Hacker News Reader

> low to medium risk areas and average 10 - 15% per year.

Where can I get this return reliably at "low risk"?

Firstly, it was "low to medium" risk, not "low" risk.

Secondly, pretty much any reputable ETF (or combination of ETF's) can quite easily achieve this over 30 years.

There is no reputable ETF that will give you 15% return. Even 10% real return is incredibly unlikely.

I don't think 'unreputable' is fair - they're just a different (not 'low - medium'!) risk profile.

What tickers?

Perhaps they're referring to leveraged ETFs like UPRO (Direxion Daily 3X Bull & Bear S&P) and TQQQ (ProShares UltraPro QQQ).

Be advised that they are not designed to be held over more than a day, although with the current bull market, they have not actually been hit by the decay factor inherent to all leveraged ETFs.

Other higher-risk ETFs would be things like solar/wind sector ETFs (e.g. TAN, FAN, PBW, IQCLN, QCLN, etc.) or bleeding-edge biotech (e.g. SBIO).

No, they're just non-existent. Anyone with a brokerage account had a ~20%+ return last year... it's over 30 years that matters.

I'm sure there's SOME ETF that managed to do 15% returns over a 30 yr period, but that's just selection bias after the fact. It doesn't mean that ETF would do well this year, or next.

Most ETFs have returned about 7-8 % average long term (before allowing for inflation). Not a bad return, but very different over 20 years from 10-15%

7-8% is still nothing to scoff at. Better than a measly 1% in a savings account :D

There is a slight difference in outcome between 7 and 15 percent return though :).

It has to be said that this 7-8% average is inflated due to being at the end (?) of a ten year bull market.

Vangaurd is predicting low growth of 3-4% over the next decade.

Average rate of return is 7% accounting for inflation, actually. That assumes you're doing dividend reinvestment and such.

Vanguard's predictions of 3-4% over the next decade mean that if you do a straight dollar calculation you'd be closer to ~7%, because that 3-4% number includes inflation, once again.

There are places in the US where this is the rate of appreciation on real estate. While there are periodic setbacks (see: 2008-2012), real estate is remarkably stable across the country, especially in major cities. The small, somewhat rural area I live in had an average appreciation of 13% last year, which is not sustainable for this area but still indicative of the overall trend.

and you know lots of real estate deals that are low risk, pay 10-15% and available for participation @ $100 / week?

>> an average appreciation of 13% last year, which is not sustainable for this area but still indicative of the overall trend.

not sustainable but indicative of the overall trend? What does that even mean?

It means we aren't going to see 13% every year in my localized market, but we will see a continued upward march - where the data from the past 30 years bears that out. Other markets like Seattle, given the geography and current restrictions it isn't much of a jump to think you could average a 10% appreciation for the next decade.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about participation @ $100 / week, so don't be flippant. The comment was made about low risk at 10-15%. If you had $100/week to spend, I'd put it in a drip and buy pharma stocks because there are many paying a sizable dividend, but I'm not your broker so get your own advice.

Ah real estate: the rent keeps going up and there’s no easy way for individuals to benefit from it.

10-15% after property tax?

And interest, maintenance, insurance, and upkeep?

Real estate is absolutely not stable across the country.

Per your website, you live in Washington state. Rocky Mountains and west are generally very desireable areas to live in, and WA has no income tax.

But you can look all the way from Maine to the Dakotas, down to Oklahoma, and then of course the poor gulf coast states and easily see that real estate is a terrible investment in those areas outside of a few urban areas. Especially in the heavily debt laden rust belt states with undesirable weather and shrinking economic prospects.

It doesn't seem difficult to avg +1% per month doing relatively basic trading in my experience.

The challenge I have is remembering to actually care about it and do the trades, life gets too busy and before I realize it a month has gone by.

But whenever I'm on top of it, 1% gains have been very easy over the past decade, I'm rarely in the market for more than a few hours. But I risk having a pile of cash to trade with I suppose, the dollar could crash.

If you do +1% per month you're already +12%/yr, I consider 12%/yr the minimum acceptable yield for any kind of investment given how easy it seems to be to DIY.

1. The S&P 500 has returned about 14% per year over the past decade, so a return of 12% isn't particularly notable.

2. Market returns vary greatly from decade to decade, so we shouldn't necessarily expect this 14% rate of return to continue. (Most obviously, there were no recessions in the past decade, which is unusual.)

I suggest buying low-fee domestic index-tracking ETFs like "Vanguard S&P 500 ETF" (VOO), using a low-fee brokerage app like M1 Finance.

... or not. Your situation may call for something else. Any specific suggestions people give you will likely sound unnecessarily specific and perhaps arbitrary, unless you have spent a lot of time learning about the modern investing landscape -- you really need to do that for yourself.

> you really need to do that for yourself

And how to do that? Especially for those of us in Europe?

That's one thing I can't get my head around. The ecosystem seems filled with scammers and financial advise salesmen, and my "scam alert" is running on constant overdrive whenever trying to look for any current and actionable educational material.

Here are a few starting points.

- https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started_for_non-US_i...

- (book) The Simple Path to Wealth by J. L. Collins

- (Podcast) ChooseFI

I have an account with Vanguard directly and research their funds when investing. Currently my US employer retirement fund partner has very low cost access to Vanguard funds I follow already so I am linked into that.

It really depends on your goals and starting point. Avoiding management fees is one of my priorities as well as direct visibility of my accounts and numbers (all offered via Vanguard directly). There are a lot of great, free information sources. Some are directed at people who are paycheck t paycheck and need to start setting like $100/month aside while digging out of debt. Others focus on middle class style employer retirement plan+personal savings like for a down payment on a house. Others focus on those willing to toss thousands on what becomes a bet on the market and YOLO it (not recommended).

I started by just looking at Vanguard funds and using open/free tools to understand terminology and get a grasp of the history or background like lessons learned.

> And how to do that? Especially for those of us in Europe?

https://www.degiro.eu/

Read "the long and short of it" by John Kay which deals with a lot of the basics around investing for yourself. It's a truly useful book, and I've given quite a few copies of it to people. It is quite UK-centric, but I think the central lessons could be applied in other jurisdictions.

There's really no other words for it: a six figure job from the comfort of your own home/office is fucking magic

Everyone should get the chance to experience it.

Yes, and some of us reject it. When you work with people you never or rarely meet in person loneliness can be a big issue. If you have addiction problems, having the freedom to drink, game, smoke, ect whenever you want can also be a huge issue. Yes, not having a commute can be great, but if you are young you can usually find apartments close to your work (I bike to work for instance). What I feel is best is having the flexibility to wfh when you want or feel its appropriate.

The best setup for me is like what I have at my current company, where I work from home most days and go into the office two days a week. It's enough time to get face time and get back on the same page with everyone, but with most of the benefits of working from home.

Full time working from home wasn't great for me -- it felt isolating and I found myself running a lot more just to see other human beings. (Of course, running was good, but the motivation for it was kind of weird.) I'm shy and naturally form relationships with people I bump into regularly, but I still have no clue to how to do it intentionally, and I also feel uncomfortable practically living at coffee shops.

The issue I find with "flexibility to work from home" is that if it's conditional / occasional then it's also an outlier, and you're not used to working that way. This is why most "telework" programs are weird - because people that are teleworking are seen as goofing off in their pajamas or somehow disconnected.

If you're fully remote then you need to behave that way even when you're in an office environment. Sure, have in-person meetings when you can, but make sure remote folks are 100% present and enabled, otherwise those that choose to work from home will be less present - even in a healthy WFH culture.

As for loneliness - a couple things help with that. First, get together in person for a week or so every quarter to link up. Second, you don't have to work from an office when you work remote. Third, working in the office starting out to understand the culture then going remote is helpful for networking / understanding the rhythm of those in the office if you do work with full-time office folks. Being within reach can be helpful but not required. I'm close enough to the office that I can go in for big meetings or in-person things without too much heads-up, but I'm not expected to be there, and I'm probably there once a month, max.

As for addiction - clearly you gotta prioritize to make sure that stuff doesn't destroy your life. If remote work doesn't work for you, definitely don't do it. Doesn't mean it's not magic for many of us.

I just joined a team that is partially distributed and noticed that they always use video collab software (team.video) to join a call. Even when 8 people are in the same room and only 1 person is remote - everyone sits in the office with their headphones to do standup, pairing, etc. So, I'd say that the team needs to be remote friendly and actively find tools, ways to make the remote team members feel heard and more integrated with the team.

The addiction thing was what got me.

I got into a bullshit mobile game, I didn't think it was a big deal to just leave it open all day while I worked.

Checking in between every email, and every commit, to make sure I was perfectly optimizing my in game economy. Eventually I became one of the top players in the world and was spending 4.5 hours a day just to keep my spot in the top 100.

Recognized global standing is incredibly addictive in games, actually

If I placed in a world tournament in Smash Bros that was streamed, then I went on to bomb the next 5 tournaments, I'd probably still be trying to get that glory again

Also any addictive vices can ensnare you e.g. alcohol, pornography, gambling, gaming, etc.

I attend standups/morning meetings virtually and then mosey on into work after the standups.

As I'm not a morning person this has been great for my mental health, and it's a good combo of "WFH" with "real work" without the addiction issues associated with the former.

This is a really important point. I agree WFH and other forms of flex-time is a critical option in todays workplace, but it's not for everyone and everyone needs to be aware of your coworkers state of mind and capacity for self-discipline.

Sometimes it's just "hey...you seem to pretty consistently miss the early meeting...you good?" or "you know you haven't been hitting it like you used to...but you seem to be killing it in EVE Online". But I've been through an employee where it was performance falling off->odd behavior on calls->slurring incoherently on calls->intervention->short term disability. Fortunately, recovery can work and they're back. In the office.

I have also experienced peer pressure to drink when working WITH other people, so I guess that problem can affect people either way.

Yes, but you need some people around the house. Spending entire days without any human interaction is mentally hazardous.

I experienced it and got more depressed than I'd ever been before. It's absolutely not for everyone.

> a six figure job from the comfort of your own home/office is fucking magic Everyone should get the chance to experience it.

Most people don't get to experience a six figure job, period; the median income at peak earning agree is around $80k.

Where do you live? US median income is closer to US$63k and something like US$40k in the UK.

Median income vs median peak income. I don't know whether the figure is accurate, but it's discussing a different thing.

US household median income is $63k, individual is much lower.

Yes, overall median income is around that, it's higher in some age bands and lower in others: https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/median-salary-by-a...

> But even more so, I can't imagine how painful it is for people to sit in traffic every day, stressing they might be late, burning money on fuel and their car, and waking up earlier than they really should.

It's not only cash spend directly, it's also time spend. I was spending 2h a day in public transit, but when I tried to do it in car, it came down to less than 45 minutes a day. The parking was quite expensive so I doubted, I was paying 150$ a month for my public transit pass, but the closest available parking would be 250$ a month. Lets round it up to 1h a day and say that a month is 4 weeks, I was spending 20 hours a month. For some absurd reasons, I wasn't considering my time stuck in movement as part of my job hours. By refusing to pay for the parking, I was essentially saying that my time was worth 5$ an hour.

This is so weird that we all forget that our time lost while we go to work, is still part of our work time. Spending 2h a day in transit, that's accepting a 20% pay cut from the get go.

Conversely, on public transit you can engage in other activities. When I take the train to work, it takes twice as long but I'm able to catch up on e-mails, take a nap, read a book, watch a show, etc. That's not possible while driving so I view it as a net time gain.

I think it comes down to preferences. I have never enjoyed reading, podcasts, or whatever else on cramped public transit, but I do enjoy the alone time of driving and I generally enjoy driving if it's not stop-and-go.

That said, the overall amount of time I spend is still my first priority. I don't want to spend any significant portion of my life going to and from work. I live in Chicago so public transit is 100% the way to go since it's faster and many times cheaper than using a car.

“Now consider if you invest that money over 30 years in some low to medium risk areas and average 10 - 15% per year”

How do you do that?

vanguard funds, but the good ones I have know of require a $500k initial investment.

Why is the initial investment so high? Is there a reasoning behind it?

He's talking about a specific class of funds that are sold generally to institutions. Think buying funds in "wholesale"; they have low fees, high minimums. Those same funds can be bought "retail" though, with normal fees and typical minimums ($3k-$10k).

which funds require this?

He's talking about the "Admiral" class of funds which have lower fees but higher minimums. (And most are $50k min, not 500k). Most of these funds can be bought at lower minimums too, they just have higher fees.

I'm invested in Vanguard 500 Index Fund Admiral Shares, and the minimum investment is $3000, with fees of 0.04%. Those are pretty low minimums, and seem to me to be exceptionally low fees, and the average annual return is 13.94% over the last 10 years (before taxes).

I think OP is referring to the "Institutional" class of funds. They have much higher minimums because their target market is pension funds and large 401(k) plans that invest using pooled accounts.

Most Vanguard funds, even the Admiral ones, only require $3,000 USD minimum these days. The expense ratio is often 0.15% or less. Index funds are as low as 0.04%.

https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/share-classes

I agree that 10-15% is a little optimistic, but even with a more realistic 4-7% you'd still have $300,000-500,000 at the end of 30 years, which is nothing to sneeze at.

I just get annoyed when people throw around unrealistic numbers recklessly. Between 4-7 and 10-15 percent there is a huge difference.

There is already enough bullshit and delusion going around in investing advice so let’s not add to it.

This source has average historical S&P 500 returns, including dividends, at over 12%:

https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns

> How do you do that?

For the last decade, 10-15% average annual return would have required keeping 70-90% of the funds invested in Nasdaq-100[1].

Also, Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFIAX) currently has a 10-year average of 13.52%[2].

The general advice is not to keep more than (110 - your_age)% of your retirement portfolio in these high risk / high rewards funds.

Therefore, it's entirely possible to receive 10-15% annual returns until you turn 40, but as the period of time until retirement shorters, it becomes too risky.

In other words, what is a "medium-risk" at 35, can be a "high-risk" at 55, because one might not have enough time to recover from an economic crisis at an older age.

[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/when-performance-matters%3A-...

[2] https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/overview/...

Small caveat - Looking at 10 yr average right now is not a good measurement for future returns. 10 years ago stocks were just coming out of a recession. Right now they are at all time highs.

That's a good point, but Nasdaq-100 had an average annual return of 13% even when counting from December 31, 2007 – which is before the beginning of the last recession.

You can’t take the absolute low point as your starting point and call it low risk.

The absolute low point was in 2008, when Nasdaq-100 went down by -40.54%.

The last 15 years:

2019 35.23% 2018 -3.88% 2017 28.24% 2016 7.50% 2015 5.73% 2014 13.40% 2013 38.32% 2012 15.91% 2011 -1.80% 2010 16.91% 2009 43.89% 2008 -40.54% 2007 9.81% 2006 9.52% 2005 1.37% 2004 8.59%

At no point I called it low risk. It's high risk / high return. The risk of high financial exposure to such funds can only be taken until 40, because one needs to be able to not sell during the entire economic downturn.

> At no point I called it low risk.

The person who originally mentioned those percentages and started this comment thread (and since edited it down) said low/medium risk.

Most index-fund based retirement investment packages focus on 80/20, 60/40, and 40/60 stock-to-bond split, depending on your current age.

Nasdaq-100 or SP-500 can be a part of a medium-risk investment portfolio as long as the exposure to them is adjusted based on the period of time left until retirement.

It's a medium-risk strategy to keep up to 80% of your retirement portfolio invested in Nasdaq-100 or SP-500 in your 20s, up to 60% in your 40s, and up to 40% in your 60s. As long as the rest of the portfolio is invested in low-risk government bonds.

Agreed. You can’t assume that the current upswing will go on forever. People learned this in 2000 and 2008.

Nasdaq-100 dropped by -41.89% in 2008, and then went up by +53.54% in 2009. That's it. The only other negative performance since 2002 was in 2018 (-1.04%). If you are a kind of investor who starts selling off in the middle of an economic downturn, of course you will lose.

How about 2000?

The 2000-2002 were an anomaly in the entire 35 years history of Nasdaq-100:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ-100#Annual_Returns

Wow. On the way up and down. What a time.

Just worth noting: 3/5 * 3/2 = 9/10. i.e., dropping 40% then going up 50% doesn't get you back up to 100%. Not saying you implied that it does. Just making this fact explicit.

Please do remember that a 10 year average today, is 10 years from the financial crisis. That is not a very objective measure of future success.

Additionally, the trick is to diversify away the idiosyncratic risk so that all that is left is systematic risk (risk common to all stocks that is unavoidable). One does this by picking stocks that are oppositely correlated so that volatility (aka risk which is measured through variance/ st. dev) is canceled out. The more stocks added to a portfolio, the more the idiosyncratic risk is diversified away; this is called holding the market portfolio. You can learn more my looking up the Capital Asset Pricing Model. Here are additional resources: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1l9TfhvUjCasEMPgWzJtn...

My job is flexible and I could work from home 1-4 days/week. But I still come in 4 days. The socializing is something that I really find worth it. I’ve made a lot of friends at work, and it’s also just nice to discuss technical problems in person.

Working in a different room (NOT your bedroom) is critically important to me. Sometimes it's fun to kick back and code, but the separate space that is yours, optimized for work, and assigned mentally to work is useful in that you can walk away from it and also leave your work behind. Going to bed at night with your laptop stashed close by does not inspire relaxation / restfulness.

I recently started working from home, which coincided with a move. This is the specific reason I insisted on a two-bedroom apartment. I think it's made a big difference. I was remote before this, but had a private office in a WeWork, which I went to everyday, even though it wasn't required. This kind of separation is crucial.

Last year we moved out of our old (large) home in Philadelphia, where I had stolen the back 1/3 of the separate garage to be my office. My commute was about 50 feet, but it was to a separate (physically, acoustically, psychically) building.

Now we live in a lovely but much smaller house where I still have an office, but it is inside the house. We've been here for 9 months so far, and we have still not really figured out the details of how I can still "go to work" the way I used back in Philadelphia. My wife only has to speak here, somewhere in the house, and I can hear her.

This may improve when some specific physical details are addressed, but I think they won't solve the whole problem, which is a psychological/emotional/relationship one: how to be in the same "space" as someone else but also make it clear that you're not available.

Totally. This took us months to figure out, even after a lot of "hey this is gonna be hard" pre-planning. I started by sharing Rands' "Nerd in a cave" post among others talking about interruptions and remote work (https://randsinrepose.com/archives/a-nerd-in-a-cave/) - my reactions were... uh... not the most civil initially haha - but then mostly tried a number of things until we got to "as much as possible, please try to contact each other like we're in an office" which is a good convention.

We figure out the schedule of the day before I head "in", we communicate via text, and if that fails typically it's a knock at the door just like in an office. I also mention when I have big meetings or other face-time meetings so there's awareness.

That said, after all of that it was really the threshold for things that caused interruptions was what took the most adjusting.

Most of the day I wear headphones and listen to music, which is helpful - you don't feel compelled to shout answers or run down and help unless the person asks. Eventually though we found our rhythm, and it works well. And we both appreciate that when we need each other, we're right there, and that's great.

Through the joys of expensive real estate I don't have the luxury of separate rooms but personally I've never found it that important. I have a desk that is almost exclusively used for work that seems to fill the role, but even that is more for ergonomic reasons than anything. I feel the social isolation others mention, but that's solved with more regular nightly visits to the pub.

The big thing I need to improve on is simply getting outside more and going for walks during the day. A significant part of my commute was walking and now that's gone.

> I eventually ended up investing in building my own "detached" office in the back yard

This is the thing I want most in work life right now. I have a separate semi-dedicated office room but it splits time as the guest room and has basically no auditory separation the rest of the house including a 3yo and a 1yo.

Edit: OP would you be willing to share pictures of your space? I love seeing how people set up separate office spaces.

I think you've no idea what commuting costs anymore. 100 a week would be absolutely ridiculous. If the company provides parking you're looking at around 70 per month. If you have to pay for parking that might be as much as 250 per month, so still way below 100 per week. This kind of contribution certainly adds up, but you're not looking at 1 million in retirement funds. Also, you built yourself a detached office, which isn't uncommon and you frequently needed to purchase office supplies and I'm guessing your own hardware and computer software. That's a substantial initial overhead that eats away at how much you might be saving by working from home.

Also, consider that many companies now allow employees to work from home for part of every week while still supplying hardware and office supplies. That 250/70 per month commuting cost is down to about 150/40. Just accounting for the expense of building your home office you could already be in the hole compared to people commuting only some of the time for the same job.

Also, none of this accounts for the additional considerations office's typically provide like free lunches and social/professional networking opportunities.

Personally, I'm a software developer so I can pretty much decide for myself if I want a job that allows me to work from home, and after doing the real math, I found you can basically go either way and expect roughly the same financial outcome, so the real choice is about what you actually want. I like the social aspects, so I take jobs where I can come in and expect coworkers to be present. What you want may be different, but neither option is inherently more advantageous.

If you use the IRS standard rate of $.58 per mile as the cost of driving, then if you have a ~17 mile commute (each way), you'd expect to spend about $100 per week on average. That doesn't include the opportunity cost of your time or parking.

A quick googling suggests that the average driving commute is 16 miles so $100/week seems like a reasonable estimate (again assuming parking is free and you value your time at $0/hr).

How did you teach yourself structuring large projects and test driven development? Did you have any senior engineers mentor you when you just started, or did you just force yourself to pick important skills in software development. I ask because I work remotely a lot of the time, and I am skilled in creating a solution, but I am always worried about if it will be maintainable over time and not be overwhelming when I add features.

> I eventually ended up investing in building my own "detached" office in the back yard

I want to know more about this!

Same. Would love some pics or some advice about what you've done to make this a place that is conducive to getting work done.

but... dat time savings!

Seriously, I'm in a major metro area and my commute is considered "not bad" by local standards...

Working at an office costs me at least three hours a day: - 30 minutes of "getting ready"

- 60 minutes of commute there, at rush hour

- 30 minutes of lunch (usually just grab a sandwich at home)

- 60 minute return commute at rush hour

Bonus Time Savings:

Popping on a headset and taking a walk around the neighborhood during low-participation conference calls and one-on-one discussions (I'm a manager). I can flip 30 - 60 minutes a day into "dual use" time (work + exercise)...

Don't forget the fact that you don't have to buy/rent a home in the more expensive areas of a city. Meaning the money you make is money you can keep and speed up your retirement savings.

You drive home to get lunch?

Leave the office and come back. But if you look at the total time, it adds up.