Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

Are the only legitimate ambitions about building up larger and larger piles of savings and investments until you die? gently caress that, too.

Believe it or not, if you have savings and investments you can actually achieve some ambitions instead of just having them remain unfulfilled.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post
So why are you putting an emergency fund into a non-liquid, high-risk product?

It makes no sense at all, dude.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

Maybe I used the wrong financial prowords or something, but this can be liquidated within 24 hours. As soon as the market day closes, I can transfer all of my money immediately. Including on weekends. It's identical to the TFSA I had except now it's generating a higher possible rate of return (and higher possible rate of loss). But I'm mitigating a lot of the ups and downs of the market by contributing to it biweekly and probably sticking fairly long term. At this point one of the most likely uses I'd have for 610 dollars is my car insurance deductible. This won't keep me from being able to pay that.

If you have to liquidate short-term and have the money in a TFSA, you will not only take a loss without capital losses but you will permanently reduce the amount in your TFSA when you make your withdrawal. A TFSA is just a government classification of an account -- you can do anything and everything (well, almost everything. You can't do margin in a TFSA) either inside or outside a TFSA, so if this thing is the exact same thing to your old TFSA, it is probably your new TFSA with just a different product inside of it.

Don't put speculative equity poo poo in your TFSA if there's at all a chance that you might have to take it out at a nasty time. For all the rah-rah talk about TFSAs and RRSPs these days, nothing sucks more than to take a loss and/or withdraw from a registered account. But if you can deal with not having access to the money for a while, then I guess go wild with the TFSA. But again, that's precisely the opposite thing from an emergency fund.

Fraternite fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Feb 18, 2012

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Zo posted:

I thought you can never permanently reduce your TFSA amount. Any amount you withdraw in year x is gone for that year, but then gets added to your allowed amount the following year, in ADDITION to another $5000.

If you put $5000 into your TFSA and buy $5000 of product X -- which then happens to lose value -- and you sell it at $4000 and withdraw the $4000, you can only contribute $4000 back into the TFSA the next year.

Not only did you lose your $1000, you also lost $1000 of space.

Fraternite fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Feb 19, 2012

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post
So how long does it have to stay in the money market fund before you can withdraw it and be profitable after the 2% fee?

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Adar posted:

The correct answer here is to forget about any of the really dumb ideas you've come up with so far and go do blue collar work in the areas where people are actually hiring 25 year olds for lots and lots of cash for a year or two (hopefully your back is good enough to handle it) until you've wiped the slate clean, then go back to school and *then* figure out what to do with the rest of your life before you turn 30.


This.

But given that it involves rote manual labour and dealing with an autocratic and annoying supervisor, it's almost certainly out.

I still can't believe that you walked away from a decent job, Tuyop -- especially when your preferred alternative is apparently being homeless and working minimum wage. You might be in for quite a ride in which you discover that everything can actually get worse...

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

FrozenVent posted:

Don't get your hopes up, but from what I've heard, the competition is far from extreme. There's a reason they pay so much.

How that will be affected by the latest round of cutbacks, I don't know.

I wouldn't be so sure about this.

There's always a ton of competition for any civil service positions. For example, I personally know 3 people who have applied for positions in Nunavut in the past 3 months.

The whole process might be a formality anyways; I wouldn't be surprised if they already know who they're hiring -- especially if s/he's local and Innu.

Tuyop, have you actually been screened in yet? Or have you just applied and sent off two resumes? People usually literally send hundreds of applications to jobs.gc.ca before they are screened in (never mind interviewed) for one, and it's usually for a job they didn't think they would qualify for. You should be applying for close to everything, because half the processes are shams they run before they hire internally and you never know which are which. Frankly, it's usually the better jobs that are the sham competitions, too...

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Baloogan posted:

Yeah, the Canadian civil service is loving corrupt. Especially now after all those deserved cuts.

What? Canadian civil servants are generally overworked and get below average industry pay. The superannuation is nice and there's a few designations that are overpaid (CRs, I'm looking at you), but one doesn't become a public servant to get rich.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Giant Goats posted:

I think you might be overestimating how far a salary like that is going to go in the Arctic

He's also almost certainly not going to get the job, so not applying for more positions is just stupid. There's an average of 1700 applicants for every job on jobs.gc.ca, and chances are they're going to select a local candidate. And this doesn't even include the fact that there's a ton of affected indeterminate workers due to cuts floating around in the Public Service right now and that any one of those layed-off people will have a special level of priority for the position if they're even remotely qualified to do it.

Putting one's eggs in one basket is normally not a good move, and him putting them in this basket is just delusional.

Fraternite fucked around with this message at 18:30 on May 2, 2012

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

DuckConference posted:

I'm an electrical engineer in BC, and a two-page resume has always been standard for us as well.

In Alberta everything resource-based also expects two pages as a default...

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

Vehicle is 2010 Mazda 3 sport GS/GT 2.5L
Premium: 2419

On my car I have third party liability, which means:


Equaling $1 000 000.

With a $1000 deductible for "collision or upset" and "Comprehensive (excluding collision or upset)".

I think the way it breaks down is, I pay:

538 for my million in personal liability
217 for property damage coverage
235 for individual accident benefit assurance
898 for collision
501 for comprehensive
30 as a vehicle fee
for a total of 2419

I don't think there's any way to reduce it, because I asked if it was possible to save any money at all, and they said no. It may be high because I'm a "risky driver" or whatever.

Drop your collision and comprehensive. You'll still be covered for the damage you are responsible for to other people and things (which is the legal minimum), but your poo poo won't be covered for the damage you're responsible for.

The only way I would be able to not justify dropping collision and comprehensive is if you still owe a shitton of money on your car. If you drop C&C and get into another accident in which you are at fault, you'll still have the loan but you won't have the car anymore. So if you don't owe a mint on the vehicle, get rid of C&C now.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

I can't resist anymore, so I'm just going to stop lurking and say it: You are making possibly the most retarded choices over and over and over.

Living on beans is retarded.

Biking to work when that means 50km a day is retarded, especially in winter and/or other inclement weather which you will have to do if you ditch your car.

Having cut up feet and feeling guilty about buying new shoes is retarded.

You've posted your budget many times before, so cut the areas in which you spend stupidly -- don't do retarded things because you are too stupid to make decent choices.

I mean, good God, man. $100 shoes are not your problem.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

I could do this, I just don't like how every credit check somehow reduces my credit score, and what would be the point? When I asked at my new bank about a line of credit for consolidating my Visa onto a lower interest loan, it turned out that the minimum payment would almost triple and the interest rate would only go down by about 4%.

Until I can count on being able to make payments for the necessary amount of time on a loan, it seems irresponsible and potentially dangerous to take on that loan. The visa payments are low enough that I could pay them while working at McDonalds, the loan payments wouldn't be.

Yeah, because God knows you can "afford" to pay more over a longer time instead of paying less by paying it off faster.

You think like a poor person and it's part of the reason you are a poor person, Tuyop. If it's not already clear, this is yet another retarded choice you're making.

Fraternite fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jul 9, 2012

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Leperflesh posted:

e. I will say he is still "thinking like a poor person," mind you. I just disagree that refinancing his credit card at 4% less but triple the min payment is not a good idea when your cashflow is only just barely positive.

I don't think barely putting a dent into your debt is a positive step -- I think it's a step that maintains the status quo and indefinitely flushes more money down the toilet.

Frankly, any sort of change would be good for him because it would either result in a significantly different lifestyle that would start him actually paying off his debt in a reasonable way or it would push him over the edge into a consumer proposal. And either of those is superior to maintaining a barely positive cash flow with a significant amount of debt.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

The Proc posted:

I still don't understand this at all why aren't you dealing with his insurance company?

Because he's tuyop and he doesn't make good choices.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Chronojam posted:

You don't want to eat dog food and beans for a month, either.

Guess again!

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

bam thwok posted:

Are your moving expenses really not getting reimbursed?

If you can demonstrate that it's employment-related and you keep your receipts, you'll get a tax credit.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

Well I don't think we really need to get into it, but read what actually happened to me. The taxes are my fault but aren't a big deal, but this loving accommodations debacle has nothing to do with me.

Haha, keep telling yourself that.

Your whole situation has everything to do with you and your choices

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

Yeah you're right, I should just quit everything and separate myself from society and go into the wilderness to die because the Internet thinks having debt or making mistakes makes you a terrible person.

I'm not suggesting anything like that, though -- all I'm saying is for you to think that "this loving accommodations debacle has nothing to do with me" is crazy, because you went out of your way to make a series of really screwed up choices, frankly.

I don't think you're fundamentally broken, or that you're stupid or something. But you have to realise that the gong show you're currently in is highly related to the fact that you thought living out of a car and/or crashing on friends' couches was a good choice.

It wasn't and it's still not.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Zeta Taskforce posted:

It does have a value, there is a price that someone will pay for it. You already took the biggest hit on depreciation. It isn't going to depreciate to zero anytime soon.

When you get your inheritance you might owe something like $18,500. Say that you can sell it for $13,500. I like the idea of you writing a $5000 check to get rid of $18,500 in debt. You will still have $8,000 left over from your inheritance which you can use to replenish your emergency fund, pay off any remaining credit cards, and use the rest to get yourself a cheaper car that you will own without payments. It will be cheaper to insure too.

So why would he sell it if he's already taken most of the loss on it?

Tuyop, take the inheritance money and pay off debt, but don't sell your car. You need a car (despite what you sometimes think) and this car is great for you.

If you drive it into the ground over the next 9 or 10 years it won't have been a financial disaster in the end. Right now, you're worried so much about your loss that you sound like you want to sell low -- and now is the worst time to sell a decent car like the one you have. If in the end you end up paying $30,000 for a vehicle for 12 years, that's not bad at all.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Zeta Taskforce posted:

He owes 19 thousand dollars on this car. He is going to inherit $13,000. Your plan is for him to dump everything into it, and STILL not pay off the debt. Meaning he will still have the same exact payments he does now. He will keep paying $372. It will take him 18 more months to pay it off. Meaning his cash flow won't change AT ALL.

I know we are all picking on his decisions and his erratic behavior. I think we underestimate the degree that being broke = desperate = deprivation = dumb choices. Being broke is bad for your mental health, your physical health, your relationships and your future. I want him to get traction in his life and that isn't going to happen when according to Breetai's analysis, 94% of his income is going to day to day essentials. Selling this car isn't called selling low. It isn't a stock that will go up. It is called cutting your losses. He doesn't need to wait 9 or 10 years for everything to sort itself out.

In 18 months his cash flow will change by $372, and he'll own a car outright. If you really think he can't continue to make his payments (and he can, frankly), he could even explore refinancing the vehicle with another lender to lower the monthly payments once he isn't upside-down on it anymore. But that's silly, because Tuyop doesn't need more "affordable" payments -- he needs less money paid in interest and the way to do that is to keep on paying the stupid payment for 18 more months. Then he won't need to pay $372 a month on a vehicle, and that will give him the freedom he needs to fix the other problem areas in his finances.

Not having a car is *not* an option, and the best possible car for him right now considering his crappy finances is a reliable, slightly-used car that he won't have to worry about for at least 5 years. And that's what he has.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Daric posted:

How fast does basil grow anyway? At my restaurant, we burn through that stuff quickly so you'd have to have a whole helluva growing on a rotation so you wouldn't ever run out.

Basil grows quickly.

Seriously though, Tuyop, don't do the hydroponics thing. Do plant a huge vegetable garden in the spring, though. And you can even do a lot of basil if you want! At the very least, you'll get a feel for plants and it's a lot cheaper to eat out of a garden than buying vegetables (and it tastes better too).

You should be able to (at the least) get potatoes, beets, carrots, peas, beans, squashes, rhubarb, tomatoes, spices (basil, oregano, thyme, etc.), and onions.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

I found a random $542 deposit from CRA in my account. I didn't think that I qualified for the GST credit. Any Canadian tax ninjas know what it could be?

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/myaccount/

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

HookShot posted:

This is fair enough, but what if when that $542 gets clawed back you don't have that kind of money in your account? You'll get charged $35 for overdrafting, as well as interest until you get your account back in the black, and that absolutely will eat whatever interest you earned and then some.

That's not how the CRA works; they don't hit your account unless they get a garnish order from a court and they have to demonstrate a repeated refusal to pay to a judge before they can get that.

If he was paid in error or gets reassessed they'll just issue him a new assessment and divert all future refunds and/or payments to that amount owed until they're even.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post
I got Michelin Defenders from Costco (in Canada, nonetheless!) 1 month ago and it cost me $518 including tax. Ignore everything Tuyop says about tires in Canada, because it's just painfully obvious he's just really really bad at buying anything.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

cstine posted:

or when I wanted to turn the front yard into a garden,

This is a great idea and your wife is crazy, fyi.

Gardening together is great fun, and you can get a lot more yield than you think out of a small area like that.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

It's just that her mom (the SIL) is not going to be able to do that for her daughter and we feel really bad about it.

Hey guess what! You can't either!

In fact, she might even be objectively better off than you if she doesn't have $50k of debt. Never thought of it that way before, huh?

Fraternite fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Dec 11, 2012

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

I'm also cooking Christmas dinner instead of buying my family anything. This is causing conflicts with my mother who doesn't agree about how much butter or sitting time or bacon a turkey needs. We shall see who's (whose?) turkey is superior.

whose

who's = who is

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

That's a good idea, but what should I do with my balances right now?

I have 14.5k @ 9.5% in a line of credit
14.5k @ 4.5% in a student line of credit
19.5k @ 1.9% in a car loan.

I really want to just throw all the money except two 1k buffers onto the line of credit and use that for "springy debt" a la Mr money mustache.

This is a good decision, tuyop. We poo poo all over you for the bad ones, but this is a good choice -- so know you're getting better at them!

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

And my credit is costing me 9.5% and my efund generates .2% or something. I'm like 50k away from having any net savings. It's an expensive thing to maintain for reasons that I don't understand.

Like, imagine that I won't spend my emergency line of credit balance on anything but real emergencies. (that is, any pressing lack of shelter, food, or transportation that can't be mitigated by making do with less) why should I spend ~9.3% to keep money in my bank account?

You obviously shouldn't.

Open lines of credit with a zero balance make for an acceptable emergency fund when you still have debt outstanding. Obviously in a perfect world you would have savings for an emergency fund, but right now the choice is whether to pay 9.5% interest to keep cash in the bank or pay nothing and have access to cash (at the same 9.5% interest rate) if you need it in the future. You would be a fool to pay a lot of interest needlessly, and you're currently paying a lot of interest needlessly -- so pay off your debt.

Chronojam posted:

:stare:

In the long term you want to get out of the mindset of carrying debt or leaning on credit, and instead, relying on savings. Savings for your purchases, savings for your "oh poo poo" moments. Tuyop should be able to save Tuyop without asking Visa for another loaner thousand.

He'll do that a lot faster if he stops paying 9.5% on his debt and just pays it off immediately.

Fraternite fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jan 2, 2013

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post
You guys do realise that there are no fees attached to a line of credit unless you have a balance, right? And you also realise that a line of credit in Canada is another bank account attached to his debit card, yes?

There is zero difference between cash available in a bank account and cash available on a line of credit, short of the fact that you pay interest when you have a balance on your line of credit and the bank doesn't pay you poo poo when you have a balance on your savings account.

Tuyop, pay off the 9.5% debt with your cash now. If you need cash in the future (which you almost certainly won't) just take it out at 9.5% again. The only difference is that you won't be paying interest now for no loving reason at all. I can't seriously believe people are advocating that you carry debt for some stupid punitive psychology or whatever it is.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Leperflesh posted:

I find it difficult to believe you've actually read this thread, and yet think this is likely. Tuyop has experienced live right in front of us in dramatic Technicolor the exact reason why his previous assumption that $750 was an adequate cash safety net was completely wrong.

Who cares?

Even if he takes the cash out again 3 months from now he won't have paid 3 months interest. That's how lines of credit work.

And more importantly, if you think he's incapable of emerging from debt you shouldn't be in this thread. People shat all over Cornholio too but he emerged from his money problems by following good advice and slowly changing his behaviour. Tuyop can slowly change his behaviour, and paying down his debt as he goes is the only way he'll do that. I don't know where this vibe of "tuyop shouldn't get good advice because he's a fuckup" is coming from, but it's completely unfair and unhelpful. The guy should pay down his line of credit ASAP with the cash he has because it reduces his interest (and he doesn't need to worry about the credit being cut back once he does that!) -- and that's objectively good advice. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fraternite fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 3, 2013

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

dreesemonkey posted:

Just chiming in with the cheap-wedding brigade. I don't remember what my wife and I paid but it was probably $3-4k for everything including probably 150ish guests.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about the number of guests if you have the cost per guest under control -- in fact, you should be able to turn a profit if that's what floats your boat. For reference, we paid $4.5k for our wedding in 2011 and we had 182 guests.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Higgy posted:

No one is saying he shouldn't get good advice but saying he won't need cash for unforseen events is a joke because Tuyop, for as much as I want to see him do well, is apparently a singularity of Bad Luck. It's better in almost every case to pay for emergencies with cash when possible and to not rely on credit.

Okay, literally the only difference between "cash" and "credit" here is which bank account he withdraws from when he goes to the ATM unless you're advocating he dig a hole in the ground in his backyard and hide his money that way.

Oh, and the other *insignificant* difference is that if he does it your way he'll keep carrying almost $7,000 at nearly 10% interest completely unnecessarily, but hay, we in BFC are big fans of people paying interest for no loving reason whatsoever so I guess he should keep the "cash" in the account that ends in 043543 instead of not paying interest and using the account that ends in 78970 in the event of a possible future emergency.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

CuddleChunks posted:

I think the point we're trying to make is that you can't afford nice things.

This isn't true anymore than it was true for Cornholio once he got his budget under control.

It certainly isn't perfect money management, but if the outstanding debt continues to go down regularly (and it has) he's on the path to sustainability. All he needs to do is be happy with his pace. Bitching at him because he's intentionally not min-maxing his money like stats in a video game is just stupid, frankly.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Jeffrey posted:

I'm pretty sure he is in Canada and you are quoting US rules, but I could be wrong. Feel free to ignore me if you were aware of this.

He's right, you're wrong.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.nsf/eng/br02057.html

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

I am OK posted:

It's not nuts when you take the massive debt into account.

No, it really is.

Doing meaningful work is an important part of a lot of people's self-worth, and getting paid to do nothing doesn't really cut it.

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post
A RRSP isn't a type of account per se, tuyop -- it's a tax classification. You can have normal bank accounts designated RRSP, or stuff like GICs, or stuff like ETFs and mutual funds, or even accounts that hold things like individual common stocks. Your appropriate asset mix all depends on what sort of other retirement income you'll have, your time horizon, and your stomach for risk -- among other things. This is independent of the tax classification.

The chief way RRSPs work is that you defer tax until retirement, i.e. if you made $50k last year and put $5k into your RRSP, your taxable income is only $45k. You'll pay income tax on everything you withdraw at retirement, so the general principle is that you only put stuff into RRSPs if your tax bracket then is likely to be lower than your tax bracket now.

A TFSA is the same thing, incidentally. It's a tax classification. But instead of contributing to it with pre-tax dollars like a RRSP, you put post-tax dollars in. The corollary of this is that you can withdraw your gains tax free, because you already paid on the money going in. This is generally better for lower-income folks, because they don't derive the same benefit of tax deferral that a higher income person does.

Whether a TFSA or RRSP is more appropriate for you depends on 1) your income now, 2) your projected retirement income, and maybe 3) benefits of certain asset classes in certain accounts (i.e. you won't pay US withholding tax on American dividends in your RRSP, but you will in your TFSA so it's better to hold that sort of stuff in a RRSP). But yeah, a TFSA almost always beats a non-registered account -- so if you're going to save it's almost always better to do it in a TFSA than a normal account.


Edit: Do you know what a "mutual fund" is? Or an ETF? Or a "money market fund"? Or what "self-directed" means? Or what a "dividend" is? I have no idea what level of sophistication you have with this sort of stuff, so getting answers to basic stuff like that is probably a good starting place for us if you want advice.

Fraternite fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Feb 22, 2013

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post

tuyop posted:

Yes, I guess I'll just define those terms off the top of my head to give you an idea:

Mutual Fund: a collection of stocks and bonds that is managed by a company to try to produce money.
ETF: I don't know this one. (wikipedia says Exchange-traded fund, but I don't really know what the difference is between these and other stuff is because I don't understand most of the wikipedia article)
Money Market Fund: A mutual fund that consists of more bonds and stuff and is mostly secure. Like a step up from a savings account.
Self-Directed: Managed by you rather than a manager. I imagine you can use a self-directed account to buy normal mutual funds as well as passively managed index funds and stuff though, so I don't really get it.
Dividend: A percentage of an investment paid by a company to its shareholders. Corporations can distribute profits as dividends sometimes.

Okay, not bad. You know more than most people already.

quote:

I should rephrase. I know that an RRSP isn't actually an account, but right now I don't have any accounts classified as RRSPs and this book says I should start one or something like it. I'm wondering what company to go with and what account to get, if any.

What's your risk tolerance? What's your time horizon? Do you have any debt yet to pay off? Will you need this money for a down payment some day? What tax bracket are you going to be in for the next 5 years? And after that? What about retirement? What are your return goals? Do you want to beat the market and risk underperforming the market, or are you happy tracking the market? What about your spouse? Are you likely to inherit anything?

These are the sorts of questions a fee-only advisor should ask you. This sort of stuff can get complicated, so head off to the longterm savings thread and read up. But really, you should try to find a fee-only advisor after familiarising yourself with the basics unless you really like to manage money. I'd give you advice, but people here love to track the market and I have no intention of getting drowned out by people who think buying individual stocks is always for suckers. But knowing you and your spreadsheets, maybe this is a good hobby for you...

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fraternite
Dec 24, 2001

by Y Kant Ozma Post
Hay it's a T-shirt!

Thanks tuyop.

  • Locked thread