So, if that is the risk Social Security is now taking, what would be the safer alternative? What should it be invested in? -- Ed Huntress |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
On 8/11/2011 6:28 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message ... On Aug 11, 12:11 am, "Ed wrote: Mutual fund managers believe there is also a risk of not being invested. That is the risk Social Security is now taking. It is not invested and it is not providing any return. A diversified investment is safer than one that is not diversified. Dan Do these mutual fund managers say what they think SS fund should be invested in" -- Ed Huntress I said that they believe there is a risk in not being invested. I did not say they had any opinions about Social Security. Dan So, if that is the risk Social Security is now taking, what would be the safer alternative? What should it be invested in? aaah, the point is that low risk carries an opportunity cost, the income you fail to earn when the higher risk alternatives go up in value. lowest risk usually (but not always) equates to lowest return. the "not always" part comes into play when one of the risks that causes the higher risk alternatives to be higher risk, materializes. -- www.wbnoble.com |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
"Bill Noble" wrote in message ... On 8/11/2011 6:28 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message ... On Aug 11, 12:11 am, "Ed wrote: Mutual fund managers believe there is also a risk of not being invested. That is the risk Social Security is now taking. It is not invested and it is not providing any return. A diversified investment is safer than one that is not diversified. Dan Do these mutual fund managers say what they think SS fund should be invested in" -- Ed Huntress I said that they believe there is a risk in not being invested. I did not say they had any opinions about Social Security. Dan So, if that is the risk Social Security is now taking, what would be the safer alternative? What should it be invested in? aaah, the point is that low risk carries an opportunity cost, the income you fail to earn when the higher risk alternatives go up in value. lowest risk usually (but not always) equates to lowest return. the "not always" part comes into play when one of the risks that causes the higher risk alternatives to be higher risk, materializes. I don't htink that's how Dan is using the term, Bill. He's brought this up before. What he's calling the "risk" of not being invested actually is the result of a *lack* of risk. In fact, given normal markets and over the long term, it's a near-certainty that an escrow account, or a defined-payment plan backed by government securities, will not "perform" as well as a good investment plan. It's not designed to "perform." It's designed to nearly eliminate risk. And Dan's calling that the "risk." It's a misuse of the meaning of risk, and possibly an attempt to produce a paradoxical meaning for something that actually means the opposite. In other words, it's double-speak. -- Ed Huntress -- www.wbnoble.com |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:15:55 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote: snip Mutual fund managers believe there is also a risk of not being invested. That is the risk Social Security is now taking. It is not invested and it is not providing any return. A diversified investment is safer than one that is not diversified. ============= This is also known as "counting your chickens before they are hatched," or possibly "mark to myth" asset valuation. |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
On Aug 11, 9:28*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
So, if that is the risk Social Security is now taking, what would be the safer alternative? What should it be invested in? -- Ed Huntress I believe that as long as one can prove that one is accumulating assets for retirement, that one ought to be able to pay less FICA in return for not collecting Social Security upon retirement. One would still have to pay some FICA to support the retirement of those that need help. In other words people should be free to choose where the money is invested. I do not believe it should be a government decision . Some people might invest in Bonds, some stocks, some rental property. There is no one size fits all solution, but the current scheme does just that. Dan |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
On Aug 11, 10:59*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Bill Noble" wrote in message ... On 8/11/2011 6:28 AM, Ed Huntress wrote: *wrote in message .... On Aug 11, 12:11 am, "Ed *wrote: Mutual fund managers believe there is also a risk of not being invested. That is the risk Social Security is now taking. It is not invested and it is not providing any return. A diversified investment is safer than one that is not diversified. Dan Do these mutual fund managers say what they think SS fund should be invested in" -- Ed Huntress I said that they believe there is a risk in not being invested. *I did not say they had any opinions about Social Security. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan So, if that is the risk Social Security is now taking, what would be the safer alternative? What should it be invested in? aaah, the point is that low risk carries an opportunity cost, the income you fail to earn when the higher risk alternatives go up in value. lowest risk usually (but not always) equates to lowest return. *the "not always" part comes into play when one of the risks that causes the higher risk alternatives to be higher risk, materializes. I don't htink that's how Dan is using the term, Bill. He's brought this up before. What he's calling the "risk" of not being invested actually is the result of a *lack* of risk. In fact, given normal markets and over the long term, it's a near-certainty that an escrow account, or a defined-payment plan backed by government securities, will not "perform" as well as a good investment plan. It's not designed to "perform." It's designed to nearly eliminate risk. And Dan's calling that the "risk." It's a misuse of the meaning of risk, and possibly an attempt to produce a paradoxical meaning for something that actually means the opposite. In other words, it's double-speak. -- Ed Huntress -- www.wbnoble.com Bill understands. You do not. Have you spent much time learning about investments? Dan |
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter