Active Users:196 Time:20/05/2024 05:00:00 PM
Indeed. Joel Send a noteboard - 11/03/2013 09:53:59 PM

View original post
View original post
View original postThere are 52 weeks in a year (composed of 12 months), not 4 weeks a month .

True, but if you have a 50 year investment that compounds interest weekly you should call the Fed; they need to have the Treasury print (a LOT) more money.

Again you are being illogical. You calculated the income and thus the amount set aside for investment using 4 weeks a month (that means 48 weekly periods 4 * 12 =4 8 ) instead of 52 weeks in the year, then dividing by 12 to achieve an average monthly. You lost 4 pay cycles by doing so which is what threw off your monthly savings amount.
7 * 40 * 52 = 14560
14560 / 12 = 1213.33
1213.33 * 0.04 = 48.53 <- I rounded down
--OR--
7 * 40 * 52 = 14560
14560 * 0.04 = 582.4
582.4 / 12 = 48.53

If you had bothered to actually read my original post, those calculation were self evident. Interest growth occurs in a completely different calculation so does not belong in this part of the discussion.


I dispute that they were self-evident; as you note, a month can be calculated multiple ways, and you did not specify which. It makes a big difference; hourly workers are usually paid fortnightly or weekly (on occasion daily,) while salaried workers (whom I realize we are not considering here) are usually paid monthly. However, virtually all workers pay bills monthly, and hourly workers only receive five weeks pay in the infrequent instances their payday happens to fall on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd of a month. In those cases 4% of their pay would be $56, in all others $44.80. I trust you agree compounding interest on that would not produce the same figure as compounding it on contributions of either $44.80 OR $48.53/month.

Again, I dispute that the particular calculations chosen were self-evident; there were multiple options until you specified one, so I was left to guess which you used.


View original post
View original post
View original post4% is the amount of the monthly pay that is invested, not the compound interest rate (though 4% is still better than the ROI given by Social Security).

Right, I had to guess the interest rate since you did (and still have) not state(d) it, so I used the same 4%. As good as any number if I must just pluck one from the air. Since you stated the return would be ~$1,253,000 though I assume you have at least a ballpark figure in mind, apparently somewhere between 11% and 12% annually. No, SS cannot beat that, but gambling anything that does will be there in 50 years is rolling some pretty big dice.

You never asked. Standard calculations utilize 8, 10, 12, or 15 percent. I think used about 11, which is very easily achieved over a 50 year period with decent investments, and it is anything but a gamble if you use half a brain.

I most certainly did ask, here:

http://www.readandfindout.com/community/messageboard/273467/

and here: http://www.readandfindout.com/community/messageboard/273481/

I asked for a very good reason, too: If someone asks, "what is x+5?" who is to blame that no one can give them the answer? Without knowing the interest rate or how the monthly contribution is figured calculating the final yield is impossible.

As to a possible 11% investment return with negligible risk, I fear I must AGAIN ask you show your work (not your personal portfolio, understand, just an abstract but thorough description of how one gets there.) The highest interest I can find for CDs is ~1.8% over 5 years, and for Treasuries it is ~3% over 30. Both are a far cry from 11%, even after factoring in relatively low current interest rates, so please explain how one can do 4-6 times better with NO significant risk. Again, given the past decades... er, volatility coufraudgh on Wall Street and in commercial banks (to the negligible extent that distinction remains) many people would surely be fascinated.

I will make it simpler: Show me ONE real person who retired a millionaire earning $14,500 annually for 50 years (applying inflation where appropriate.) If it is so easy you must know of hundreds, if not thousands; I know of none. Intelligence really has nothing to do with it, unless you mean the intelligence not to make huge gambles with ones life savings just for the outside chance of spending the last decade or two in luxury.

My grandfather had the good fortune and diligence to hold a union job most of his life, where he worked his way up from hitchhiking to work because he could not afford a car to the day he had $10,000 to risk without fear, and had a broker invest it for him in the stock market. The broker took his $10,000, and that of many others, then skipped the country to spend HIS early retirement in the Bahamas. Later, my grandfather decided to try again, gave another broker $10,000 to invest, and the exact same thing happened. At that point he declared the only SOB who would ever again go to the Caribbean on his money was HIM.

I wish you better luck with your investments, though, once again, in the wake of Ken Lay, Worldcom, Lehman Bros. Bear Stearns, Citigroup etc. etc. I do not expect it. Consequently, I shall stick with SS, thanks much. :)

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 11/03/2013 at 09:55:31 PM
Reply to message
Can You Name the Largest US Program to ANNUALLY Collect More Than It Spent for 75 Straight Years? - 28/02/2013 11:03:18 PM 1257 Views
It's the world's greatest Ponzi scheme, since the government forces us to give money to it. - 01/03/2013 01:05:05 PM 694 Views
Yes, "government forcing people to give money" defines a Ponzi; speeding tickets are Ponzis. - 01/03/2013 03:53:02 PM 812 Views
Good lord my friend..... - 02/03/2013 04:19:35 AM 737 Views
I will just link what Isaac said; maybe then you will pay attention to it. - 02/03/2013 04:56:34 AM 778 Views
I really think you terribly misread what I said *NM* - 02/03/2013 06:59:56 AM 409 Views
Yes he did. He has very poor reading comprehension skills. *NM* - 03/03/2013 01:07:59 AM 432 Views
I really do not think I did. - 04/03/2013 01:43:02 AM 812 Views
I'm pretty confident you have - 04/03/2013 11:49:19 AM 803 Views
We evidently disagree on what constitutes a Ponzi scheme. - 11/03/2013 09:56:27 PM 728 Views
No, I agree with a clear definiton, you seem not to want to absorb that - 11/03/2013 10:24:47 PM 868 Views
It is neither an investment nor fraudulent. - 12/03/2013 02:34:09 AM 932 Views
Okay, that's a really weird or naive standard to judge SS by - 01/03/2013 05:25:11 PM 745 Views
Great; will you put that on a postcard to Cannoli, A2K, Rick Perry and the rest of your party? - 01/03/2013 07:39:44 PM 764 Views
Your attacks on republican ideals would have more credit if you understood them - 02/03/2013 04:27:34 AM 755 Views
aH yes the great liberal investmetn/retirement plan that offers me a NEGATIGVE rate of return... - 02/03/2013 11:51:50 AM 664 Views
Do you sincerely believe people earning $14,560/year can afford investing 4% of it? - 04/03/2013 12:53:30 AM 832 Views
*sigh* - 04/03/2013 03:43:08 AM 667 Views
I tried it with compound interest; $44.80/month at 4% for 50 years still does not get to $1.25 mill. - 04/03/2013 04:24:51 AM 738 Views
Here are some clues. - 04/03/2013 04:37:39 AM 608 Views
It is math, not the Riddle of the Sphinx: EIther it adds up or does not. - 04/03/2013 05:02:39 AM 757 Views
Math is simple - Either you know how to calculate it or you don't - 04/03/2013 11:55:24 AM 843 Views
Indeed. - 11/03/2013 09:53:59 PM 750 Views
Re: Indeed. - 13/03/2013 05:00:10 PM 935 Views
SS is supposed to supplement a proper pension, not provide your sole income after retirement - 05/03/2013 03:53:03 AM 624 Views
Did you bother to actually read anything? - 05/03/2013 02:32:16 PM 696 Views
do *YOU* know what "living in poverty" means? - 05/03/2013 05:49:14 PM 763 Views
Re: do *YOU* know what "living in poverty" means? --- yeah, I've BEEN there. - 05/03/2013 08:01:33 PM 731 Views
how about respond to a post with logic and civility instead of being a troll for once? - 05/03/2013 11:03:00 PM 818 Views
All I have used is civility and logic, or least as much civility as was warrented. - 06/03/2013 04:28:04 AM 760 Views
yeah, it's my fault for stooping to your level.... - 08/03/2013 07:22:24 PM 813 Views
Re: yeah, it's my fault for stooping to your level.... - 10/03/2013 01:42:26 PM 681 Views
i'm not going to keep going in circles so i will finish with this.... - 11/03/2013 10:08:53 PM 1034 Views
No loss. - 13/03/2013 04:37:41 PM 619 Views
"Rah! Rah! Rah!" Can we please cut out all this blather and bile? - 05/03/2013 11:53:41 PM 695 Views
spoken like a true enemy of the state! - 06/03/2013 12:54:38 AM 664 Views
Re: spoken like a true enemy of the state! - 08/03/2013 03:04:37 PM 724 Views
I was not trolling, but clarifying. - 11/03/2013 09:53:48 PM 732 Views

Reply to Message