u/musing_codger

It's go with whatever your gf wants. You look great in ask three. Incredible smile.

This is what is called back fitting your data. Just buy and hold and don't follow stupid ideas.

No. I diversify beyond the S&P. No way I'm going to go down to 100 stocks.

Who forgot it? It's one of my biggest voting issues. The biggest complication is that you have two parties that like tariffs and no party that promotes free trade. One is just crazier about it than the other.

Faster means riskier and a reduced chance of meeting your goals. If you are ok with that, pick a few stocks and try your luck. I prefer the get rich slowly route, but you do you.

Quarterly estimated payments

How can that be? Assuming a constant ratio of trips to emmissions, I would need to eliminate 2/3 of my trips to reduce emmissions by 67%. For that to be one a day would imply that I'm taking about 1.5 trips total per day. Maybe that's the average, but you're then asking people to bike for most of their trips. It's a big ask in our culture, with our infrastructure, and with our driver behavior.

I biked to work for years. About 9 miles each way. I gave up because the number of inattentive drivers started to skyrocket with smartphone usage. One morning when I saw someone weave so far to the right that their tires went off the edge of the shoulder, I realized that it was only a matter of time before I was hit. I won't ride my bike in my area anymore.

If you aren't passing, stay out of the passing lane. It's that simple.

By this logic, wasn;t the attack on Pearl Harbor a more significant event?

I was woken up to watch it. The funny thing is I remember watching my parents and older siblings being so excited. I didn't really understand what was going on other than they all thought it was important.

I don't budget down to the level of Halloween spending, but in general, I am spending more in retirement than I was when I was working, so I am definitely not cutting holiday spending.

Yes, but at a price. If the government started refinancing all of its debt at very long maturities, it would face a smaller pool of potential buyers and would likely need to offer higher yields to attract them.

For example, I skew my nominal bond holdings toward shorter maturities to minimize inflation risk. There are only so many investors willing to lock up their money for decades at fixed rates and risk catastrophic losses from unexpected inflation.

This wouldn't just push up long-term borrowing costs for the government. Mortgage rates are closely related to long-term Treasury yields, so upward pressure on those yields would also tend to push up mortgage rates.

It helps to remember that the government borrows at rates set by the market, and there are different markets for different maturities. When the Treasury substantially changes the mix of debt it issues, it can change the interest rates on those maturities relative to one another.

In fact, we recently saw Secretary Bessent doing something close to the opposite of what you're suggesting. Treasury expanded its purchases of long-term bonds, officially to improve market liquidity, although many observers interpreted the move as an attempt to bring down long-term yields and, indirectly, mortgage rates.

If the government tried to shift overwhelmingly toward long-term borrowing, investors would almost certainly demand higher yields to absorb the additional duration and inflation risk. Reducing deficits would be one way to limit that pressure. In fact, I personally wouldn't consider a significant allocation in long-term nominal bonds without a serious commitment to reduced borrowing.

https://giphy.com/gifs/pOeaTGiDBZgYM

It was literally the first time anyone in the history of life forms set foot on another celestial body. Hundreds of years from now, nobody will remember 9/11. They will still replay the landing on the moon.

I didn't understand what you mean by freezing the debt. Not borrowing more? Taking out perpetual loans at a fixed rate?

Moon landing. most significant event on TV period.

I buy them all through a total market index fund. Diversification is a good thing. It's hard to get enough of it buying individual stocks.

If you are unable to see the value in being able to leave a bad work environment and the risks associated with having your pension require that you stay in one that may be making you miserable, you're beyond my ability to educate.

I don't see it as a binary choice between "cash" and "investments." I see it as a continuum of risk levels.

I usually keep between $20K and $50K in a money market mutual fund in my cash management account. That's my spending money. It still earns more than cash, but not much (3.5% right now). It is very, very low risk.

Added to that, I have a large allocation to TIPS. This money is less safe and less liquid than my cash, but still very safe and a good way to defend my purchasing power over time. I keep about 30 years of base expenses in this category.

Beyond that, I have the rest of my money invested in index funds.

My understanding is that this is a reason why women find witty men attractive. It demonstrates intelligence, with is a very useful skill for a mate.

I use a cash management account at Fidelity. All my money in the account is on a MMF until I spend it. Best of both worlds. 

Maybe my timeline is off, but their M chips and the unified memory architecture are huge innovations.

One billion dollars of the ETF VT.

No. I use mine for location shifting and didn't really care.

I lived well below my means and out a lot of energy into increasing my earnings. I planned to retire around 60, but things went better than planned and I retired at 54.