Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Definitely-a $100,000 windfall would certainly cover the bulk of tuition and room and board for 4 years at PSU, UM, UW, Cal-Berkeley, UNC and probably some other state universities I didn't research !
fd100. While you are a strict constructionist many here have no problem when the participants let the discussion go where it leads. Your comment about how significant 100k may or may not be in one’s life obviously was a lightening rod for further discussion. Nothing wrong with that.
"$100K is not meaningful to change someone's life." ..........AND.......... "Why not open a new thread and ask what a windfall of $100K would mean..."
Say what?
These are two inherently conflicting statements which beg several questions, the first rhetorical one of course being,
IF $100K is not meaningful to change someone's life, how in the world can it be regarded by anyone as a "windfall"?
To wit, per Experian (bold added): A financial windfall is money you didn't expect to receive. Financial windfalls can range in size from hundreds to millions of dollars, but whatever the amount, they offer an opportunity to improve your financial situation.
Perhaps what the poster was trying to state was best expressed recently by Agent Orange... (Click twice on below) See his buffonish comments at 1:00 of video: "I know this. I don't even know that!"
Definitely-a $100,000 windfall would certainly cover the bulk of tuition and room and board for 4 years at PSU, UM, UW, Cal-Berkeley, UNC and probably some other state universities I didn't research !
@ David Moran. Tuition is a reference to my comment about the significance of 100 grand. Which followed fd100 who contended that same 100large couldn’t change one’s life in a meaningful way.
It frustrates me when a thread can quickly deteriorate into "silly ass" discussion. The thread topic is simply "How would you invest $100,000 now?". Just answer the question, give your reasons for that choice, and move on. The answer to the OPs question will vary from one investor to another, but it is an "investment" question, not a frivolous spending question.
It frustrates me when a thread can quickly deteriorate into "silly ass" discussion. The thread topic is simply "How would you invest $100,000 now?". Just answer the question, give your reasons for that choice, and move on. The answer to the OPs question will vary from one investor to another, but it is an "investment" question, not a frivolous spending question.
This thread jumped the track days ago. I’ve been watching largely for amusement. But I respect peoples’ right to post what they will. Either @Baseball_Fan or the board moderators, ISTM, have discretion to allow / disallow certain comments or topics of conversation. You and I do not.
I must take exception to the new requirement that posters “give your reasons for the choice”. Neither @Baseball_Fan, who started the thread, nor @Gary152, who amplified the requirements (in all caps), mentioned giving reasons. In fact, Gary stressed the need to keep answers short, saying: “The question was simply how would YOU invest it NOW …”. I agree with that interpretation..
Books have been written on the subject of broad diversification (Albeit, it’s only one way to invest.) Anyone who has adhered to this approach for 50+ years hardly needs to explain or justify it. I’m sure everyone here understands the basic concept. As far as I know, I’m still the only poster who broke $100,000 down into exact dollar & cents amounts spread across several ass-it classes. I recommend others do the same so readers might see what $100,000 looks like when broken down into different types of investments (ie: domestic stocks, foreign stocks, fixed income instruments, cash / cash-equivalents, precious metals, etc.)
No one can force anyone to provide any more than the minimal amount of information. If someone wants to know what I am going to invest in, I just assume they may want to know why I am choosing to invest in that way. It more completely explains my investing decision, and my have some value to others to know if that applies to them, or not. Of course, you can do as you please.
On a side note, I don't give a damn about diversification, and don't see it important in my approach to investing--but that is just me, and I am not trying to convince anyone else to be diversified or not in their investing decisions.
Well, it's like Grandpa said to Charlie in Willie Wonka..."sign away Charlie Boy, what have we got to lose?..."
I always thought you got something to say? Say it and who cares how it comes across etc...you got a right to express yourself....I can just as easily ignore anything someone has posted that I don't agree with it or try to respectfully disagree...makes it interesting.
Anyhoo...recently read a posting by The Humble Dollar guy, I forget his name and paraphrasing, he noted that he felt like you are better off keeping it real simple, even if portfolio is not perfect...too many of us tinker too much (my words)...
Also podcast Danielle DiMartino Booth...nothing wrong with stepping out of market, side stepping it for 18 months etc in Tbills, short notes....baby boomers have been convinced marketed to ALWAYS having good portion of inwestments in stonk markets etc....kind of ryhmes with what dtconroe has been posting the past several months....
Good Luck and Good Health to All,
Baseball Fan
Also, where has Lewis B been? hasn't posted in a while, although I never agreed with his left leaning posts, always respected the person and always made me think...hope all's well with LB
@Baseball_Fan, I see articles from Lewis B in Barron's frequently. So, I assume that things are fine with him - may be he is on a short break from MFO.
FUNDS. DIVIDEND-oriented funds are attractive with the market at high levels. Short-term bonds are attractive now due to yield-curve inversion, but that won’t remain so for long. Mentioned are dividend-growth VIG, DGRO, VDIGX; current-dividend VYM; dividend-blend SCHD; equity-income VEIPX; income-builder/global-allocation TIBAX, etc. (By @lewisbraham at MFO)
Comments
This is not about how would you spend it or what it means for you or paying someone's debt.
Why not open a new thread and ask what a windfall of $100K would mean for you and how are you going to use it?
When do we get the link to your magic formulas?
"$100K is not meaningful to change someone's life."
..........AND..........
"Why not open a new thread and ask what a windfall of $100K would mean..."
Say what?
These are two inherently conflicting statements which beg several questions, the first rhetorical one of course being,
IF $100K is not meaningful to change someone's life, how in the world can it be regarded by anyone as a "windfall"?
To wit, per Experian (bold added):
A financial windfall is money you didn't expect to receive. Financial windfalls can range in size from hundreds to millions of dollars, but whatever the amount, they offer an opportunity to improve your financial situation.
Perhaps what the poster was trying to state was best expressed recently by Agent Orange...
(Click twice on below)
See his buffonish comments at 1:00 of video:
"I know this. I don't even know that!"
Got it!
I must take exception to the new requirement that posters “give your reasons for the choice”. Neither @Baseball_Fan, who started the thread, nor @Gary152, who amplified the requirements (in all caps), mentioned giving reasons. In fact, Gary stressed the need to keep answers short, saying: “The question was simply how would YOU invest it NOW …”. I agree with that interpretation..
Books have been written on the subject of broad diversification (Albeit, it’s only one way to invest.) Anyone who has adhered to this approach for 50+ years hardly needs to explain or justify it. I’m sure everyone here understands the basic concept. As far as I know, I’m still the only poster who broke $100,000 down into exact dollar & cents amounts spread across several ass-it classes. I recommend others do the same so readers might see what $100,000 looks like when broken down into different types of investments (ie: domestic stocks, foreign stocks, fixed income instruments, cash / cash-equivalents, precious metals, etc.)
On a side note, I don't give a damn about diversification, and don't see it important in my approach to investing--but that is just me, and I am not trying to convince anyone else to be diversified or not in their investing decisions.
I always thought you got something to say? Say it and who cares how it comes across etc...you got a right to express yourself....I can just as easily ignore anything someone has posted that I don't agree with it or try to respectfully disagree...makes it interesting.
Anyhoo...recently read a posting by The Humble Dollar guy, I forget his name and paraphrasing, he noted that he felt like you are better off keeping it real simple, even if portfolio is not perfect...too many of us tinker too much (my words)...
Also podcast Danielle DiMartino Booth...nothing wrong with stepping out of market, side stepping it for 18 months etc in Tbills, short notes....baby boomers have been convinced marketed to ALWAYS having good portion of inwestments in stonk markets etc....kind of ryhmes with what dtconroe has been posting the past several months....
Good Luck and Good Health to All,
Baseball Fan
Also, where has Lewis B been? hasn't posted in a while, although I never agreed with his left leaning posts, always respected the person and always made me think...hope all's well with LB
Here is from THIS week, Barron's Part 2, 9/18/23,
FUNDS. DIVIDEND-oriented funds are attractive with the market at high levels. Short-term bonds are attractive now due to yield-curve inversion, but that won’t remain so for long. Mentioned are dividend-growth VIG, DGRO, VDIGX; current-dividend VYM; dividend-blend SCHD; equity-income VEIPX; income-builder/global-allocation TIBAX, etc. (By @lewisbraham at MFO)