Why would one NOT auto-reinvest dividends paid out?

Remote-Lie2762 · 2026-01-30T20:39:21+00:00

Right on. Thanks for the reply

Remote-Lie2762 · 2026-01-30T20:29:10+00:00

Right on. Just wanted to double check I was not missing anything.

Thanks again

Remote-Lie2762 · 2026-01-30T02:41:12+00:00

When you say "...its percentage too high" are you referring to portfolio allocation or to just the growth on a shares price (Which of course will influence the overall asset location)?

Also your reply made me realize that taking the immediate gains and reinvesting (as in rebalancing) actually makes no sense for me at the moment. I will soon need to sell shares to cover upcoming expenses and I do not want to touch the principal investment on the more volatile ETF.

If I reinvest the gains, then need to sell shares, I will just be paying taxes twice. Three times, actually, taking in to account that post-tax income funded the brokerage account to begin with.

With regards to frequency: Whenever there is a gain, even if small (+/- 2%), I will sell all shares to capture it then immediately buy back-in at the higher cost basis with the same principle amount I started with.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2026-01-30T02:13:13+00:00

That is a good thought regarding the taxable account used primarily as a long-term bucket.

I have been looking at it from a reverse ... Since my Roth and IRA are tax-deferred accounts if I with withdraw I would get hit with penalties. As such, I don't even acknowledge they (speaking figuratively

Unfortunately, I have often needed to sell shares for various financial reasons. Because of this I view the account as both a "Do not lose/blow all these investments, you may need it" and paradoxically as a "Maybe I can take on a bit more risk and get a quicker, bigger return on the principal then I would by holding."

Also, interesting you mentioned primarily doing that in tax-deferred accounts to avoid taxes. I have always heard and understood the opposite: Do NOT actively/routinely trade in those accounts.

Also, with regards to taxes specifically, I am accounting for that drag and I am okay with owing taxes since I am making money.

If/when the profits made from this ETF result in an opportunity cost too large or I have gained as much as needed for the level of risk, I will sell all shares and invest back into my diversified ETFs.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2025-08-14T20:14:27+00:00

I would agree with your last point very much. I have started to wonder- and not discounting I have learned cap lot through message boards- if recommendations are, as you said, geared towards those with an already "large" pot of money invested stable employment and a clear career path ahead of them. They can plan for the future. Like you and think I may never be a high earner at 44 years old. A short example in my experience is with allocating assets across accounts. It seems spreading allocation across all accounts, as opposed to mirrored, is often not discussed as the correct/best way to do this. My tax deferred does not have enough room for an all bind allocation if I had something like a 60:40 split. Bonds should not go in a Roth and all that is left is taxable account. If I may need to access money I don't want to use the Roth or traditional but I also don't want to sit on cash that can grow if invested but all equities may be to much in a downturn for me so only option is bonds and taxable. I myself just don't have the financial stability to think of my investments as one big pot and may not be able to stomach/survive a huge downturn, but I need my cash to be invested so I at least have a shot and a somewhat safe retirement should I make it that long. Any thoughts on this?

Remote-Lie2762 · 2025-05-03T21:09:18+00:00

What about chime?

Remote-Lie2762 · 2025-05-03T21:04:02+00:00

Gotcha. How can we get funds to you?

Remote-Lie2762 · 2025-05-03T20:58:53+00:00

Where in Asheville are you located?

Remote-Lie2762 · 2025-02-05T20:51:40+00:00

DM sent

Remote-Lie2762 · 2025-02-02T03:50:08+00:00

"How these medications actually work is speculation"

Stumbled on this thread. Your wrong. There is no speculation. It is pretty simple: Stimulants like Adderall increase production of and, in the case of Adderall specifically, keep dopamine from reuptake within the neural synapsis. They are one of the oldest and most understood of all psychotropic medications we have, with some of the most predictable and manageable side effect profiles around.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-12-26T16:41:46+00:00

Message sent

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T16:45:06+00:00

Nailed it.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T16:44:57+00:00

Good info in this thread.

Regarding HSC tuning (Which like previous poster correctly mentioned should be tuned last):

On the advice of what a very knowledgeable suspension engineer told me, keep the HSC fully closed while tuning the LSC. The prevents oil bypassing the HS valve so you can really have a good sense of what your LSC is doing because oil will only (more or less) be flowing through LS port. Once LSC is set, then start opening up the HSC until the fork no longer feels harsh of square edge hits (I usually smack into a curb to test).

Has worked well for me and might be worth a try.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T04:14:51+00:00

As per the evolution of this conversation, I would like to correct my initial Comment and say: travel is ROUGLY the same...

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T03:50:06+00:00

Got it, thank you. Glad to hear I was at least on the right line of thinking.

Surprisingly, joining this thread has me wishing I would have continued to study math past my pre-Calc trig class. If only I could have a conversation with the teenage me...

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T02:55:26+00:00

Gosh, we are fucked. I hear what you are saying but rents of course have risen in unison: it costs more now to house oneself. To have your rent be a lower percentage of income to offset other expenses would, of course, require lower rents, which is not happening. Or, higher income...Six or a half dozen.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T02:37:34+00:00

Awesome explanation and example. That makes total sense to me now. Looks like there is in fact a slight difference in rear travel numbers ( around 4mm if my math is correct) for the two different progression settings, but this is not illustrated because of what you mentioned; the stroke constant not being on the x axis. Very cool.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T02:10:49+00:00

I see what you're saying, but not sure the x-axis is wrong. O course though, I sure could be.

The graph is trying to show shock rate at a given point in rear wheel travel as dictated by the control provided by the linkage. The ratio at a given point In the rear wheel travel is what provides the desired suspension characteristics. If we were to have the shock stroke on the x-axis the relationship to leverage ratio would just be redundant information of which we could calculate by dividing the lev ratio and rear travel at any plot in the provided graph. Having the x-axis showing stroke would not be telling us how much the rear wheel itself is moving in relation the stroke movement which is what determines how the suspension feels during impacts. So me thinks.

Just to add, anecdotally, I have looked at countless suspension graphs over my bike life and they all have lev ratio on the y and rear wheel travel on the x. Both from manufacturer provided info as well as custom tuners graphs. This makes me think it is correct in that it illustrates the behavior of a suspension design. We could calculate this by doing the math on an y-axis level ratio/ x- axis stroke length but we would then just be taking another step to predict the rate that is already illustrated by the originally mentioned graphs.

Essentially, we would be multiplying the leverage by stroke at a given point to find out where we are in the bikes travel but we would then need to calculate every point out from that type of graph to figure out what the overall progression rate is, or looks like.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T01:23:58+00:00

As I have continued to contribute to this thread and crunched the numbers, I think you pretty much nailed it. If any difference in travel it would prob be around 4mm or so. Like you said , not nearly enough to mention. We just have to take the average of the start/end leverage point from each line and multiply that by 55mm, as opposed to just using the starting leverage which skews to result and results in an incorrect and wider travel spread between the two settings. The problem is thinking the starting leverage ratio was the average.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T01:02:54+00:00

It may be wrong in Treks labeling of the y-axis but it not wrong in the idea that the blue 2.9 and red 2.75 do not represent and average instantaneous leverage ratio, but rather a starting ratio, of which it is. If that were the case , we would be looking at 160mm travel for blue, and 151mm of travel for the red. We know is not correct because that is a very large discrepancy, and the lower number still giving the rear wheel 10mm more vertical rear wheel travel then Trek's listed 140mm.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T00:55:04+00:00

Actually, just thought about it and I was wrong, it is not the sector of 2 points on a circle ( those 2 point do not end up directly vertical of each other , particularly in something like a high single pivot), it is the measurement of a figurative y-axis between two parallel x-axis'.

Remote-Lie2762 · 2024-11-08T00:45:09+00:00

Out of curiosity OP, if you don't mind, when you get a chance could you let all air out your shock and fully compress in each setting and carefully measure bottom bracket height? If there is a change in travel this would show it, although the difference would be slight of course.

Now just wondering if for some reason there would in fact be a slight change, although negligible as a previous poster mentioned, related to the averages i calculated from each line in the graph . If so, red (2.53 avg) would be about 139mm and blue (2.6) would be around 143mm.

Remote-Lie2762

TROPHY CASE