Quote from FutureNurseSuey
I hope you are joking about owning land never being a bad investment!!!!! You realize we are all in this because of people's bad land investments?! LoL. Not to mention the property taxes are now higher than the sky because the gov't needs money for all of this....I so cannot even pay mine.
Absolutely not joking. Despite all the hulabaloo being made about bad property puchases, the other half of the story is being conveniently ignored by the media - plenty of folks have made sound purchasing decisions and currently own homes. Mal-investment by the few does not automatically make a particular investment "bad" in general. This is precisely why the market should be allowed to correct itself and liquidate bad debt.
Besides, when the crash comes, all your liquidity will be worth less than the paper it's printed on - be they currency notes or "infallible government bonds". But hard assets - property, gold etc. will retain value and not be as affected (you read 'em history books). Why do you think that the government grabs 'em from the populace every chance it gets?
Hard assets are essentially a hedge against uncertain future times. Precious metals will always be precious - no matter where you go. People will always need property - to live, to grow food, to work etc.
You're concerned about property taxes - but that concern will pale in significance when everyone else (including the government) is broke and you're penniless and have nothing to trade.
Quote from ocankhe
Well the best answer is to do nothing different then you are currently doing.Except maybe increase your contribution to your 401k or 403b.
Quote from ocankhe
I have been through 3 major market crashes since the 1970's. In every one of those sticking with existing well diversified portfolios and increasing my contribution has made me more money then my peers who got out of the market and went to the bank.
But in those previous crashes were the banks themselves in trouble? Was the monetary unit itself under pressure and losing value? Were we involved in trillion dollar wars?
I agree that keeping cash in banks is probably not a good idea (FDIC or no FDIC!*) - but how confident are we that there will be a rebound soon? Especially given our lethargic growth over the past decade (by growth I mean industrial output - not the speculative stock market)?
Quote from ocankhe
It does take time to recover, although this time I am looking at a 3-7 year time frame. You ask what if it doesn't recover? Well then money in the bank won't be worth anything also because money won't be worth anything.
By then money itself won't be worth anything - This is also true.
Rallies will occur. But a rally from Dow 8500 to Dow 9500-9700 would just set up another major selling opportunity.
The Dow-Jones Industrials still yield only 3.77% (dividend yield), well below the historic mean. The U.S. is entering a slow-growth environment. Dividend growth will be low or even negative as some firms run into deficits. Yields will therefore have to go higher in order for stocks to provide a decent return for the risk involved.
Historically, a 5-6% dividend yield on the Dow is not at all unusual. The year 1982 saw 6% yields. Higher yields than that have occurred.
Yields of 5-6% equate to a Dow Industrial Average of 5300-6400, which is substantially lower than its present 8500.
It's a bear market.
Perhaps the bottom line ultimately comes down to: How much risk are you willing to take?
For those of us with a good 20-30 years to retirement, there is greater leeway in risk taking. But for those looking to retire 5 years from now? How much value are they willing to risk losing?
*: One of the causes of the S&L crisis some years back was the government's increase of the limit on federal deposit insurance from $40,000 per account to $100,000. Bankers looked at this and thought, well now, I can make big, big bucks by taking on far more risk with my loans (which pay higher interest), and if the loans go into default, why, I'm covered for more than twice the amount of government insurance.
They did indeed take on much more risk; thousands of their big real estate development loans defaulted; and it ended up costing taxpayers half a trillion dollars.
So naturally, the government's brilliant response to the current crisis is to increase the limit on federal deposit insurance even further, to $250,000.