> There's no point in having money if you never have time to spend it.
Moreover, the only point of money is to spend it. They should focus on enjoyment now. They'll be playing catch up with other people who've been working to live through their forties. Ideally they'd sell the company if they wouldn't have to work again, so it's not a distraction.
I suspect this is why when you buy a printer at Fry's, you are asked your name and phone number. That potentially matches you to the watermark even when you pay cash.
Wouldn't it be an accounting nightmare for both employer and employee to pay with property instead of currency? I think the IRS declared that Bitcoin is property.
Diversified portfolios are the common suggestion of financial gurus, but in the Great Recession I doubt any of them lost less than 25% if they beat inflation beforehand. (That is, they weren't so diversified after all.) I don't put much weight in their recovery since then, given the near-free money available from the gov't.
It think it would be a worse version of the 2008 crash. Many of the issues that led to that crash, instead of being fixed, were temporarily bandaged with accelerated borrowing and spending, like a credit card junkie who staves off the inevitable with ever more cards.
There's a feedback loop to consider. Conclude the purchases when the unemployment rate is close to 7%, then the unemployment rate hits 9% because the nearly-free money tap is off.
Hasn't the Fed been warning they'll halt QE "soon" for many years now? I think the actual policy is to keep interest rates low until it's impossible to do so. At present it seems there's no limit in sight to how many $trillions can be borrowed to keep QE going. Why wouldn't the choice always be to keep kicking the can down the road, when the alternative is to pay the piper?
What commonly happens is the investor gives authority to the broker to make trading decisions. Then the broker frequently trades to make commissions on each trade, until the money inevitably dwindles to the point where the customer realizes it was a scam. The broker acted legally but opposite the best interests of the client.
In other words you must take the risk of forgoing retirement when trying to beat inflation. In 2008 pretty much the only diversified portfolios that didn't take a huge hit were the baskets of low-risk investments.
Agreed. With a lot of risk for that reward. The risk shows in the volatility (ups & downs) over that time, and that the gov't had to borrow several $trillion to prevent a negative return over that time.