Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
I have probably like three year's worth of my current bills sitting in savings. I'm a super safe kind of guy, but even I can recognize that that's not doing me much good. I think my money market account gains something abysmal like .00025% interest.
Jesus :-). I had 8~10 months worth and I thought I was overdoing it. I lowered it to probably 3 months worth and bought into some ETFs with the rest. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
I have probably like three year's worth of my current bills sitting in savings. I'm a super safe kind of guy, but even I can recognize that that's not doing me much good. I think my money market account gains something abysmal like .00025% interest.
That's too much. 6 months is the most you probably need.
I could probably do less too given my career stability is very good. If I got laid off tomorrow I could find a job the same day. If you won't lose your source of income for long, you can get away with less in emergency savings.
I also believe in keeping an standard emergency fund, not in stocks, because I don't believe in short term disability and will never pay for it. It's a waste of money for people who have a standard emergency savings plan.
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
If you can make 25% on your stocks and not need the money for 2 years you can take a 50% market crash and still be even. People hold these emergency funds for years and it's a waste. There's basically no emergency you can't use a credit card for to buy time until you liquidate an investment.
Having an emergency take you into debt is the reason for an emergency savings plan. Job layoff, injured on the job, or a huge home maintenance issue isn't something I want to take on interest debt for if I didn't have the funds to cover it.
Are you really suggesting that you can easily get 25% gains on your stocks every year? Many new investors who started in 2021 are currently negative YTD with risky stock plays. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
If you can make 25% on your stocks and not need the money for 2 years you can take a 50% market crash and still be even. People hold these emergency funds for years and it's a waste. There's basically no emergency you can't use a credit card for to buy time until you liquidate an investment.
That's a pretty good point.
Of course, if there's a crash it's not going to be a good thing. But I'm one of those people who gets antsy just watching money sit around. I had a dedicated emergency fund, and then after a few months I put it into some ultraconservative defensive fund, and then after a few more months I bought a little bit of stock with it, and now it's just another stock account for me.
However, I keep a decent amount of cash in my checking account just because I don't like juggling money between accounts, and I have a rule to keep at least five percent cash in my stock trading account, so all in all I do have an emergency fund. It's just not a dedicated account. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lewdog:
So how is everyone’s trading going?
Got out of Disney. I got in thinking they were an underrated Covid play, but that's probably played out by now. Tagged resistance and couldn't get through it so I pulled the Chute.
I also pulled the chute on fucking Chevron like I should have done before. Yay red! :-) [Reply]
Friend told me about VISM (penny stock) a little more than a month ago. Up 88% since purchase. it's a LONG term play with possible $5/ share in the future. Throw a little money at it and do the 2 year challenge of not even looking at it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Jesus :-). I had 8~10 months worth and I thought I was overdoing it. I lowered it to probably 3 months worth and bought into some ETFs with the rest.
Originally Posted by lewdog:
That's too much. 6 months is the most you probably need.
I could probably do less too given my career stability is very good. If I got laid off tomorrow I could find a job the same day. If you won't lose your source of income for long, you can get away with less in emergency savings.
I also believe in keeping an standard emergency fund, not in stocks, because I don't believe in short term disability and will never pay for it. It's a waste of money for people who have a standard emergency savings plan.
:-) I know it's bad. I've always been super frugal and have mastered living well beneath my means. Plus I don't have any kids, so that makes it easy.
Totally off topic, but I don't understand how anyone out there without children can't support themselves. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Totally off topic, but I don't understand how anyone out there without children can't support themselves.
Barring a disability, they can. Many are either just too lazy to or are completely clueless on how to manage money and prefer instant gratification to living comfortably within their means. The increase of entitlement attitude also plays a big role and recent government handouts has only made it worse. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus: :-) I know it's bad. I've always been super frugal and have mastered living well beneath my means. Plus I don't have any kids, so that makes it easy.
Totally off topic, but I don't understand how anyone out there without children can't support themselves.
Originally Posted by MTG#10:
Barring a disability, they can. Many are either just too lazy to or are completely clueless on how to manage money and prefer instant gratification to living comfortably within their means. The increase of entitlement attitude also plays a big role and recent government handouts has only made it worse.
Definitely should be easy without kids.
And on the flip side if you are having kids, it is actually rationale to limit the size of your family based on income. People who have 5 kids and then bitch about having low paying jobs and inability to pay their bills made that decision themselves!
We are choosing to have 1 child and a large part of that decision is financial. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lewdog:
Definitely should be easy without kids.
And on the flip side if you are having kids, it is actually rationale to limit the size of your family based on income. People who have 5 kids and then bitch about having low paying jobs and inability to pay their bills made that decision themselves!
We are choosing to have 1 child and a large part of that decision is financial.
Actually the incremental cost of another child is less than I anticipated. On the money side anyway, the time side....not so much - if you're parenting in the manner in which we want to parent. [Reply]
