[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Smalley

You are smart to consider lowering your investment management fees as much as possible. The fees over time become significant in a bad way. Vanguard pioneered the low cost index fund approach which we also follow. And congratulations on being such a consistent investor. Good luck.

if your fee percentage doubles, but the returns are 20% higher, the cheaper fees lose out.

The only reason there are cheap fees is if there is only index following strategies, and no active management. just constant rebalancing based upon some other index, and if the index tanks, so do you. If you don't understand the passive index trap, like most bogleheads don't, tldr: which causes pyramiding, or high market concentration, then maybe stay with your financial advisor. . Active management costs more, but probably gets a lower volatility return, and a bit better long term result. . and yes, there are funds which are not marketed by the big investment houses which get better returns from active management. Why do you think Vanguard, the king of passive, is starting to invest in active management funds?

the problem is that with the amount of financial data, and such high computing power and software capabilities, the market will become much more volatile, as everyone is optimizing on the same dataset, which will result in everyone getting the same answers. . at that point, everyone behaving the same will cause huge ups and downs. .

but good luck investing for cheapness

[BuyckCabin]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

if your fee percentage doubles, but the returns are 20% higher, the cheaper fees lose out.

The only reason there are cheap fees is if there is only index following strategies, and no active management. just constant rebalancing based upon some other index, and if the index tanks, so do you. If you don't understand the passive index trap, like most bogleheads don't, tldr: which causes pyramiding, or high market concentration, then maybe stay with your financial advisor. . Active management costs more, but probably gets a lower volatility return, and a bit better long term result. . and yes, there are funds which are not marketed by the big investment houses which get better returns from active management. Why do you think Vanguard, the king of passive, is starting to invest in active management funds?

the problem is that with the amount of financial data, and such high computing power and software capabilities, the market will become much more volatile, as everyone is optimizing on the same dataset, which will result in everyone getting the same answers. . at that point, everyone behaving the same will cause huge ups and downs. .

but good luck investing for cheapness

So do you have an advisor?

[rsmurano]

20 year plans are useless. 5 year plans are out of date. You don’t know when you need a new car, a new engine, a $20k vacation, help your kids, what is the inflation rate next year, 2 years from now, or dozens of other items nobody can predict. Just like living by a budget while working: useless! After I invested over 60% of our income in stocks, we played/blew/lived off the other 40%. When I wanted a new car, we bought it, when we wanted a new house, we bought 1. This still occurs today.
All of hat matters:
You spend less than you make
You keep making money, retirement or not, that is at least 2x more than inflation
You don’t sell your stocks if you will be selling at a loss.
Pretty simple!

As for fidelity, if you are going to get an advisor from any brokerage, you will be paying high fees. If you go with an advisor, you will be making a lower rate of return, possibly with higher expenses. The best way to make money in the market is to do it yoirself, no advisor!
If you are a newbie to investing, join the boglehead group, invest in low cost ind. funds, which is what Warren Buffet also recommends. Then once you get experienced, you can move on to much more profitable holdings, making 10/100/1000% gains.

I think $1M or even $2M is way low to be comfortable in retirement, especially retiring early. If you have to sell stocks to live on and the market takes a dive, your $1M nest egg becomes $700k then you have a hurdle to climb to get back up to $1M.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by BuyckCabin

So do you have an advisor?

yes, several,
one purchased through substack for current outlook portfolio construction
one purchased through substack for trading/hedging/ special options situations
one other used at a brokerage.

and then I have a SQL SERVER on my laptop with 25-50 years of trading and financial data, SP500 earnings, by company, daily stock prices, federal reserve data, CBOE options data, for trading system creation fun. . yes, today's 1% rally has a 70% probability of happening, under predetermined conditions and the current monthly options expiration week. . at over 70% success rate, its not random, its repeatable

Trading friend of mine plays it more frequently than I do after i uncovered it. . he uses 3x leveraged etfs. . . I told him to close it premarket this morning

[BuyckCabin]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

I think $1M or even $2M is way low to be comfortable in retirement, especially retiring early. If you have to sell stocks to live on and the market takes a dive, your $1M nest egg becomes $700k then you have a hurdle to climb to get back up to $1M.

Thanks for the pointers.

Response to this comment. I think you may be drastically out of touch with reality and wants vs needs. 2M with no other sources of income is way more than enough.

This difference in opinion is possibly the source of the fundamental misunderstanding many wealthy villagers have when approached by a normal person outside the bubble.

Trust me, there are many places on this earth with significantly better cost of living ratios, taxes, insurances, restaurant bills, etc.

Let's be honest. If a person can't retire comfortably on 80,000 pretax they have a major disconnect from reality and a spending problem. That's $72,087 after taxes for a married couple filing jointly in MN. $74,760 in FL. That's $6,000-$-6,200/month.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by BuyckCabin

Thanks for the pointers.

Response to this comment. I think you may be drastically out of touch with reality and wants vs needs. 2M with no other sources of income is way more than enough.

This difference in opinion is possibly the source of the fundamental misunderstanding many wealthy villagers have when approached by a normal person outside the bubble.

Trust me, there are many places on this earth with significantly better cost of living ratios, taxes, insurances, restaurant bills, etc.

Let's be honest. If a person can't retire comfortably on 80,000 pretax they have a major disconnect from reality and a spending problem. That's $72,087 after taxes for a married couple filing jointly in MN. $74,760 in FL. That's $6,000-$-6,200/month.

you aren't thinking long term far enough . . there are many pitfalls which can happen which can cause long term plans to go awry very easily, within your control and beyond your control. . . and so the insurance is much larger assets than one thinks they need today. .

you are only considering everyday living, from now until whenever. . life is not just a steady expense stream, it can be very lumpy with unexpected expenses. . and especially as one gets older with health issues.

so when did you start planning for higher gas and diesel fuel costs, which may go higher still, in your financial planning and cost of lifestyle assumption? if you didn't, then you might start to understand financial planning is not as simple as your statement above.

[BuyckCabin]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

you aren't thinking long term far enough . . there are many pitfalls which can happen which can cause long term plans to go awry very easily, within your control and beyond your control. . . and so the insurance is much larger assets than one thinks they need today. .

you are only considering everyday living, from now until whenever. . life is not just a steady expense stream, it can be very lumpy with unexpected expenses. . and especially as one gets older with health issues.

so when did you start planning for higher gas and diesel fuel costs, which may go higher still, in your financial planning and cost of lifestyle assumption? if you didn't, then you might start to understand financial planning is not as simple as your statement above.

To be fair, you are making assumptions as well. You are also assuming wealth preservation. My kids aren't getting crap! Ok, that's a bit harsh. If there is money left over, they'll get some. But this is my money. I'm suffering at some job for me, not their retirement. I have no qualms spending it down so if there are few years I spend 6% or 7%, so be it.

As far as monthly nut, our current monthly nut includes a current gas spending, a mortgage and 2 teenagers who eat and eat and eat. My retirement monthly nut which I've left at the same value as todays monthly nut will not have a mortgage or teenagers. We will be empty nesters and buy groceries accordingly.

Today without a mortgage (just taxes and ins) and no kids eating my fridge empty. My monthly nut would be around 2750. Assuming 3% inflation average over the next 7 years. That comes out 3382/month. I currently plan on budgeting $4200/month.

You are also assuming there isn't an emergency fund already funded. Or a SGOV account that already has my next trucks cost saved in there.

I appreciate you playing devils advocate.