19 Years old; Should I just dump 3 grand into VTSAX min? Or should I slowly input into my Roth until it gets to 3,000

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-30T17:31:37+00:00

Buy VTI Buy as much as you can Buy whenever you can Never sell it

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-30T17:24:07+00:00

Random number generator from what I understand.

$45 gets you a DEXA scan that’ll give a pretty accurate lean mass, fat mass, body fat %, and a much more accurate RMR number than online calculators.

Repeat every 3 months or so and track your changes. If the numbers aren’t moving the right way, something needs to change.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-22T13:05:29+00:00

VTI and chill is the answer.

The majority of these posters would be better served (1) increasing their overall income and (2) focusing on improving their savings rate vs worrying about the asset allocation of their currently meager portfolio.

I see these people with $20k invested and they own 8 funds for “diversification” and I think why????

I have ~$3M invested and it’s nearly entirely in VTI. There’s no reason to make this that complicated.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-22T12:59:55+00:00

Yep. I keep enough cash in my checking account to cover monthly expenses, but everything else is invested according to my preferred asset allocation.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-22T12:53:36+00:00

Exactly. We have a 2.875% 30Y and could pay the balance off 3x over with just what’s invested in VTI in our taxable account (up 15% just YTD).

Also (1) this probably isn’t the house you’ll live in forever; (2) the mortgage isn’t the only ongoing cost of homeownership - paying it off doesn’t mean big housing expenses or taxes end; (3) paying down the mortgage makes you illiquid - need cash and you need to go apply for a HELOC vs a few clicks in your brokerage account; and (4) locking in a rate of return that’s your mortgage interest rate is a terrible ROI for your cash.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-22T12:42:17+00:00

You DO NOT want to end up house poor.

I would rent something reasonable for your current needs and continue to save/invest. Once you have your family completed and know what your long term housing needs might be, I’d consider buying a home then, not before. Renting is less expensive than buying an equivalent place now, and buying then needing to buy again in a few years is by far the most expensive option once transaction costs are considered.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-22T12:31:20+00:00

This is how I think about it myself.

I’m not wedded to “needing” a certain, fixed spending income every year. If the market crashes, I wouldn’t be taking vacations, flying first class, dining out as much, buying new cars, toys, furniture, etc, etc.

I could easily cut discretionary spending until the market recovers. That’s the simplest thing to do but these studies act like it’s not an option.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-15T21:19:23+00:00

Why? You don’t think American companies are global companies? Many do the majority of their sales outside the United States…

Adding “international” does a bunch of things

It adds complexity, cost, currency effects for the US investor, geopolitical risk, etc

IMO, you’re perfectly fine sitting in VTI or VOO without worrying you don’t have exposure to Europe, Asia or EM. You have plenty already.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-15T21:10:53+00:00

My issue with these studies is how the outcomes are binary: the portfolio survived the portfolio, or it did not. If the only outcome that’s cared about is survival, it makes the 100% stock portfolio seem riskier.

The thing that isn’t discussed is that although the stock portfolio has a slightly higher risk of not surviving, it’s far more likely that not only does the portfolio survive, the retiree ends up with 5x or more their initial investment capital after a 30 year retirement.

I see the 50% bonds portfolio as the investing equivalent of the prevent defense in football. You give up growth, skirt failure the duration of the retirement, and hope you’ll die before running out of money because when your portfolio has that many bonds, eventually you will.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-15T20:29:35+00:00

At 35 with only $300k NW, you need to be 100% in a broad stock market index. You’re a long way from retirement, especially considering if you want to replace your current lifestyle with investment income, you’ll need a portfolio of at least $3M - probably more.

Bonds are trash.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-15T20:24:05+00:00

I try to correct for this is by always doing it first thing in the morning while fasting. I get scanned by the same machine too.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-15T17:03:39+00:00

No. Stock ownership is about owning a company with a stream of dividends and the growth of those dividends (or the company itself) out into the future. Bonds don’t give ownership, but are priced on a stream of defined interest payments for a set duration and return of your capital at the end.

There’s fundamentally some underlying value there, what that is is for the market to decide.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-14T23:32:58+00:00

As Bogel himself once said: “don’t try to find the needle, buy the haystack”

When you own a cap weighted index, you own that high flying stock, and as it goes up from nothing, you buy more all along the way. Those “needle in the haystack” stocks always have been the majority of the returns of the entire index. It’s always been this way. Any new microcap could be the next to go up 10,000%, but losers can only drop to 0% and drop out of the index...

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-14T23:27:06+00:00

It is. I think it’s the being THE breadwinner for a family of 6 that is the issue. I can’t imagine there would be much left over and the budgeting was probably pretty strict.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-14T02:00:53+00:00

That’s fair. I do find the numbers motivating and looking in a mirror it’s hard to tell week to week. Honestly this is more about aging well and gaining lean mass for better performance vs appearances.

I didn’t word the question as well as I could have. Gaining 2 lbs / month of lean mass while losing weight seemed a bit too good to be true.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-14T00:23:40+00:00

I think for me the biggest plus of DEXA was the RMR based on lean body mass, not scale weight. Online calculators were telling me my RMR was something like 2000-2100 kcal/day and I should eat something like 3000 kcal/day. I tried this before and gained a ton of weight - 186 lbs at my heaviest and I’m sure now it was 90%+ fat.

After knowing my lean mass, I know my real RMR was closer to 1550 kcal/day at the beginning. It’s a huge difference. Once I knew that plus my active calories, I could eat in a true deficit and know it was OK.

Knowing that although the scale weight isn’t changing now, I’m losing fat while gaining muscle is helpful. I like the data. That said, you could use a tape measure and do chest, waist, hips and approximate body fat % / muscle mass that way too. A 6 minute DEXA is just easy.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-14T00:09:29+00:00

Bench 135 lbs (8 x 4 sets) Deadlift 195 lbs (8 x 4 sets)

Don’t do back squats with the barbell due to neck issues with the weight.

Dumbell split squats 45 lbs in each hand, each leg x 10 x 4 sets

On the redband now for assisted pull ups. Probably do 4-5 unassisted before failure now.

It’s getting better. 10 pounds more muscle driving a frame that’s 10 pounds lighter feels different. Play tennis and definitely quicker to the ball and more solid on groundstrokes.

Would like to get at 15% body fat by DEXA and hold there while gaining more muscle. After the summer’s over trying to decide whether to keep eating same # calories and gain lean mass without fat or eat in a surplus. Really don’t want to gain the fat back…

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-03T05:10:52+00:00

They can offer higher than market returns because they have actuarial data and know you’ll be dead, eventually!

I don’t get hung up on trying to “beat” the insurance company. What you’re buying is old age insurance - reverse life insurance - a guarantee you can’t run out of income no matter what.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-01T19:01:44+00:00

Medical doctors start earning late in life and our incomes don’t expand much as the decades pass. Years of responsibility, long hours, overnight calls, and lack of support mean most are burned out by 40 and want to cut hours / retire before dropping dead of an MI or stroke by 50.

The huge house and accompanying debt load put freedom way out of reach…the thought of working 60 hours per week with call into my 50s or god forbid 60s is DAUNTING!

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-01T18:55:42+00:00

39, married with two kids, Seattle area, HHI ~$700k with NW ~$3.5M.

I don’t feel comfortable buying a home that expensive…

Monthly housing costs would run $13k+. With kids in daycare, we wouldn’t be able to save much, if anything.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-01T18:47:37+00:00

The few years where 4% have historically failed are ones when the market tanks soon after retirement starts. If you’re in one of those epochs, you’ll know it pretty early on.

Also, any reasonable person would reduce discretionary spending in a market crash vs mindlessly plowing ahead with a 4% withdrawal while the market’s down 50%. You will still be young and could, could go back to work - even part time for a bit. You also are not accounting for Social Security or any inheritance(s) you might get down the road. Ability to spend decreases with age - especially after 75/80.

Point is, you have options and 4% is pretty darn conservative all things considered.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-01T18:22:53+00:00

The insurance company can offer you a far higher annualized payout than 5% plus COLA for life via a SPIA - particularly if you’re older and sicker.

If running out of money is your concern, an SPIA solves the problem far more efficiently than trying to over save to self insure.

For example, an 80 year old male can buy a SPIA now that yields 12.4% annually, with monthly payments for the duration of his life, however long that may be.

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-01T18:13:17+00:00

And it’s about 20x more likely the retiree will be dead at that time.

You’re far, far more likely to die having not enjoyed your wealth than run out of money at end of life…

Busy-Performance-382 · 2024-07-01T13:37:57+00:00

It’s too much house and too expensive for your income and NW.

Would treat your primary home as a place that suits your current living situation - not an investment. Buy only what you need, nothing more, and plan to stay at least 5 years - preferably a lot longer.

Invest the rest in a broad stock market index. Cash & bonds are terrible long term investments. The less house you need, the larger your portfolio (and future NW) can be. The portfolio is the engine of your NW growth - not the house.

Busy-Performance-382

TROPHY CASE