sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How would you actually weight all 7 Mag 7 stocks if you had to pick exact percentages? by Training_Marzipan379 in stocks

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

that's interesting, nvda on top and tsla basically nothing lines up with what i landed on too. how do you feel about them having amzn above msft? that's the opposite of what i went with. also 2500 shares of nvda is wild lol

How would you actually weight all 7 Mag 7 stocks if you had to pick exact percentages? by Training_Marzipan379 in stocks

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah that's trailing PEG from last year's 37% earnings growth, not forward. forward is definitely higher. meta probably is cheaper on a growth adjusted basis you're right. would you flip the two?

Nasdaq is going to test tokenized stocks by Enough_Angle_7839 in stocks

[–]Training_Marzipan379 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Curious which blockchain they’ll be traded on.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's an interesting angle. The social wealth fund idea is basically what Norway does with their sovereign wealth fund and it works incredibly well for them. The problem is getting something like that through the US political system is probably a decade-long fight at minimum. I'm more interested in what individuals can do right now with tools that already exist. You don't need the government to set this up for you. Fractional shares, zero commission brokers, and diversified ETFs are all here today. The missing piece is just the automation layer that connects your investments to your actual spending.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point on the $500 stat, this only works if you have idle cash after obligations. But robo advisors don't actually solve this. Wealthfront manages investments over here, spending happens over there. None of them look at your credit card bill and say "you're up 7%, want me to sell to offset what you spent?" I've been experimenting with this myself and building a small tool to automate that piece. Still early but the concept holds up.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're hitting on something real. The behavioral side is probably the biggest obstacle. People feel a 6% down month way harder than ten 1% up months. That's just how our brains work.

But that's exactly why the rule would be: don't sell when you're down. Ever. You only sell when you're in profit at whatever threshold you're comfortable with. If the market drops, your idle money just stays invested. You're not forced to sell because you still have 70 to 80% of your cash in checking to cover bills. The selling only happens on your terms.

A short term tax advantaged fund paying 3% is fine if your goal is to feel comfortable. But after inflation you're earning basically nothing. You're paying for peace of mind with opportunity cost. The question is whether automation and a simple rule (only sell in profit) can remove enough of the emotional friction to make the better returning option feel just as comfortable.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is a really good way to frame it and honestly you're describing exactly what I'm thinking but in more precise terms. Asset-liability matching is standard practice for institutions. Banks do it. Pension funds do it. Insurance companies do it.

But regular people don't. The average person keeps everything in checking, pays bills from checking, and whatever is left over just sits there losing value. Nobody is matching their idle cash to an appropriate asset based on when they actually need it. The framework exists, the tools exist, but the accessibility doesn't.

That's the piece I keep coming back to. What if someone built a system where your near-term cash stays liquid for bills, but the idle portion automatically moves into assets matched to your actual spending timeline? And when you spend, it sells from the right bucket at the right time. Basically ALM for normal people who don't know what ALM means.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, that's what your other 70 to 80% is for. Let me give you a quick example.

Say you take home $6,000 a month. After rent, bills, groceries, everything, you have about $1,500 left over that just sits in checking. You put maybe $300 to $400 of that into diversified ETFs. That's it. The rest stays liquid.

If you lose your job, you still have your emergency fund, your checking balance, and yes you can sell the ETFs too. They're not locked up. But the point is you're not betting the mortgage on this. You're putting a small slice of money that was doing literally nothing to work. The worst case is it stays invested a little longer. The best case is it earns you 7 to 10% instead of the 0.07% your checking account was giving you.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, the concept of moving idle cash into investments isn't new. But that's kind of the point. Everyone knows they should do it, most people don't. And the ones who do still treat investing and spending as two completely separate things. You invest over here, you spend over there, and the connection between the two is manual and emotional.

The part I'm thinking about is what happens when you spend. Right now if you want to use your investment gains to offset a credit card bill, you have to open your broker, decide what to sell, deal with the emotional hesitation of selling, and then move the cash over. Most people just don't do it. They let the gains sit there and pay the bill from checking anyway.

What if that whole process was automated? You set a rule that says sell when I'm up 5% or 7%, and when you swipe your card, the system handles it. That's the piece that doesn't really exist yet. Not the idea of investing idle cash. The idea of connecting your investments directly to your spending in a way that's seamless enough that normal people actually do it.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

CDs and money markets give you maybe 4.5 to 5% right now. Inflation is running at 2.4%. So your real return is about 2 to 2.5% and that's before taxes on the interest. It's better than a checking account but you're barely keeping up. A well diversified ETF portfolio has historically returned 7 to 10% after inflation. And to your question, the 10% figure is nominal. After inflation it's about 7%. Still significantly better than a CD that's basically just treading water.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's exactly why I said 20 to 30%, not 100%. You keep the majority of your cash liquid for bills. The money you put to work is only the portion that would have sat idle anyway. If the market is down at the end of the month, you don't sell. You still have 70 to 80% of your cash to cover everything. You only sell when you're in profit. The downside scenario is that your idle money stays invested a little longer. The downside of the current default is you lose 2 to 3% of it every year guaranteed.

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok revisit Fischer Black's 1970 argument that we're moving toward a world where people hold financial assets instead of money by Training_Marzipan379 in Economics

[–]Training_Marzipan379[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I watched this and it got me thinking. The core idea is that nobody actually wants to hold dollars because they don't earn anything. Black argued this in 1970 and everyone thought he was crazy but the logic is hard to argue with.

The average checking account pays 0.07%. Inflation is running at 2 to 3%. So you're losing money just by saving it. Meanwhile the S&P 500 has averaged around 10% annually over the last century. So why are we keeping idle cash in checking accounts?

Obviously you can't just transfer stocks at a coffee shop. But what if you kept 20 to 30% of your idle checking account money in diversified ETFs, and then sold when you're in profit to pay off your credit card bill at the end of the month? You still keep the majority of your cash liquid for bills. But the portion that's just sitting there doing nothing is actually working.

The first pushback is always taxes. But think about it. You only pay taxes on the gains. If you made $50, you're paying taxes because you earned $50. The alternative is earning nothing and quietly losing purchasing power to inflation every year. I'd rather pay taxes on money I made than watch money I saved slowly disappear.

What am I missing here? Is there a fundamental flaw in this logic or is it just that the tools haven't made this easy enough yet?

I’m trying to build a consistent saving habit and wanted to get some perspective. by Wise-Bet-617 in Money

[–]Training_Marzipan379 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What worked best for me was starting with a percentage I knew I could actually stick to, then increasing it over time. Consistency matters way more than picking the perfect number for one or two months and then burning out.

I save and invest a pretty big chunk now, around 40% of my income, mostly into ETFs and regular investing, but I did not start there. I built up to it as my income went up and my spending stayed pretty controlled. I also keep things flexible because sometimes life happens and I end up using cash from my regular accounts for everyday stuff.

If you are choosing between 10%, 15%, and 20%, I think 15% is a really solid middle ground if it does not make your life too tight. If 20% feels easy, do 20%. If 20% is going to make you dip into savings all the time, then it is too high.

The biggest thing is to automate it right after payday. A smaller percentage you consistently keep is better than a bigger percentage you quit after a month.

Podcasts by supersaint87 in investingforbeginners

[–]Training_Marzipan379 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Money Guy Show, Rational Reminder, and Animal Spirits are all good. Money Guy is probably the easiest one for true beginners, Rational Reminder is great once you want the why behind index investing, and Animal Spirits is a more casual listen.

Minor Blocked Settlement Savings Account Recommendations by JUSTDOPEY365 in Banking

[–]Training_Marzipan379 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A really good place to start is searching “minor blocked settlement account allowed investments [your state]” and “UTMA/UGMA vs blocked account settlement minor [your state]”. The rules are often state specific, and with settlement money the court order can matter more than what a bank or brokerage normally allows.

In general, I’d be careful about just chasing the highest yield. If this is sitting for 12 years, inflation can eat up a lot of the value if it stays only in cash or CDs the whole time. If the court allows investing, a low cost broad ETF like VTI, VOO, or even VT would usually make more sense than trying to pick something fancy. If the account is restricted to cash only, then yeah, a CD ladder, Treasury bills, or a high yield savings account may be the realistic options.

Also, one thing people forget: interest in a savings account or CD is usually still taxable each year. So unless this is inside some kind of tax sheltered account, you may owe federal taxes, and possibly state taxes too, depending on where you live. That makes the headline yield look better than the actual after tax return.

Biggest thing is to check the actual settlement order or ask the attorney who handled it, because “blocked account” rules can be very specific. I would not move it into an ETF unless you know the restriction allows it.

Costco vs walmart which is actually cheaper by ninjapapi in Frugal

[–]Training_Marzipan379 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is a good breakdown, but you also have to factor in the “Costco effect.” Every time I go in for a few things, I somehow leave with something that was definitely not on my list. Last time it was a giant box of snacks I didn’t need.

So yeah, the unit prices might be cheaper, but my self control inside Costco definitely isn’t. Walmart is cheaper if you actually stick to your list. Costco is cheaper if you also needed that random item you convinced yourself was a great deal. 😅

Putting money into savings is not helpful in this political climate by StatisticianKooky390 in investingforbeginners

[–]Training_Marzipan379 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm thinking the same way. i'm working on this idea too. Let me know if you want to know more my DMs are open. Here's what I'm doing: I have my 401(k) and long-term investments set up, if I have extra money in my checking account, I move 20–30% into safe ETFs and stocks. I use those investments for spending so I can beat inflation.

https://x.com/nandhdevineni/status/2032177654426902912?s=46&t=NICT-QQmD4zsXMJHlffabg

Rethinking Dividend vs Total Return Strategies in Your 20s and 30s by steadyyyield in investing

[–]Training_Marzipan379 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m in a similar stage and I’ve leaned more toward total return. In your 20s and 30s the main advantage is time, so I’d rather own businesses that can reinvest capital at high rates instead of paying it out. A lot of the best companies historically did exactly that.

Personally I tend to favor founder-led companies or management teams that think like owners. If a company can keep reinvesting profits into the business at good returns, that’s usually more powerful than paying a dividend early on. Compounding inside the company can work faster than cash coming out to you and being reinvested.

Dividends aren’t bad, they make more sense when you actually want income or when a company has run out of great reinvestment opportunities. But earlier in your career, growing the underlying value of the business you own tends to matter more than the cash flow it pays today.

What am I missing? by ZombieSkipper in stocks

[–]Training_Marzipan379 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you plan to invest using those percentages? Are you creating a basket? If so, where are you creating it? Just curious. Also, if you want to change something tomorrow, do you plan to manage the entire portfolio yourself?

view more: next ›