More financial interference from the Obama White House

[iris lilies]

Apparently I am incapable of managing my own financial affairs. Our President, in his infinitely caring wisdom, has caused his regulators to make a rule that retirement accounts with brokers will be managed on a fee basis, not a commission basis. This is because some people do not understand how their broker makes money.

thanks, a%%hole, for your One Size Fits All solution.

We have a small bit of money up the street at an Edward Jones place, mainly because they maintain a storefront in our neighborhood busness district and I wish to provide a little support for that guy. We have told him "no selling, no churning." He makes a few hundred dollars from our retirement accounts. Now,he is going to make twice as much.

I understand flat fee vs commission and I deliberately make a choice to do as I described above which was win/win for him and for us, although granted he doesnt make much from us. Now he will make more. I will have less.

My disgust for the ever reaching tentacles of Nanny G grows by the day. I am so freeking mad at the initial assumption that we all must be protected from the evil money grubbers, that we are weak, stupid, and incapable of rational decisions.

Isnt it interesting, our Prsident's view of us?

[sweetana3]

I would vote for a choice. Which is how we choose to decide on financial advice. Fee or commission but chosen with knowledge. BUT, I truly believe that the majority of people involved in all kinds of retirement investment accounts have zero idea of what is going on with their accounts. This is based on a variety of conversations held with people and reading a variety of business publications. This is just a heavy handed method of trying to protect the uninformed or as you said, the weak, stupid and incapable of rational decisions.

Well managed accounts with appropriately chosen assets should not have lost the amounts that many say they lost in the last major downturn. But how many people that you know do not understand that markets go both up and DOWN?

[LDAHL]

Clearly Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren are much wiser than the common run of humanity in matters financial. People like you and I need to be protected from our own foolishness until such time as the IRS calls "our" money home.

Capitalism was fun while it lasted, now it's time for the smart people to take over.

[iris lilies]

Clearly Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren are much wiser than the common run of humanity in matters financial. People like you and I need to be protected from our own foolishness until such time as the IRS calls "our" money home.

Capitalism was fun while it lasted, now it's time for the smart people to take over.yeah, that is why they run a gubmnt that is always in the red. They spend more thsn they make. They are so smart.

Idiots!.

[bae]

WTF

[ApatheticNoMore]

They really just need to expand social security, investing for retirement does not work that well for most people (*most* - even 401ks are fee-ed to death etc.). Investments should just be a supplement and then they wouldn't have to worry about it so much, if social security covered the basics and investments were just about travel etc. (they may have been intended to be supplements, but then they may have assumed employers provide pensions - oops). But I suppose Obama does not have that power even if he wanted to.

[jp1]

Perhaps anyone who thinks capitalism is dead should take a longer historical view. Say, back to the 1970's when the government dictated a lot of stuff, right down to how much interest savings accounts could pay. Bonus points to those who know whether banks and S&L's paid the same, or a different rate, and if different, which was always higher.

[jp1]

But back to the OP's point. I would agree as long as there were strong fee disclosure requirements. A lot less unsophisticated people would get sucked into crappy investments if they could see that the financial product salesperson was getting a huge front-loaded commission of, say, $1,000 the first year on a $20,000 investment.

[ToomuchStuff]

I have a friend/former employer, whose known me since I was little. Two years ago, I got to hear him complaining about how his IRA accounts, disappeared and "someone should be watching it". I know there are enough like him who don't know what is the difference between a salesman, and a fiduciary. I also have at least a couple people I know that pretty much could care less when the buddy whose a salesman, decides to move money to get a commission. I often wonder how much of it is lack of caring, and how much of it is not knowing where to find the information.

[catherine]

I have a friend/former employer, whose known me since I was little. Two years ago, I got to hear him complaining about how his IRA accounts, disappeared and "someone should be watching it". I know there are enough like him who don't know what is the difference between a salesman, and a fiduciary. I also have at least a couple people I know that pretty much could care less when the buddy whose a salesman, decides to move money to get a commission. I often wonder how much of it is lack of caring, and how much of it is not knowing where to find the information.

As a financial illiterate, I can testify that to me fees and commissions are huge black hole. When I had my 401k, I just looked at Morningstar and picked something that had a lot of trend liness going up and a good rate of return over a 25yr period. But I have NO IDEA what I was being charged, or if the fee would have been different based on my selection. There is no transparency, and I do believe that financial "advisers" are mostly sales people with quotas, and they will remain as oblique as they can to make a sale.

You can certainly argue that the consumer is responsible for making sound decisions. So some shady financial guys steer you the wrong way, charge you a big commission, and because even wading into the waters of finance is SO overwhelming, you feel relieved just to have made your pick and you make assumptions that of course the guy gets a fee, but I don't think people spend a lot of time asking questions. If they did, would they get the right answers? The jargon alone requires an education.

So, I agree that maybe those regulations are a bit of an overreach on the government's part. OTOH, I think expecting people to be able to outwit brokers at their own game is asking a lot. Maybe there should be a middle ground of more transparency, like the credit cards having to tell you right on your statement how much high interest rates are costing you in the long run.

[LDAHL]

It's true that personal finance requires some thought and effort. So does raising children, operating an automobile, maintaining your health, and any number of other things. There was never some golden age where that was not true. Even in the brief era when pensions were more common, they tended to be fairly small and unprotected from inflation. In the 1970s, "on a fixed income" was a euphemism for "poor".

If people want to devote more energy to planning their vacations than planning for retirement, why should we be shocked by the results? If people refuse to read a prospectus, don't educate themselves on relatively simple concepts like expense ratios or index funds and put themselves at the mercy of either government or the financial services industry, no number of Harvard-educated lawyers can save them.

[catherine]

If people want to devote more energy to planning their vacations than planning for retirement, why should we be shocked by the results?

With all due respect, you're an accountant. I can figure out travel itineraries because the language is pretty easy to understand. I am not stupid or unmotivated. I am diligent and conscientious in most areas of my life, but I look at learning terms like "no load" and "cap" "dollar-cost averaging" with the same trepidation with which I approached calculus. I did read up enough to realize that a simple Vanguard Index Fund was pretty well-matched with my abilities to navigate my financial future.

Here is something I found on the internet of "terms you may need to know" about your 401k. This glossary has hundreds of words. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/glossary.html#.V9lPgMeHrXQ

I agree that people are responsible for themselves and their decisions. I also agree that financial literacy is a skill sorely lacking. And I also agree that this new regulation is too much. But you can't compare being able to untangle the complexities of finance to learning how to steer a car. And you can't deny that some shady brokers are going to take advantage of the typical consumer's ignorance for their own benefit. Given how complicated investments are, the best consumers can do is poke and hope, unless they have a trustworthy adviser.

[JaneV2.0]

Can anyone cite what this new law is? It makes perfect sense to me that notoriously dishonest and greedy institutions like investment companies should have to provide information on fees and churns and how their personnel yuk it up over pauperizing widows and orphans (see Enron circa 2001). OK, maybe not the latter...They're probably more careful these days, anyway. What exactly does this law do?

[Rogar]

When I was a young and inexperienced investor I had stock brokers who both churned my investments and sold me higher commission products. I know better now, but the industry hasn't changed. Granted there is some personal responsibility on the investor, but many look to an investment "advisor" to be a trusted expert and have the best interests of the client. The correct word might be fiduciary. In reality they can push products that give the best return to their employer and some have little more investment education than a car salesman. Looking back to the financial meltdown, was it the unscrupulous greed of the big financial institutions or the ignorance of the borrowers that was the most responsible? I have no sympathy for wall street having more regulations put upon them to protect unwary consumers.

If I understand the new regulation, you can actually sign a contract with a broker that makes them exempt. Sounds like an easy way around the regulation for those so inclined. Seems fair enough to me.

The DOL rule doesn't ban commissions or revenue sharing, but it requires advisers who accept them to have clients sign a best interest contract exemption, or BICE. It pledges the adviser will act in the client's best interests and only earn “reasonable” compensation. The exemption also must disclose information to clients about fees and conflicts of interest.

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160509/FEATURE/160509939/the-dol-fiduciary-rule-will-forever-change-financial-advice-and-the

[iris lilies]

Can anyone cite what this new law is? It makes perfect sense to me that notoriously dishonest and greedy institutions like investment companies should have to provide information on fees and churns and how their personnel yuk it up over pauperizing widows and orphans (see Enron circa 2001). OK, maybe not the latter...They're probably more careful these days, anyway. What exactly does this law do?
It isnt a law, its a regulation. That why I cant yell at my Congressman, it is entirely on Obama.

[LDAHL]

With all due respect, you're an accountant. I can figure out travel itineraries because the language is pretty easy to understand. I am not stupid or unmotivated. I am diligent and conscientious in most areas of my life, but I look at learning terms like "no load" and "cap" "dollar-cost averaging" with the same trepidation with which I approached calculus. I did read up enough to realize that a simple Vanguard Index Fund was pretty well-matched with my abilities to navigate my financial future.

Here is something I found on the internet of "terms you may need to know" about your 401k. This glossary has hundreds of words. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/glossary.html#.V9lPgMeHrXQ

I agree that people are responsible for themselves and their decisions. I also agree that financial literacy is a skill sorely lacking. And I also agree that this new regulation is too much. But you can't compare being able to untangle the complexities of finance to learning how to steer a car. And you can't deny that some shady brokers are going to take advantage of the typical consumer's ignorance for their own benefit. Given how complicated investments are, the best consumers can do is poke and hope, unless they have a trustworthy adviser.

I think people run into personal finance problems not so much because it's all that complex as because the discipline required doesn't come easily. It's been compared to losing weight in that most people can figure out what's required but find it hard to do.

I like Scott Adam's 9-point plan:



Make a will.
Pay off your credit cards.
Get term life insurance if you have a family to support.
Fund your 401k to the maximum.
Fund your IRA to the maximum.
Buy a house if you want to live in a house and can afford it.
Put six months worth of expenses in a money-market account.
Take whatever money is left over and invest 70% in a stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund through any discount broker and never touch it until retirement.
If any of this confuses you, or you have something special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issues), hire a fee-based financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio.

[iris lilies]

When I was a young and inexperienced investor I had stock brokers who both churned my investments and sold me higher commission products. I know better now, but the industry hasn't changed. Granted there is some personal responsibility on the investor, but many look to an investment "advisor" to be a trusted expert and have the best interests of the client. The correct word might be fiduciary. In reality they can push products that give the best return to their employer and some have little more investment education than a car salesman. Looking back to the financial meltdown, was it the unscrupulous greed of the big financial institutions or the ignorance of the borrowers that was the most responsible? I have no sympathy for wall street having more regulations put upon them to protect unwary consumers.

If I understand the new regulation, you can actually sign a contract with a broker that makes them exempt. Sounds like an easy way around the regulation for those so inclined. Seems fair enough to me.

The DOL rule doesn't ban commissions or revenue sharing, but it requires advisers who accept them to have clients sign a best interest contract exemption, or BICE. It pledges the adviser will act in the client's best interests and only earn “reasonable” compensation. The exemption also must disclose information to clients about fees and conflicts of interest.

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160509/FEATURE/160509939/the-dol-fiduciary-rule-will-forever-change-financial-advice-and-the

Thanks Roger, signing a contract to make them exempt from the new regulation may be true, I don't know. dH ddnt say this is an optin. That is worth me looking into.

[Tybee]

I second Rogar's advice, to look into whether there is a workaround here with your guy from the brokerage. If not, I guess I would close the account with the guy and move it into something self-managed, at Schwab, Fidelity, or Vanguard.

I like the Scott Adams plan--that looks very reasonable. I think if you have tried to learn the basics and run into problems, then step 9 makes a lot of sense.

Like Rogar, when I first had a brokerage account, I got scr**ed. Three times. That is why I went to Schwab and committed to doing the learning myself to make it right.

I don't even want to think about the money I lost from these first three guys. So I can actually see the point of the regulation. Which is obviously inappropriate for someone like Iris Lilies, who is a very informed investor.

Thus the workaround. And if no workaround, close that Edwards account. They are notorious for charging fees anyway.

[iris lilies]

With all due respect, you're an accountant. I can figure out travel itineraries because the language is pretty easy to understand. I am not stupid or unmotivated. I am diligent and conscientious in most areas of my life, but I look at learning terms like "no load" and "cap" "dollar-cost averaging" with the same trepidation with which I approached calculus. I did read up enough to realize that a simple Vanguard Index Fund was pretty well-matched with my abilities to navigate my financial future.

Here is something I found on the internet of "terms you may need to know" about your 401k. This glossary has hundreds of words. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/glossary.html#.V9lPgMeHrXQ

I agree that people are responsible for themselves and their decisions. I also agree that financial literacy is a skill sorely lacking. And I also agree that this new regulation is too much. But you can't compare being able to untangle the complexities of finance to learning how to steer a car. And you can't deny that some shady brokers are going to take advantage of the typical consumer's ignorance for their own benefit. Given how complicated investments are, the best consumers can do is poke and hope, unless they have a trustworthy adviser.
And yet, you instinctively found your way through the forest of confusing information into the light of a
vangard self directed fund. What you did is simple and right!

the best financial advice is: if you dont understand it, dont do it. You did what you understand, and that is what many money gurus say is the best thing to do.

now,that said, I will confess here that I dont have a Vanguard fund. I pains me to expose myself this way.:~) For several reasons, most of them historical, our financial instruments are held by brokers. The Edward Jones guy up the street I mentioned earlier has only bits of our mney, others have the most of it. At some point I will be moving some of it to a self directed Vanguard fund because that is the smart thing to do. just because I know what is smart doesnt mean I do it. :)

[iris lilies]

I second Rogar's advice, to look into whether there is a workaround here with your guy from the brokerage. If not, I guess I would close the account with the guy and move it into something self-managed, at Schwab, Fidelity, or Vanguard.

I like the Scott Adams plan--that looks very reasonable. I think if you have tried to learn the basics and run into problems, then step 9 makes a lot of sense.

Like Rogar, when I first had a brokerage account, I got scr**ed. Three times. That is why I went to Schwab and committed to doing the learning myself to make it right.

I don't even want to think about the money I lost from these first three guys. So I can actually see the point of the regulation. Which is obviously inappropriate for someone like Iris Lilies, who is a very informed investor.

Thus the workaround. And if no workaround, close that Edwards account. They are notorious for charging fees anyway.
Hmmm,I am not THAT knowledgable, brokers make momey off me and that is OK. Our main guy is a percentage fee guy and for the moment this is fine with us.

The Ed Jnes guy made only $550 off us in a year, that isn't much at all. I am actually a little embarrassed by that, I would like him to make a little more so we may stick with the new regulation. This is my attempt to support the busnesses in our neighborhood's busness block because I don't utilize the other places for the most part.

Also, with that Edward Jones office I bought library bonds and I didnt know how to do that without a broker.

[JaneV2.0]

"The DOL rule doesn't ban commissions or revenue sharing, but it requires advisers who accept them to have clients sign a best interest contract exemption, or BICE. It pledges the adviser will act in the client's best interests and only earn “reasonable” compensation. The exemption also must disclose information to clients about fees and conflicts of interest."

Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me; can't see what the fuss is about.

[Tybee]

I think shopping local, in all forms, is a good thing to do, so that makes total sense. When I had a managed fund at Fidelity, they were charging 5% annually. And putting me in the same things that they put everyone else in.

So if you like your guy, then by all means, stick with him; he sounds good!

[iris lilies]

"The DOL rule doesn't ban commissions or revenue sharing, but it requires advisers who accept them to have clients sign a best interest contract exemption, or BICE. It pledges the adviser will act in the client's best interests and only earn “reasonable” compensation. The exemption also must disclose information to clients about fees and conflicts of interest."

Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me; can't see what the fuss is about.

i dont know, I dont think its is that simple. I wonder if The Ed Jones Company decided that "reasonable compensation" in their company would be expressed as a flat percentage on the retirement account's balance. As DH explained it to me, this is about retirement accounts only, those defined as such by IRS rules, not general investment accounts.

[ApatheticNoMore]

With all due respect, you're an accountant. I can figure out travel itineraries because the language is pretty easy to understand.

even that might require a background that not everyone has. It does no good to keep assuming everyone comes from some middle class background. Not everyone has highly educated parents etc. to teach them to navigate the world (and I'm not saying they all teach investing per se - rich parents maybe but I'm saying much more basic analytical tools). But yea probably not that difficult with an itinerary. Driving well while not an intellectual skill probably takes many years, but young drivers drive well enough for awhile to not get killed in all probability and then someday they are decent drivers :laff:


I am not stupid or unmotivated. I am diligent and conscientious in most areas of my life, but I look at learning terms like "no load" and "cap" "dollar-cost averaging" with the same trepidation with which I approached calculus. I did read up enough to realize that a simple Vanguard Index Fund was pretty well-matched with my abilities to navigate my financial future.

Here is something I found on the internet of "terms you may need to know" about your 401k. This glossary has hundreds of words. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/glossa...l#.V9lPgMeHrXQ

I agree that people are responsible for themselves and their decisions. I also agree that financial literacy is a skill sorely lacking. And I also agree that this new regulation is too much. But you can't compare being able to untangle the complexities of finance to learning how to steer a car. And you can't deny that some shady brokers are going to take advantage of the typical consumer's ignorance for their own benefit. Given how complicated investments are, the best consumers can do is poke and hope, unless they have a trustworthy adviser.

I find it analogous to saying everyone must learn the basics of information security to protect themselves, until everyone can describe the workings of VPN, encryption, etc.. Nice to have as they say, but realistically not likely. And if they don't they have somehow failed to be responsible adults who probably have no business having kids either as living in a computerized world and failing to know all this is like living in a world with shoes a not learning how to tie one's own shoelace (i'm all for reducing population but ...).

Anyway if the regulation is a ban it seems extreme, if it's just paperwork. Gah do you have any idea how much paperwork you have to sign to see a @#$# doctor these days? All arbitration documents so you can't sue etc. (wow that really makes one feel safe trusting a doctor for a medical procedure - NOT!!! But what choice is there to trust the medical system - as one can't always opt out - and just think "every doctor does that nowdays").


I think people run into personal finance problems not so much because it's all that complex as because the discipline required doesn't come easily. It's been compared to losing weight in that most people can figure out what's required but find it hard to do.

I think the problem there is that many diets leave people hungry ALL THE TIME. So if discipline is fighting hunger all the time, ok, but most people aren't going to win that fight. I fast for 24 hours nearly weekly lately, so I know a little bit about hunger, but everyday eventually wears people down. Or people need to find a way to diet without being hungry all the time. But really extreme plans also derail for other reasons (if you can't ever eat with other people etc. because nothing is "on your diet" for instance). But that's off topic.

[catherine]

And yet, you instinctively found your way through the forest of confusing information into the light of a
vangard self directed fund. What you did is simple and right!


Thanks, IL! That means a lot coming from you!

And BTW, I'm reading Hillbilly Elegy and I am totally sucked in. It raises some profound questions.

[iris lilies]

Thanks, IL! That means a lot coming from you!


And BTW, I'm reading Hillbilly Elegy and I am totally sucked in. It raises some profound questions.

We had some comments on Hillbilly Elegy on the book review thread, about page 22.

[bae]

I think shopping local, in all forms, is a good thing to do, so that makes total sense. When I had a managed fund at Fidelity, they were charging 5% annually. And putting me in the same things that they put everyone else in.


For context, I have someone manage a reasonable chunk of capital for me, and I get charged 0.5%. They use Schwab to execute transactions, so that's a few dollars to Schwab for each one. They maybe do 15-20 transactions a year.

5% is absurd. You might as well just keep your money under the mattress.

[LDAHL]

For context, I have someone manage a reasonable chunk of capital for me, and I get charged 0.5%. They use Schwab to execute transactions, so that's a few dollars to Schwab for each one. They maybe do 15-20 transactions a year.

5% is absurd. You might as well just keep your money under the mattress.

We pay about that amount for management of institutional investments; although I believe the minimum AUM for that rate is $5 million.

5% is disreputable hedge fund territory. The "good" funds generally charge on a "two-and--twenty" schedule (2% of assets under management plus 20% of annual returns). A lot of Vanguards index funds are in the 0.2% range, and some ETFs are even cheaper.

[bae]

We pay about that amount for management of institutional investments; although I believe the minimum AUM for that rate is $5 million.

5% is disreputable hedge fund territory.

Yup.

Our local Community Foundation recently "fired" its investment managers - a Much Larger More Famous Community Foundation that was charging them 1.1% for the honor of letting them invest "beside" them.... There were several other reputable solutions available to them more in the ballpark of the 0.5% or less I pay. That extra 0.5% makes a huge difference, so trying to fight a 5% skimming is, well, criminal.

[ToomuchStuff]

As a financial illiterate, I can testify that to me fees and commissions are huge black hole. When I had my 401k, I just looked at Morningstar and picked something that had a lot of trend liness going up and a good rate of return over a 25yr period. But I have NO IDEA what I was being charged, or if the fee would have been different based on my selection. There is no transparency, and I do believe that financial "advisers" are mostly sales people with quotas, and they will remain as oblique as they can to make a sale.
The jargon alone requires an education.




With all due respect, you're an accountant. I can figure out travel itineraries because the language is pretty easy to understand. I am not stupid or unmotivated. I am diligent and conscientious in most areas of my life, but I look at learning terms like "no load" and "cap" "dollar-cost averaging" with the same trepidation with which I approached calculus. I did read up enough to realize that a simple Vanguard Index Fund was pretty well-matched with my abilities to navigate my financial future.

Here is something I found on the internet of "terms you may need to know" about your 401k. This glossary has hundreds of words. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/glossary.html#.V9lPgMeHrXQ



So much of my family would be considered lower class that my parents making the middle class was really a pretty big thing. However there is a lot we don't discuss, and there was a lot of the old "do what I say, not what I do", that I don't really agree with. (so I may miss good habits as well as bad)
Then, not expecting to live long, retirement wasn't even a thought I ever had. When I finally got started, I ended up losing it all, so I didn't end up on the homeless, and I still almost ended up there (involved in a lawsuit that had a major corporation with deep pockets trying to put it all on me). So I am far behind (and looking at YMOYL, just brought all this back to the forefront). I can honestly say, I really haven't learned much of anything about investing from family. I can also say that it was the one area that got me to buy some DR stuff, but he didn't go into terms, or how to read/dissect a prospectus, etc. (his section on investing is a farce as far as I am concerned, and why should I go to one of his "ELP's" when he hasn't taught you how to be prepared (makes me think of them as just salespeople)).
I read Warren Buffet's autobiography and have his recommended book, the Intelligent Investor, on my to read list. Because at this point, I fully expect to work until I die, and I am fine with that, as I have several friends who haven't "retired" as they enjoy what they do, and can and do work part time. (where I think I would be happy at)
I guess it isn't just about finances, but what do you define as retirement?

[iris lilies]

I learned saving from my family, and a bit about investing. Also, my family didnt have insurance for every little thing, and that was a good life lesson, self insuring. Somewhere in growing up there I learned about two kinds of life insurance, one good (term) and one not so good (whole life.) But being childless, I never felt the meed foe life insurance.

They had a windfall of money when a family farm was sold, so they put that into Mutual funds and from that I gleaned a vague understanding of what a mutual fund was. Then some years later they purchased an annuity. Those do not seems like a good idea to me, so I stay away from it. On annuities I take the position that perhaps some of them are ok in a well balanced portfolio for other people but they are not for me. My parents also had an account with Edward Jones, and that was the basis for my own Edward Jones account because my mother transfrred some instruments to me and it was easiest to move them to another Ed Jones account in my city.

[bae]

I guess it isn't just about finances, but what do you define as retirement?

Retirement - not *having* to work for the income necessary to provide for the lifestyle you are happy with.

I "retired" in my mid-30s, 16 years ago, following the model presented in YMOYL. I still work every day in a variety of fields, but I do so because I find it fulfilling and interesting, and not for the income. Many of the things I do do not pay anything, or pay remotely enough to sustain my family, but having secured my retirement funds early, and moderated my lifestyle, I am free to take up what tasks I find compelling, and not labor for the benefit of any oppressor :-)

[LDAHL]

That guy who runs the Mr. Money Mustache blog is having an on-going hissy fit on the subject of whether he "really" meets the definition of retired if he operates rental real estate, a carpentry business and a profitable blog. He must be the thin-skinned type, because he seems to get a bit hysterical when questioned (perhaps a common trait of the professional guru). I would think of the retirement phase of life as the one period where other people's opinion of you mattered the least.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/13/mr-money-mustache-vs-the-internet-retirement-police/

I kind of like bae's definition. If I don't have the option of walking off the job, I'm not retired. If I'm keeping busy doing things I enjoy and/or believe in, but could quit at a moment's notice, I call that retirement whether or not there's a paycheck involved.

[Tybee]

Wow, LDAHL, hissy fit is right. He is a bit egotistical, isn't he:

"there it is – the official definition of Retirement, of which Early Retirement is just a special case.Why does Mr. Money Mustache get to define it?
Because I have the biggest Early Retirement blog"

[iris lilies]

Oh you guys, let MMM use his own defnition for his own situation if he wants.

I cut him a lot of slack because he came to our country from Canada to make his fortune, and he isnt leaving. You know, Canada? Where everything is supposedly better? He fled it for better opportunity here.

The blog is a surprise income producer and the money it Generate is huge. I think the estimates have been a couple hundred thousand. That probably means it takes in $75,000 haha. I Truly dont know profitability of the blog.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The problem is if the reason he was able to retire is because of an early retirement blog, it's circular at that point *. But if it's because of doing construction or a rental property, then really what does it matter what it's called. If that's how he enjoys making money so be it.

* there's lots of claims but most of the time preciously little actual data on the finances there

[iris lilies]

The problem is if the reason he was able to retire is because of an early retirement blog, it's circular at that point *. But if it's because of doing construction or a rental property, then really what does it matter what it's called. If that's how he enjoys making money so be it.

* there's lots of claims but most of the time preciously little actual data on the finances there
no he retired before the blog really took off. I consider rental income passive income that supports a retired lifestyle. He builds because it is fun.

he had an engineering job and thats how he made the stash. his wife, also Canadian, came to the states to work in a high oaying job and she may be am engneer, too, not,sure.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Apparently I am incapable of managing my own financial affairs. Our President, in his infinitely caring wisdom, has caused his regulators to make a rule that retirement accounts with brokers will be managed on a fee basis, not a commission basis. This is because some people do not understand how their broker makes money.

thanks, a%%hole, for your One Size Fits All solution.

We have a small bit of money up the street at an Edward Jones place, mainly because they maintain a storefront in our neighborhood busness district and I wish to provide a little support for that guy. We have told him "no selling, no churning." He makes a few hundred dollars from our retirement accounts. Now,he is going to make twice as much.

I understand flat fee vs commission and I deliberately make a choice to do as I described above which was win/win for him and for us, although granted he doesnt make much from us. Now he will make more. I will have less.

My disgust for the ever reaching tentacles of Nanny G grows by the day. I am so freeking mad at the initial assumption that we all must be protected from the evil money grubbers, that we are weak, stupid, and incapable of rational decisions.

Isnt it interesting, our Prsident's view of us?I have an idea, IL....no snark here, I am sincere. I have been doing a little better lately.....banquets are picking up, I'm getting more hours on my other job (hotel front desk), I'm still selling a little bit online (mostly getting rid of what I've already listed while I was not so busy), and I've even started painting on the side a few hours a week for some extra money. So my point? I've started investing small amounts of money on an app called Stash - perhaps you are talking of much higher amounts of money than I am and I get that, but the fees are very low and it might be worth a look? Just an idea, that's all. Rob

PS Something I really like (and there's no swarmy link here to click so that I can generate some online income LOL) is that this app has over 30 different investments to go with with a minumum of $5 to start and I believe a $5 minumum to continue adding to the account. For someone like me, this really works.....And there's even a social responsible investing choice and even a LGBT investment choice, too.

Came back yet again to add: I can understand that yourself or someone else who is financially saavy might find the one size fits all approach you refer to quite annoying, yes. The only problem I see here is that not everyone is financially saavy and this is an attempt to get people moving in that general direction, at least get them into the markets more, and I bet you approve of that much, as I've read your comments (once again, no snark intended) regarding people filling up at the public trough. This one size fits all approach might be an effort, no matter how lame some see it, to get people moving towards more of a market based economy and less fillings at the public trough. (spelling?) Just my take on the matter as a semi-financial illiterate (get both of us to a doctor's or dentist office across the border, though, and watch my financial literacy in this one survival based area zoom way ahead of many other American's however.....point being that financial literacy can also be defined by context). Rob

[bae]

Oh you guys, let MMM use his own defnition for his own situation if he wants.


I tried to join the AARP when I retired. They wouldn't have me. Apparently it's an agist organization.

[iris lilies]

Thnaks Rob, I do have other options for investing. Stash xould be interesting for some people.

[flowerseverywhere]

At the very least regulations like this at least generate discussions and some will become more savvy investors. I am not fond of all the regulations that I see popping up everywhere. But I have a story that shows how much they may be needed.
My inlaws talked about their wonderful friend/financial advisor and how he helped them for free. When FIL died we helped with the paperwork. Turns out this free advice was for a 5% commission. Then he put them in load mutual funds we had never heard of. He was working for the mutual fund company so I am guessing he got a percentage of that too. When the paperwork was filled out to transfer everything to her only he was going to again take a 5% commission. We complained to everyone we could find in and out of the company but everything was legal and in the paperwork. We did manage to stop the 5% transfer fee. Stealing from little old ladies. To this day she still has money with them because he is a friend. Makes me ill. We tried to get her to switch to vanguard but she would not. All I know is my first loyalty is to myself. No one is a better steward of my money than me.

[Tybee]

" All I know is my first loyalty is to myself. No one is a better steward of my money than me."
Exactly right, and why I have tried to educate myself, and I handle my own money.