Are You Still In?

[Barbaraok]

Is this company one that you would invest in if you hadn't been left the annuity?  And are you of an age when you will have to take RMDs from that account?     Feeling comfortable with the annuity company would be your first task. 

If it were me, I'd be moving it into my investment accounts, but that is because I feel very, very comfortable with our accounts. 

Barb

 

[Charlied]

At 68, I'm in similar situation, I transferred my 401 into a IRA and I have some winners and a few losers. All together I'm still about 10% ahead , FBGRX has done great, PFL provides me with a dividend taken as a monthly check, KMX is finally in the green some, FNJN was a good research find, PPA was a good choice for the Presidential change, I just knew JBLU was going to be a good one with the low oil price but it's -9% for a year. CJES was a bad choice I thought fracking would make them do better but the oil price dropped too low,  

[hdrider]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:06 PM, Barbaraok said:

Is this company one that you would invest in if you hadn't been left the annuity?  And are you of an age when you will have to take RMDs from that account?     Feeling comfortable with the annuity company would be your first task. 

If it were me, I'd be moving it into my investment accounts, but that is because I feel very, very comfortable with our accounts. 

Barb

 

 

 It's a company that our financial advisor with Edward Jones says they work with so I guess the answer could be yes as far as someone we might have money with otherwise. There are a few years left before funds would have to be taken out because of age.

 

     

[Ron]

It sounds like you are already paying Edward Jones for financial advice - have you asked your advisor the same question?  What's his/her advice?

[hdrider]

21 minutes ago, Ron said:

It sounds like you are already paying Edward Jones for financial advice - have you asked your advisor the same question?  What's his/her advice?

 Sort of what I expected, move it to them.

[Ron]

Sort of what I expected too.  Moving it to them increases your AUM which, after EJ gets its cut will reduce your 3% annuity to, I'm guessing, 1.5% to 2%.  Maybe not so attractive from that standpoint - but that's what is happening to all of your investments managed by EJ.

[RV_]

The entire basis of energy and investing is about to come to a head and when it hits here will change big accounts to broke if they are not ready. The scoffers are the ones that will get the worst of it because they have been so nasty about the new tech and renewables they will see any admission of climate vchange being man exacerbated as ruining their credibility. I am talking big investor advising firms, not present company. But here it comes big time. The head of Dutch Shell just announced that they see the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) age ending by 2040. He also announced they are planning for lower and lower prices as demand drops and to use their position in Nat Gas to help their transition to renewables.

Excellent article, here is an excerpt of several paragraphs that may cause you to read the whole thing.

 

Excerpts:

“In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Ben Van Beurden, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, said his company had changed its mindset to a “lower forever” price of oil. Perhaps the most significant thing about his new position is that it refers to a change in “mindset,” rather than mere adoption of a new business plan.

 

Van Beurden clearly believes that Shell has to be prepared for a depressed price of oil, and consequently of the oil industry, from which it never recovers.

 

Notably, Van Beurden also added that his next major purchase would be an electric car.

 

Other competitors include technologies that are almost certain to lead us to abandon fossil fuels altogether. These range from walking and biking to using solar and wind power to provide energy for transportation and heating. They include alternatives, such as biofuels and synthetic fuels. They also include efficiency.

 

At the other end of the spectrum are those organizations whose leadership has asserted that their companies will not be affected by changes in the field of energy. Exxon’s former CEO Rex Tillerson, who is currently the U.S. Secretary of State, told his shareholders at the annual meeting in 2016 that they did not need to worry; no assets would be stranded. The shareholders found out within months that he was wrong on assets of over two billion barrels of oil.

We live in changing times. Traditional technologies are already close to obsolete. Solar power, with battery backup to keep things running at night, is already delivering electricity at prices that out-compete combined cycle natural gas.

The problem with denial is that it will catch up with you, if you indulge in it too long. And this is not true just of companies, but of those who work in the interests of passing technologies. Most famously, the official position of the U.S. federal government is that climate change and pollution are not problems. Our executive branch has a lesson to learn, and if it does not learn it before things get worse, it will have to deal with the political consequences.

For some of our political leaders, “sustainability” seems to be a dirty word. They might do well to consider the implications of that view. A stubbornly held marriage between a political party and a program of denial can only end with the demise of both.

 

And as oil passes away, renewable power will replace it. As renewable power rises, with prices expected to continue falling, natural gas will also almost certainly join oil in a terminal decline.

 

In short, the oil industry has to be prepared for a final phase of continued negative growth. And though some companies are attempting to switch to natural gas, because they are familiar with that, they will have to be ready for continued negative growth in that industry, too.”

 

The rest of the article is here:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/28/royal-dutch-shell-new-mindset/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

Then for those wanting more:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/11/new-study-suggests-headed-warmest-climate-half-billion-years/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+(CleanTechnica)

This next link links to another 20 or so articles just click on each topic:

https://cleantechnica.com/70-80-99-9-100-renewables-study-central/

These facts for any sane investor shows a clear path to avoid, denial or not.

 

 

[Ron]

I suspect the someday we may see less demand for oil but I'm personally convinced it's not going to happen anytime on the immediate investing horizon.  Demand is still steadily increasing but supply from cheaper sources in recent years (fracking, tar sands etc.) have had a dramatic effect on the economics of the oil industry.  But ever since oil was discovered these things have gone in cycles and every cycle brings out the prognosticators who make convincing arguments that "things will never be the same again.  When I was still in high school I remember reading about imminent "peak oil" being touted by many scientific "experts".  I remember when gasoline prices were so high just a few years ago how many experts said we'd never see gasoline below $3/gal again - I bought it this week for less than $2/gal.  Bottom line in my opinion is that NO ONE can predict how these things will evolve.  Just invest with the best knowledge available at the time and mostly ignore people who try to predict what will happen several years down the road.  It might be fun to speculate but it generally does not lead to profitable investing.  No matter which side of an argument one takes he can find "experts" who will confirm his own opinions.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Ron

[RV_]

All your previous examples were when little was known about solar, wind, let alone BEVs, let alone installed and working.

Did you read any of the links provided? If so, which did you disagree with and why?

I know, when all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails. We are no longer limited to just ICE age engines. In a few years good riddance.

The ICE (Internal Combustion Engines ) age was in full swing, and no alternatives existed when your examples occurred. The ICE age is over. What part of the fact that Germany, France, India, China, and most recently the UK, and most of the rest of the world, are making gas and diesel engines illegal from 2030-2050 is unclear? 

As far as that information and acting on it not good for investing, I still get a lot of wishing they'd listened to me in 2010 when Tesla shares were under $23.00 a share. This thread pretty much covers that. And now the model 3 is being delivered to the first reservation holders.

Only the US ducked out of the Paris accords and many US states are doing them anyway. I think mixing up politics with investing is the sure way to lose money.

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by RV_

[justRich]

Britain to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040 this was announced last week.

 

[RV_]

Yep Rich,

For 80 year olds it might not make much difference, but at 65 

l think I'll get to 2037and see the start unless they crack the gene therapy for the now found aging gene.

Technology is going to change things soon for all of us.

[RV_]

Some news that is very appropriate. All year long financial advisors and brokers of many stripes all started to predict the end of the Bull market going from may be the end of the bull market to is the beginning of the end of the bull market.

Excerpt:

"It’s All Over!

It was just 10 short months ago when the definitive statements started rolling out. Despite an established 36-year track record and a long history of denying the prior proclamations of some of the most celebrated investors in the world including that guy from Nebraska that so many like to reference, many in the investment world were not simply suggesting that the bond bull market might be over by using qualifiers such as may, potentially, or likely, they were emphatically proclaiming that this time was it with words like definitely, and “people are going to start to lose money in bonds”, and “the Great Rotation out of bonds and into stocks is underway”. Except none of these things were true then and they are still not true today.

So what happened that had so many investors thinking that the end of the more than three decade bull market had finally arrived? A near doubling of the 10-Year U.S. Treasury yield from the lows of 1.33% in July 2016 to a high of 2.60% less than six months later that included an 81 basis point jump in yields over the course of 27 business days from early November to mid December last year. A notable move indeed. But the end of a bull market it certainly was not.

 

Alive And Well

A number of lessons can be learned from the bold declarations about bonds (BND) late last year that apply not only to bonds (AGG) but also can be translated across all asset classes.

It Takes Time

First, an established bull market does not come to an end overnight. Instead, it is a process that takes time to play out.

But isn’t a six-month period that includes a dramatic rise over the course of about a month certainly much longer than overnight!? In the case today’s bond bull market, absolutely not. For the longer a bull market is established, the longer the bull market topping process typically plays itself out. And at 36 years and counting, this is a bull market of epic proportions that may take a few years of topping and backfilling before it finally meets its demise.

Seek Confirmation Before Declaration

Second, confirmation is needed before we can flippantly declare that a bull market is over. Sure, 10-Year Treasury (IEF) yields doubled in the second half of last year. But this doubling took place from a historic bottom at 1.37% that was below the long-term trading range for 10-Year Treasury yields dating back to the early 1980s. Thus, what took place late last year was not the end of a bull market but instead was a move by an asset class that had gotten overextended to the upside and subsequently mean reverted back toward the top end of its multi-year trading channel."

There are 10 more pages with charts in that article here: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4105715-bull-market?uprof=82&isDirectRoadblock=false

[justRich]

I've all but quit paying any attention to the article writers.
They're paid to write and compete.

200+ years ago Thomas Jefferson commented about how the Coffee Shops (their social media of the time) were full of "stock jobber" talk.  Nothing's changed.

Business commerce is doing well because we've had a MASSIVE TAX CUT in the form of lower petroleum prices.  Cheap energy effects reverberate around the world for a long time.  Where will it stop?  I don't know.  I find the articles interesting, even amusing, but I trust little in them and more in world events.

The question in my mind is how the Texas and Houston weather calamities will impact the economy?  And what if those events are followed by additional similar catastrophes?  

[RV_]

Rich it's like that member here that was always telling how the bubble will burst and get into cash. It was imminent from 2008 on because he had 2008 PTSD. Then I hear folks talk trash about how they are getting back to cash. Now if they kept it in a safe deposit box or a giant safe at home maybe. But legislation has been passed to allow bank bail ins instead of bail outs where they take all our deposits and CDs as their own assets first, before selling off any other assets toxic or otherwise. https://www.bing.com/search?q=bail+in+and+the+fdic&form=EDGTCT&qs=PF&cvid=04ce005b8e864ffaa1cc83be62034ec7&cc=US&setlang=en-US

So cash in a bank as a deposit as a refuge against a recession depression is exactly the wrong move these days. I decided to keep one year's living expenses in cash, no more. Now it is research for what is more secure without the banks stealing it and the FDIC unable to cover all its bets.

Tesla is as good a place as any with the world all suddenly doing more than talking. Tesla is still in the lead in every area that involves current sales and tech not vaporware. 

[KandJBm]

20 hours ago, Rich&Sylvia said:

I've all but quit paying any attention to the article writers.
They're paid to write and compete.

 

 

Amen.

About the only investment advice I do read is from Vanguard. They are pretty conservative with their comments about bubbles - they seldom use the word!  This article is about as negative as it ever gets (and to me scary) when you compare it to their normal calm remarks.  https://vanguardblog.com/2017/09/13/phase-two-of-fed-policy-normalization-entering-trickier-waters/

[RV_]

Kand Jbm,

Your link was to a good article. Part of it said:

"Where we’re headed

Clearly, the Fed would like to return to more normal monetary policy conditions and has taken pains to lay out how it expects to get there. Phase Two is part of that plan. Most believe that the well-telegraphed tapering of the balance sheet will be a “nonevent.” Many economists, including those at the Fed, see Phase Three—resuming the course of rate hikes—occurring as early as December 2017.

Our view is different. For some time, we have felt that Phase Two would be followed by an “extended pause” in rate hikes, leaving short-term rates near 1.25% through the middle of 2018, if not longer. Whether our long-held view proves correct will depend on a range of factors, including the pace of future inflation, how quickly the unemployment rate declines below 4%, and how supportive financial conditions are to the economic recovery."

Now let's see if they resume the course of rate hikes this month, or not.

[bigjim]

not much chance IMO and if at all will be so small as to mean almost nothing epecially for the common man.

[RV_]

That's about where I am at Jim.

[KandJBm]

We have been following an adjustment procedure for our stock and bond mutual funds since the S&P500 reached approximately 2,000.  Both have been adjusted downward over that time period.  Today we have reached a milestone.  Our stock funds have reached zero % of our retirement funds and our bond funds have reached 10% - that is as low as the procedure will take them.  So now we wait to see when we will start buying and adjusting upwards.

Please don't think we think this is our call of a market top!  It is just the result of a systematic reduction of risk based on our tolerance for risk and various market valuations and indices.  Our adjustment procedure is not based on trying to identify a top.  It does, however, take into account previous tops which tend to initiate the adjustment process.

Just thought we would say all this before the top is reached rather than after, when it is too easy to brag about "getting out" at the top!

 

[RV_]

Well if the entire market drops and makes a major correction downward fair enough.

If not then you run the risk of missing the profits like the folks that had 2008 investing PTSD. 

However aside from perhaps missing out on some profit taking, predicting the top too soon and then it not happening makes it such that the folks still in are glad of the increases and less prone to being angry.

There are a lot of folks that sat out the entire last 9 years of record breaking market gains, and the longest running bull market ever. Some have predicted the correction coming very soon in the next few months, every week for the last 9 years.

Edited December 8, 2017 by RV_

[rynosback]

On 7/20/2017 at 8:42 PM, RV_ said:

We are selling our combined 10 acres of properties and homes with solar here that are paid off with clear titles before another housing bubble bursts. Then buy when the crash happens in Colorado. We can live in a small A-frame or geodesic dome or foam snowball house. They are hard to sell and can be had cheap as a temporary deal. I am actually taking another look at missile silos but not truly seriously.

We bought scads of shares of four USAA funds from 2007-2008 while they were at rock bottom. Great time to buy and I had 100% of my high compensation position then as discretionary. We live fine off my retirement alone with all paid off and now with SS for us both taken at 62 we are also generating even more discretionary funds.

I am trying to come up with what I want to do with my Tesla shares. Keep them after they rise steadily to 2020, or sell now. I have had my ten bagger. I now need to see to preserving it all. I may cash in early if I find an interesting scenario. I don't like hard currencies at their current prices, and islands with self sustaining energy are not happening.

We'll see.

I saw a missile silo house on extreme homes several years ago.  VERY COOL!!

[Kirk W]

On 9/13/2017 at 11:47 AM, KandJBm said:

About the only investment advice I do read is from Vanguard.

I sure don't get my investment advice from public forums like this one! I do read it occasionally for entertainment value. 

[RV_]

Ryno,

After making more than a ten bagger with Tesla since thy IPO'd in 2010, we are in the position where we could do one of those silos. But I prefer to be near a military base with Pharmacy and medical. That leaves me with Denver and more likely Colorado Springs. Boy I wish I had bought a five acre lot in Black Forest along the East side of I-25 from the main gate on up to the North gate and Woodmoor. I taught at the Academy from 1978-1981, it was expensive for then but really would have been cheap in hindsight today.

It's funny but this thread was started the year after I made a $20k and later added another $10k investment in an individual stock, Tesla, rather than my usual USAA funds and real properties. The title, "Are You Still In," seems especially apropo to me because I am still in with Tesla

However, there may be some underground or Earth Sheltered homes and I would definitely consider them. I will post whatever we get.

Edited December 11, 2017 by RV_

[RV_]

Duplicate please delete admins

Edited December 8, 2017 by RV_

[RV_]

Has anyone bought bitcoins? My ophthalmologist/eye surgeon who did my cataract surgeries tried to talk me into buying them before it went above $1200. They have since gone through the roof. I am trying to comprehend the mechanics of block chain security and how easy/difficult they would be to use. We all know that no nation needs to destroy people in a nuclear war, they only need to explode about three upper atmosphere clean bombs designed to maximize the EMP or ElectroMagentic Pulse. These would destroy all electronic circuits not shielded by hundreds of feet of earth and/or concrete and EMP shielding. If you are unfamiliar with it read this: http://www.onesecondafter.com/

So failing the apocalypse, did anyone here get in on the ground floor and what are your thoughts?