Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
Here's a list of the last 100 IPO's to come out. According to this list the number in negative territory is 43%
Sounds about right since that list goes back a whopping 5 months.
Go out a few years, 2-5, and my 90% negative number is more accurate. No thanks on taking on IPOs in the first few months unless you like gambling (which I sometimes do!). [Reply]
Originally Posted by lewdog:
Sounds about right since that list goes back a whopping 5 months.
Go out a few years, 2-5, and my 90% negative number is more accurate. No thanks on taking on IPOs in the first few months unless you like gambling (which I sometimes do!).
IPO's are straight up gambling unless you get in prior to the stock actually going public. Stick to the fundamentals, Lew. You got the right idea. Learn to read the charts.
Let me give you .05 worth of free advice. Go get a book called "Technical Analysis of the Futures Market" by John Murphy. Don't shy away because it says futures. 100% of the book applies to stocks as well. It is the Bible of TA. You will look at stock charts in a totally new light and it will open up an entirely new perspective to your analysis. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Cornstock:
With the current tax rate dropping a bit, and taking into account the current political climate, I think the current tax rate is the lowest we'll see for the rest of our lives.
This is pure conjecture of course. But if that is true, it would be advantageous to max out your Roth to avoid paying taxes at a higher rate in retirement. There are nuances to this but I don't feel like getting into that now.
Moral of the story: unless you're reduced to eating ramen until she gets a job, try to max out contributions to a Roth, and make sure you are getting the full max in your 401k.
It's the lowest you'll see until the Democrats eventually regain control. Do not ever think the rates now are what they will be forever. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Eh. That’s a little wonky.
401s and traditional IRAs have some theoretical advantages.
You’ve paid tax on contributions to ROTH where as 401s and traditional IRAs are not taxed at contribution. In theory your tax rate will be lower in retirement so there may benefits there. Where the ROTH shines is the gains aren’t taxed.
So the gamble you’re taking is the tax on the basis at the time of contribution is less than the tax on the basis and gain at the time of distribution.
Typically it is but is still a gamble.
You left out some significant parts..
A) You can withdraw your capital from a ROTH penalty free prior to 59 1/2 if you need the money
B) If you intend to retire and a similar income level that you currently have then you cannot automatically assume you will have a lower tax bracket if you are pulling all of your income from taxable retirement savings such as a 401k or a Traditional IRA
And a notable correction to what you said about where a ROTH "shines". You are not accurate. A ROTH shines in the fact that what you withdraw is not taxed. A Traditional IRA or 401k does not have its "gains" taxed at all. But you will pay tax at the ordinary income level when you do withdraw from them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
You left out some significant parts..
A) You can withdraw your capital from a ROTH penalty free prior to 59 1/2 if you need the money
Right, but that's not what Lew was talking about. He was talking about distributions not being taxed.
Originally Posted by petegz28:
B) If you intend to retire and a similar income level that you currently have then you cannot automatically assume you will have a lower tax bracket if you are pulling all of your income from taxable retirement savings such as a 401k or a Traditional IRA
You're right, you can't automatically assume that, which is why I said "In theory".
Originally Posted by petegz28:
And a notable correction to what you said about where a ROTH "shines". You are not accurate. A ROTH shines in the fact that what you withdraw is not taxed. A Traditional IRA or 401k does not have its "gains" taxed at all. But you will pay tax at the ordinary income level when you do withdraw from them.
Wrong-o dude. I have no interest in getting in a pissing match on a financial thread, but what I've said is accurate.
What you withdraw out of a ROTH is not taxed. What you withdraw out of a Traditional IRA/401K is taxed upon withdrawl. What you withdraw consists of:
ROTH =
Basis (what you contributed after tax meaning you paid tax on it)
+Gain(Not taxed)
401K/IRA =
Basis (contributed pretax, meaning it wasn't taxed, but is taxed upon withdrawl)
+Gain (taxed on withdrawl)
My statement was accurate - gains are not taxed. So was your's. Lew's point is typically correct also, having investments in both ROTH and Traditional should net you a lower tax bracket.
But for most folks, what is really appealing about a ROTH is that the gains aren't taxed. Especially if they are younger and have more time for gains to compound. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Right, but that's not what Lew was talking about. He was talking about distributions not being taxed.
You're right, you can't automatically assume that, which is why I said "In theory".
Wrong-o dude. I have no interest in getting in a pissing match on a financial thread, but what I've said is accurate.
What you withdraw out of a ROTH is not taxed. What you withdraw out of a Traditional IRA/401K is taxed upon withdrawl. What you withdraw consists of:
ROTH =
Basis (what you contributed after tax meaning you paid tax on it)
+Gain(Not taxed)
401K/IRA =
Basis (contributed pretax, meaning it wasn't taxed, but is taxed upon withdrawl)
+Gain (taxed on withdrawl)
My statement was accurate - gains are not taxed. So was your's. Lew's point is typically correct also, having investments in both ROTH and Traditional should net you a lower tax bracket.
But for most folks, what is really appealing about a ROTH is that the gains aren't taxed. Especially if they are younger and have more time for gains to compound.
I never said a ROTH was taxed. In fact I specifically said only a Traditional and 401k were taxed. [Reply]
Originally Posted by philfree:
So if you had $100,000.00 and were to put it all into the market tomorrow what does the Chiefs Planet Portfolio look like?
Depends on your time frame and risk tolerance....
When do you need the money?
Immediate term I would be piece into stocks and park most in cash. Wouldn't go over 50% stocks at the moment
Long term there is only one word you need to remember....."Technology" [Reply]
Originally Posted by philfree:
So if you had $100,000.00 and were to put it all into the market tomorrow what does the Chiefs Planet Portfolio look like?
If it were me I’d probably just pay my sprayer off :-). [Reply]
Originally Posted by philfree:
So if you had $100,000.00 and were to put it all into the market tomorrow what does the Chiefs Planet Portfolio look like?
Buy a medical CBD oil license in Missouri and rent space in the industrial warehouse caves. Set up a hemp growing operation and sell the CDB oil wholesale to make a small profit until Medical MJ passes.
Upgrade Medical CBD license to Medical MJ- change plant varieties- become wealthy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Depends on your time frame and risk tolerance....
When do you need the money?
Immediate term I would be piece into stocks and park most in cash. Wouldn't go over 50% stocks at the moment
Long term there is only one word you need to remember....."Technology"
I don't need it anytime soon. I have some tech stocks but this is would be a whole different portfolio. $100,000.00 divided into 10 stocks with $10,000.00 in each. I want to see what the Chiefs Planet investment gurus can come up with. Or you could do 12 stocks @ $8,000.00 ea. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Halfcan:
Buy a medical CBD oil license in Missouri and rent space in the industrial warehouse caves. Set up a hemp growing operation and sell the CDB oil wholesale to make a small profit until Medical MJ passes.
Upgrade Medical CBD license to Medical MJ- change plant varieties- become wealthy.
I'll handle your agronomy and production for a nominal fee. [Reply]
Originally Posted by philfree:
I don't need it anytime soon. I have some tech stocks but this is would be a whole different portfolio. $100,000.00 divided into 10 stocks with $10,000.00 in each. I want to see what the Chiefs Planet investment gurus can come up with. Or you could do 12 stocks @ $8,000.00 ea.
Oh, this isn't hypothetical? (you're still welcome to pay off my sprayer if you want :-))
I wouldn't do individual stocks. I asked a question about retirement fund companies back last spring and got some good information on fees in relation to different companies.
That's probably better than anything I'd come up with, but yeah, I think you want mutual funds not stocks. [Reply]
