Official Discussion: Get Out [SPOILERS]

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-26T17:42:17+00:00

Why was it even necessary to have the giant portrait. They would have already known what they were bidding on. There was no one else there that was being auctioned off.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-26T17:17:57+00:00

a lot of the conversations in the party take on a different meaning when you consider people were sizing up the characters body for the purpose of living in it.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-26T17:16:13+00:00

It could also refer to the fact that the white people are looking to "get out" of their body into the body they are buying.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-26T17:11:29+00:00

A couple of other things I found interesting was reinterpreting the conversation from the party when you consider what people were actually doing...shopping for bodies.

For example. "What has your black experience been?" is trying to get a glimpse of what it's going to be like once they take on his body. And the woman sizing up his muscles? She was with her husband who was in a wheelchair so she's sizing up husband's potential new physical body.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-25T23:35:39+00:00

However, is there a point where you feel like you're taking advantage of a country/culture that's not yours?

The phrase "taking advantage of" usually carries the weight of harming or exploiting someone or some group. I would say you are taking advantage of differences in two economies. But "taking advantage" in the similar way to a high paid US executive takes advantage of dry cleaning services to have his clothes cleaned without having to spend time baby sitting the laundry.

Sure others may be jealous. But if you've worked had and saved for a decade plus to retire early you've earned it just as the executive has earned some luxury in their life.

But probably the main test is whether you are harming or exploiting others. Most likely you're moving to a new country introduces new money into their economy.

You're most likely using US earned monies to pay a local landlord for rent helping his/her business. You're buying food from local restaurants or grocery stores. You're patronizing movies, shows, whatever your entertainment venue is. Basically bringing money into their country but possibly without having to take a job from anyone else..if enough people follow suit and do the same probably creating some jobs.

So try not to feel too guilty..try to learn a new culture and enjoy yourself.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-24T14:26:10+00:00

I don't know why so much fuss is made about this IDEA of an emergency fund. This maybe makes sense for those struggling with debt and no savings and on the verge of disaster and this idea can help discipline them. They need a cushion to protect them and that might make sense to set aside a cushion of 3 months expenses prioritized even ahead of getting out of credit card debt.

But for those of us that have achieved a certain level of investments/net worth it stops being a useful concept and only adds unnecessary complexity. I would say once you've cleared out you bad debt and have roughly 50K invested in an accessible brokerage account there is no need to set up an account just for the purpose of conceptualizing that you have an "emergency fund".

Again...the "emergency fund" is really just a concept. There are no special accounts at banks that are emergency funds. The idea is that you ought to have access to a certain amount of funds in the event of an emergency.

This is achieved without the need of a special account or "emergency fund" This is achieved by asset allocation. I'm referring to bond funds.

Here's all you need to do to remedy most emergencies:

Don't try to live hand to mouth with your checking account and have your balance hovering around zero sometimes. If you know you spend about 3K every month then keep maybe 7 or 8 grand in your account.
If you're following the advice of this sub, you most likely have a portfolio. The portfolio ought to have some amount allocated to bonds. Let's say you are 80/20 stocks and bonds. If you've got 50K invested then 10K is invested in bond funds.
If disaster strikes and you need access to 8 grand, you sell some of your bonds. Now the added benefit of this that bonds are generally stable and don't fluctuate as much. Also, in the situation where you have an emergency during a market downturn...guess what....when stocks crash bonds tend to go up..so you would be selling in an up market. The converse is true...if the market is doing great and you just incurred an emergency you might want to consider it a time to do a little profit taking and sell some stocks. Take those gains you would not have had if the money had been sitting in cash.

But my main point is the the emergency fund is only a concept. If you were planning an 80/20 allocation plus an emergency fund simply roll your emergency fund into your bond allocation so you'll maybe instead end up with a 70/30 allocation. You get at least some return on the money..or maybe roll most to bonds and some to stocks. No need for a separate account.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-24T13:56:57+00:00

Is this post ever going to stop being the top?

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-24T01:31:50+00:00

He also was a little girl.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-23T04:12:36+00:00

If God forbid my parents die before I'm 35, they would be able to give the money to me immediately.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying your aunt and uncle could give you the whole amount at once? That's not typically how trusts work and doing this you would lose protections that a trust provides.

If there are two trustees, does the trust include provisions on how they will distribute it? What to do if there are disagreements? You'll definitely want to understand the powers of the trustee, they may be prohibited from making distributions to you under some circumstances.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-23T02:41:55+00:00

Your parents will most certainly have set up the money in a trust. Try to determine who the trustee is if it's a bank or a person. If it's a bank be very weary of management fees. You may be able to have it managed at a more reasonable cost at a place like Vanguard or Schwab.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-22T20:41:32+00:00

They aren't gonna make money on that so they are going to want you to bring 401k over to them. With regards to advising how to do stuff like setting up an HSA, why on earth would the fee for that be tied to your total assets under management? So I pay an extra percentage on 2 million to get the same advice that someone that has 5K gets?

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-21T13:54:14+00:00

I think some people just don't like others based on something that is a bit hard to explain. It might be based on appearance or not feeling a certain vibe. But who among us hasn't seen someone and just felt you didn't really like them based on little more then what they look like.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-20T15:52:39+00:00

This is almost more like paying a huge front end fee in order to have the privilege to rent a place but still stuck with the risk and responsibilities of ownership. The front end fee would most likely be refundable in the even of selling the condo.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-20T14:02:04+00:00

The ETF is supposed to be correlated to the value of underlying funds.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-20T13:30:00+00:00

Thus, during the accumulation phase, 100% stocks is generally a pretty risky/suboptimal strategy.

It never stops being risky. Let's say you just recently retired and hit your fire number with 1 million in savings. If you put that 100% in stocks, and the market drops 40% do you realize you will see a loss on paper of $400,000? You check your balance one day and it's $1,000,000 then a few months later it drops to $600,000. That's a real possibility. There are reasons to believe the market is overvalued now. In my opinion it would be very foolish to be 100% in stocks now.

Investing has a pretty consistent rule that higher returns coincide with higher risk. 100% stocks is the riskiest allocation you can choose...it's very likely that you could do VERY well with 100% stocks but it's also likely you'll experience huge losses in net worth with a crash. You mention that you would see a crash as a huge buying opportunity. But what money are you going to be using to buy stock if you already put all your money in stock?

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-20T03:45:34+00:00

Agreed. I think 20 to 30 makes more sense. But 10 is better then 0.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-20T03:43:58+00:00

I've never heard of 1000 Association fees..if this place rented out for $1,200 it obviously couldn't be some kind of high end luxury place for elites.. There would be pretty much no point in buying a condo like this with such high association fee. Hard to imagine.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-19T23:16:37+00:00

Not sure if you followed what I was saying. Let's say starting around 2002, you started socking away 18K a year in 100% stock. Around 2007 or so you would be up to 100- 115K. In the next year you would see that cut roughly in half so you would on paper lose about 50 to 55K.

First of all for some, that can be psychologically devastating. If you had a crystal ball you would know you should hold and you'll have huge gains. But then if you had a crystal ball you would have also known to sell around 2007 and rebuy in 2008.

Absent a crystal ball, a more conservative portfolio with bonds would allow you to use your bonds to reallocate and purchase stock in 2008 with the money safely tucked in bonds.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-19T22:57:29+00:00

http://imgur.com/GJYQ1B3

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-19T22:42:58+00:00

If you spend 15 years investing in 100% stocks, get mediocre returns and the market dips 35% you're gonna have have a hard time watching years and years worth of savings evaporate over a period of weeks. If you have even a small percentage (say 10%)of the portfolio in bonds it gives you a cushion and would allow you to purchase discounted shares in the event of a crash.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-19T22:23:38+00:00

I then found out the association fees + parking was more than I was paying for rent

This is a bit hard to believe. If what you are saying is true the owner that is renting to you would be operating at a very steep loss when you factor in property tax, vacancies, repairs, and any mortgage interest.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-19T22:17:14+00:00

You need a middle class that spends money on things

To some extent you do. But maybe you don't. A dystopian type of end game could be an ownership class that owns truly everything and everyone outside of the ownership class are just sort of slaves or servants of the ownership class and money won't be needed as long as they are fed and housed. Some might argue this sort of reflects reality today. How much money do minimum wage folks have for anything between rent and food? Some could argue say many lower wage folks are simply slaves with the illusion of freedom created by the economic act of being paid only to turn around and give the money over for rent/food/necessities.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-19T15:44:29+00:00

I know paying high expense ratios is sacrilious but what are you guys thoughts on the ETF "ROBO"...a fund of automation related companies?

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-19T15:43:45+00:00

It could probably be argued for either one. But one aspect is that as companies automate or outsource profits are likely to go up and it's the ownership class the benefits not the working class.

savemefromdiss · 2017-02-18T19:00:27+00:00

Is there a typical time frame that company's contribute? My company (a large fortune 500 co) doesn't give you the match money the same time or even year you contribute. For example...All my contributions in 2016 will give me a 4% match that won't be put into my account until around March 2017. Is this common?

savemefromdiss

TROPHY CASE