Im not stock man, but that doesn’t make sense. If your retirement is in stocks and stocks are doing great then you are gaining money now that will just be more money to gain interest on later.
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
Im not stock man, but that doesn’t make sense. If your retirement is in stocks and stocks are doing great then you are gaining money now that will just be more money to gain interest on later.
Shaggy
Member
Unless it crashes. What the stock market is today is not what it will be in 20 years. It could lose 85% of it's current status or gain that much.
sigwx
Member
Maybe this will help with your 20 year plan https://www.quora.com/How-will-the-Stock-Market-change-in-next-20-years
and l and close to my retirement and l am very happy right now!!
Then why not take the nice gains now and then move it to bonds or cash? Nobody says you have to keep it in stocks for 20 years, right?
True but losing 85% of $2000 is much better than losing 85% of $1000.
Sandbar
Member
It wasnt bad. It was "supposed" to crash though when Trump got elected. Seems the pundits got that one wrong! Its kind of like driving a mustang then hopping into a McLaren. The mustang is decently fast but the McLaren is just wicked!
Im in the ERS, so unless the politicians get my money I can get out in 15 years. I’m actually thankful I don’t have to worry about stocks but it does help my pension.
Shaggy
Member
I took out a 401k loan 2 years ago and will be paying taxes on that this year. I could move it but pay a hefty penalty. I'm sitting with around 110k in it right now and cant move but so much.....i wanna say 25k is the most I can touch. To be honest I've never looked at it too deeply.
Shaggy
Member
Valid point lol.
I don't know if you know this. The futures during the night just after the election (11/8/16) started well when it looked like Hillary was going to win. But when it changed to a major Trump "upset" vs expectations, futures plunged 1,000. Then the next day the market actually opened well above where the futures had plunged to just a little earlier. And then it finished up over 200:
"Nov. 8: Donald Trump wins U.S. presidential election. Dow drops nearly 1,000 points in after-hours futures trading.
Nov. 9: 'Trump Rally' begins with 257-point advance."
From this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/12/31/dows-2016-highlights/95909234/
Last edited:
Sandbar
Member
I was referring to what liberal pundits predicted would be a regression of the market under a Trump presidency. The entire country was supposed to fall apart but as "most" of us can attest to, that simply hasn't been the case
ForsythSnow
Moderator
I personally don't see why anyone would think we would unless we ended up with Hillary. The overspending and socialistic spending policies would've increased and blown the economy. On the other hand, if we keep Trump, the odds of the economy declining in his term go up massively. One is timing, and the other is an economic overheat. You can only grow so much before you decline again. That's just the business/economic cycle, and we're around the peak at the moment. Whether we're on the left or right side of it has yet to be seen.
Sandbar
Member
At some point there will absolutely be a correction. History tells us that. If it does happen under Trump's watch he will be blamed at a level never before seen (probably deserved as he is obviously a confident man) but I would rather have him there to correct the negative correction than anybody in the current presidential circles. There was so much negativity during Obama's 8 years people were actually accepting his mediocrity as if it was as good as we could be going forward
sigwx
Member
I agree somewhat on what you are saying but explain what l bolded. Thanks
ForsythSnow
Moderator
Basically, when an economy grows over a portion of several years, the money in the economy will start to run out. Entities only have so much they can funnel into something before the return diminishes. There can only be so many houses built, so many products produced and sold, etc before the cost rises and profits diminish. That's as far as I can explain it since I'm not an economist. In short, it's a lot like an engine, run it too long at full speed and it'll stop working.
snowlover91
Member
I’d rather have a strong stock market, often a sign of a solid economy (though not always) than one that is doing poorly. There is more to the stock market than 401k/retirement plans. Many people have everyday stock trading accounts that are NOT retirement related and they can buy/sell and make great profit during a strong economy. I have retirement and a personal trading account, both of which are doing well and the personal trading account benefits me now since I can sell and use the money whenever I want.
sigwx
Member
Yeah l see what you are saying, but good business still grow and the money is still there right, it should not run out?
ForsythSnow
Moderator
If businesses plan and adjust accordingly, they'll be fine. There are a lot that have made it through recessions. There just will be less money in the economy, unemployment will rise, and spending will increase. Unfortunately, most of us aren't businesses and as mentioned, unemployment rises because businesses cut corners to adapt. In terms of run out that I said, it's more of run out of money to put forward into growth.
I think that is the way it used to work, but not anymore. The problem now is they can keep money flowing into the system by very low interest rates and constant government spending. So to take your example of a engine, it's more of an engine running with another engine behind the curtain. When one goes down, the other fires up until the broken down engine is fixed. Eventually it will all fail when the parts are exhausted, but until then the fascade of security can hide it.
Downeastnc
Member
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/02/judge-denies-doj-request-don-mcgahn-074846
This is one of the reasons Nancy is holding off, right now the latest ruling says McGahn has to testify and that Trumps executive privilege declaration does not cover McGahn….the DOJ instantly appealed it and tried to put it off but the appeals court said nah we will do it when it was originally scheduled which is this Fri Jan 3rd....if the judges uphold the lower court then they only have one appeal left the SCOTUS.....they could choose to not hear the case which means they agree with the lower court ruling or they could decide to hear it and make a official ruling ( best option IMO sets a precedent that is hard to counter) which IMO would go 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of the lower courts.
This though would take time, but if this ruling is upheld then Trump could no longer hide behind executive privilege and Bolton, Mulvaney and everyone else would be legally obligated to appear for any subpoena.
This is one of the reasons Nancy is holding off, right now the latest ruling says McGahn has to testify and that Trumps executive privilege declaration does not cover McGahn….the DOJ instantly appealed it and tried to put it off but the appeals court said nah we will do it when it was originally scheduled which is this Fri Jan 3rd....if the judges uphold the lower court then they only have one appeal left the SCOTUS.....they could choose to not hear the case which means they agree with the lower court ruling or they could decide to hear it and make a official ruling ( best option IMO sets a precedent that is hard to counter) which IMO would go 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of the lower courts.
This though would take time, but if this ruling is upheld then Trump could no longer hide behind executive privilege and Bolton, Mulvaney and everyone else would be legally obligated to appear for any subpoena.
- Status