Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

[Gen]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

with one employer (for whatever reason), one needs to just put a likkle bit and put that excess cash into outside investments or some plans will allow you to convert it to cash and purchase other securities (while still retaining tax advantages of the retirement account)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pepper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">thin is not the same as all the money in one stock


how do you have yours distributed?



</div></div>

Yes, I understand that.
Basic example is my employer retirement fund. That is managed by Fidelity and I pick and choose the funds I want them to invest with. Some do well, some not so well.

I have retirement funds from my two previous employers. All three funds are managed by different investment houses, and have their own + and -. I could have all this money rolled into one account, but I choose to keep them seperate.

Maybe me just paranoid bout me money.

I don't have all my insurance policies through the same broker either. </div></div>

but supposed you had spent you entire career with one employer? how would you have broken up the retirement funds? </div></div>

[Gen]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

not really just set up retirement accounts with them using whatever mutual funds you choose.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">whats the borkerage ting?


yuh mean to do yuh own trading? </div></div>

[RichD]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

so why discount brokerage and full service brokerage?

[Gen]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

the full service is fi people who want smaddy hold dem hand and gie dem advice.

the discount one yuh kinda deh pan yuh own more or less dem juss put choo the trade fi yuh and tek care a the paperwork.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so why discount brokerage and full service brokerage? </div></div>

[RichD]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the full service is fi people who want smaddy hold dem hand and gie dem advice.

the discount one yuh kinda deh pan yuh own more or less dem juss put choo the trade fi yuh and tek care a the paperwork.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so why discount brokerage and full service brokerage? </div></div> </div></div>

but the vast majority of investors not really interested in doing any trading themself..they more interested in financial planning services ...which is what maddoff was supposed to be offering

[Gen]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

in my opinion it is a conflict of interest to use an adviser/planner who is ALSO selling you something.

a financial planner is only supposed to be paid to offer &quot;planning&quot;, they should not be trying to sell you anything (where they are getting a cut)

but most a di time dem a prips yuh bout a specific &quot;fund&quot;.

[RichD]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

yes it does seem to be a fundamental conflict.

up here FA are not paid by the customer directly ..they get paid based on portfolio performance.


but in the case of madoff...what was he selling?

[Pepper]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

Wasn't he in the business of investments and securities?

[RichD]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pepper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wasn't he in the business of investments and securities? </div></div> he was in the business of tiefin ppl money

dem sey there is no evidence of any trading

[Pepper]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

LOL, I haven't followed the case very closely. But from what I hear it was just a basic pyramid scheme.

But if his fund was paying so much every year, dem shoulda know sumting was wrong. You have to loose some years.

[RichD]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pepper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, I haven't followed the case very closely. But from what I hear it was just a basic pyramid scheme.

But if his fund was paying so much every year, dem shoulda know sumting was wrong. You have to loose some years. </div></div> from what i hear he it wasnt paying outlandish profits ..it was jus consistent 7-9% per year. the only thing that raised suspicion was that he never had a down year.
he made up reports on what stuff he was buying for clients

[Gen]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

the only consistent sitten out deh is one a dem fixed CD weh yuh lock in the rate

mi nuh know how smaddy can have 1.6 million wid one dege dege smaddy (firm) \0/

[Yuriatin]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

There's the rub Pepper.

There's a literally, a<span style="font-weight: bold"> LIST</span> of people, who knew something was wrong.

They rang the bell, raised the alarm, blew the whistle - the SEC, etc just let Madoff keep on truckin'.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pepper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, I haven't followed the case very closely. But from what I hear it was just a basic pyramid scheme.

But if his fund was paying so much every year, dem shoulda know sumting was wrong. You have to loose some years. </div></div>

[Pepper]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Pepper] from what i hear he it wasnt paying outlandish profits ..it was jus consistent 7-9% per year. the only thing that raised suspicion was that he never had a down year.
</div></div>

But that is a huge red flag. How can you expect to have an investment...supposedly tied to some market, fund, commodity, etc and not loose? Especially over the past 20 years. Look at all the things that have happened in business, politics, and of course 'the war on terror'.

[Pepper]

Re: Isn't One of The First Rules of Investing....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Yuri_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's the rub Pepper.

There's a literally, a<span style="font-weight: bold"> LIST</span> of people, who knew something was wrong.

They rang the bell, raised the alarm, blew the whistle - the SEC, etc just let Madoff keep on truckin'.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pepper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, I haven't followed the case very closely. But from what I hear it was just a basic pyramid scheme.

But if his fund was paying so much every year, dem shoulda know sumting was wrong. You have to loose some years. </div></div> </div></div>

I was actually referring to the investors themselves. NOBODY can consistenly pay a return. Overall, you may/should be in the plus. But yuh can't be in the plus every quarter.