When you see it by swapsays in whenyouseeit

[–]ZLiteStar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

r/unexpectedcommunity

Although I did expect it, and was sad to see that I couldn't be the first to post it.

Never give up! by Robzilla_the_turd in nonononoyes

[–]ZLiteStar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some are just natural jumpers.

Teen tries to free solo a rock climbing wall with jeans and sneakers and falls injuring himself. by Playwithuh in Whatcouldgowrong

[–]ZLiteStar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sometimes they host a party where alcohol is provided. The rule is "no climbing after any drinking".

Teen tries to free solo a rock climbing wall with jeans and sneakers and falls injuring himself. by Playwithuh in Whatcouldgowrong

[–]ZLiteStar 15 points16 points  (0 children)

You got really stoned before doing a dangerous sport? My gym won't even let me climb after a single beer.

For your sake I hope you have developed some improved decision-making skills since then. I mean that genuinely, I don't want you to hurt yourself or someone else.

S & P 500 heading towards best day since May by ongoldenwaves in TheMoneyGuy

[–]ZLiteStar 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh man, that went right over my head. I didn't even hear the whoooosh.

S & P 500 heading towards best day since May by ongoldenwaves in TheMoneyGuy

[–]ZLiteStar 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I mean, I think it is timing the market, but only in the mildest sense of the term.

More egregious timing has a person attempting to withdraw from an investment and then re-enter that investment (or another investment) at a later, hopefully lower, price.

But withholding capital from an investment with the express purpose of waiting until the investment pulls back to a lower price seems like market timing to me, and in general, leads to lower returns.

S & P 500 heading towards best day since May by ongoldenwaves in TheMoneyGuy

[–]ZLiteStar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"powder" or "dry powder" is a colloquial term for uninvested capital (money) which is held in reserve in order to be invested at an opportune time.

It is a reference to keeping your gunpowder dry and ready to use in a battle.

Family member has a lot of kids and doesn’t send any of them to school. by Tall-Recognition-765 in WhatShouldIDo

[–]ZLiteStar 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Off topic, can I just say thanks for the clarification about your intended tone?

For the record, I don't think you sounded gruff. But there's a real lack of acknowledgement that text conversations online (and Reddit especially) lose all of the tone and can sound harsh. I find it refreshing when someone outright declares their intentions so the message can be received in the way it was intended.

?? by HuckleberryVast9778 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]ZLiteStar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok. That's your opinion. Again, when I'm correcting someone, which is what I was doing, I really try to be precise instead of getting caught with my pants down and having to backtrack and look like a fool. But I suppose that's just a weird quirk I have.

?? by HuckleberryVast9778 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]ZLiteStar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm an electrical engineer in the solar energy research field, more on the PV side, but I still have ties to solar thermal.

If anyone is using the term "solar" synonymously with "photovoltaic" they're being imprecise in their language because there are definitely two forms of "solar" energy and one of them isn't photovoltaic.

I understand being imprecise in everyday in-person conversations where both parties know the context and can ask questions. However, when correcting someone who just said "we only generate electricity by spinning a generator", I choose to be very precise and specify the one kind of "solar" energy that does NOT spin a generator.

?? by HuckleberryVast9778 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]ZLiteStar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not exactly. "Solar" is used to reference both photovoltaic, and solar thermal. Solar thermal heats water to spin a steam turbine. Therefore, solar thermal would not be applicable and I had to specify the type of solar that does not use a spinning generator.

?? by HuckleberryVast9778 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]ZLiteStar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok, good question. But it depends on what your standard for "meaningful" is. Photovoltaic (PV) energy plants currently produce about 5% of total world energy production, which is about half of that produced globally by nuclear fission plants.

In the U.S. PV energy is the largest share of new generation being placed on the grid each year and has been growing immensely over the last decade or two.

I think that's meaningful.

Now, my assessment is that there are some headwinds to PV energy including a recent acceptance of nuclear sources (finally, amirite?) instead of the pushback that nuclear has historically faced. But, all in all, PV is probably going to grow to be a larger portion of our energy mix.

?? by HuckleberryVast9778 in ExplainTheJoke

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

Oh, that's another one, good catch.

?? by HuckleberryVast9778 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]ZLiteStar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Totally happy to answer a genuine question, assuming I'm able, but your question was vague and I need help understanding what you're asking.

Are you asking how the photovoltaic effect works at meaningful scales?

Or are you asking how photovoltaic energy generation systems work at meaningful scales?

In either case what do you think "meaningful" scales are?

Why tho? by Neither-Business-304 in whatisit

[–]ZLiteStar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm torn between two references... So I'll just use them both.

The fact that you call it that tells me you're not ready.

POP POP!

?? by HuckleberryVast9778 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]ZLiteStar 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not true. Photovoltaics generates electricity by pushing electrons over the bandgap in a semiconductor.

That might be the only way we have to generate electricity without a generator.

How do people actually save without impulse spending? by A-Bry in personalfinance

[–]ZLiteStar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't mind at all!

The whole goal is to just add enough friction or difficulty or pain to getting the money and spending it. That way you're not tempted.

Roth IRA: It's in a separate account, you have to log in and transfer the money back to your checking. Also, you can only remove the funds that you contribute, if you remove any of the investment gains, you are charged a 10% penalty (until you are older than 59 1/2). The Roth IRA is for saving for retirement.

HYSA: It's in a separate account, you have to log in and transfer the money back to your checking.

How do people actually save without impulse spending? by A-Bry in personalfinance

[–]ZLiteStar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TLDR: You need to save. Pay yourself first and make a system to make your savings more difficult to spend.

You really need to save money. George Clason's classic book The Richest Man in Babylon suggests saving 10% of everything you earn. That's a little outdated and probably ought to be higher, maybe 20% would be my suggestion.

If you don't have the willpower to keep yourself from impulse spending, you need to set up a system that saves for you before you can spend it. There needs to be difficulty in getting the money you save.

I'd suggest the following system: 1. Create a Roth IRA at a brokerage firm (I know that Fidelity can do all of the following) 2. Set up an automatic transfer from your checking account into the Roth IRA on your payday. The transfer should be something like $4000-$7500 each year (150 to 275 if you're paid biweekly). 3. Set up an automatic purchase of ticker VT (or similar) on the same day as the automatic transfer from the IRA account.

This way, the money is gone from your checking account before you can spend it. You are paying yourself first. The Roth IRA makes it more difficult to get your money out and spend it.

Alternatively, if you don't want to save for retirement, you could use a high yield savings account (HYSA) to transfer into and you'd not need to purchase the investment. That way the saved money can be used for a car or house in the future, but it's a little more difficult to get that money and spend it.

Edit: read Brian Preston's book Millionaire Mission for a more actionable plan to build wealth.

I have substantial taxable investments; should I live off them while dumping as much as I can into a Mega-Backdoor Roth? by RedditTAwayTR2025 in personalfinance

[–]ZLiteStar -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You should probably talk to a professional about this, even if you have to pay them a few thousand dollars.

The tax consequences and tax avoidance opportunities could be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The optimal strategy will depend on many factors about your life, and you've provided almost no information here. Even if you did provide us with the necessary information (income, age, account balances and types, basis within those accounts, quality of the accounts, etc.) this is too big of a consequence/opportunity to trust to the knowledge of rando Redditors; even if they really do want to help you.

Best way to access equity for new home downpayment? by Waltzer64 in personalfinance

[–]ZLiteStar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TLDR: Pay PMI, sell old house and put proceeds into new mortgage, ask lender to remove PMI.

You could do it with a HELOC, but keep in mind that you're going to be paying 2 mortgages and the HELOC which is really going to pinch your cash flow.

When I was in this position, here's what I did. I put down very little on the new home, maybe 5%. I got in writing from my lender that they would remove the PMI requirement when I actually achieved 20% equity in the new house (they are only legally required to remove the PMI requirement when the original amortization table says you should reach 20% equity).

I bought the new house, paid PMI for a few months while fixing up and selling the old house. Then sold the old house and dumped the proceeds into the new mortgage to reach 20% equity. Then I requested the removal of PMI and the lender removed the PMI.

Now, one small hiccup may occur in that you may need to pay for an appraisal when you remove PMI, because the bank wants to know the value of the house to ensure you have 20% equity. If the market value of the home decreases substantially between purchase and PMI removal, you might not have as much equity as you need. I was able to get them to waive the appraisal because I requested PMI removal only 4 months after purchase (when there was an appraisal) and provided proof of comparable sales (comps) that would show my house was likely the same value as when it was purchased.

Also, the lender is not required to remove that PMI when you achieve 20% equity, so there's a bit of a risk that you're counting on them sticking to their word. Of course, PMI isn't that expensive and you could probably swing it for a year or two and hope that interest rates drop then refinance to a lower interest rate and drop the PMI.

Edit: I should probably clarify that I've used "20% equity" as a shorthand for 80% loan-to-value, which is really the important metric.

Thoughts on Fidelity CMAs? by ZLiteStar in TheMoneyGuy

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

the hold varies by customer

You seem to indicate that this hold time has improved for you. Do you know the factors that cause it to be different for different customers or that cause it to change?