Investing megathread extravaganza

[DaFace]

A place to talk about investing stuff.

[scho63]

Originally Posted by lewdog

Good stuff here. Thanks.

Crazy how some of these companies went from gains of 1000%+ down to penny stocks in a matter of months.

Thanks for the link.

This is how I went from being worth $10-12 MILLION dollars in 1997-1998 to being worth .10-.12

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Originally Posted by scho63

You sold out a long time ago correct?

Follow this advice from many of the most successful money managers:

"Let your winners run keep running and sell your losers quickly"

Amateurs usually do the opposite. Not easy

Yep. Sold at 65 But I bought at 32 so I'm trying to pretend to be happy.

Your advice is duly noted.

[eDave]

Max out your 401K investments while you can:

How the GOP Tax Bill Could Squeeze Your 401(k)

Lobbyists and others in the retirement and financial services industries who have spoken to congressional staff and committee members say lawmakers are looking at proposals that would allow 401(k) participants to contribute significantly less than what is currently allowed in a traditional tax-deferred 401(k). An often mentioned amount is $2,400 a year. It isn't clear whether that would only apply to 401(k)s or IRAs or both.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...our-401-k.html

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by lewdog

Good stuff here. Thanks.

And you're right. I more evaluate a company based on long term investing not trading. Reading the Intelligent Investor right now and it's definitely a learn on investing for long term and companies with sound financial plans. Has tons of scenarios relating to the dot.com boom that are just fascinating for someone who was in middle and high school at the time and didn't pay attention to any of it! Crazy how some of these companies went from gains of 1000%+ down to penny stocks in a matter of months.

Thanks for the link.

JDS Uniphase can go fornicate itself with a baseball bat.

Sorry. A bad memory just bubbled up.

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by eDave

Max out your 401K investments while you can:

How the GOP Tax Bill Could Squeeze Your 401(k)

Lobbyists and others in the retirement and financial services industries who have spoken to congressional staff and committee members say lawmakers are looking at proposals that would allow 401(k) participants to contribute significantly less than what is currently allowed in a traditional tax-deferred 401(k). An often mentioned amount is $2,400 a year. It isn't clear whether that would only apply to 401(k)s or IRAs or both.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...our-401-k.html

That's an absolutely shitty idea if I've ever heard one. Especially cutting the allowed maximum to next to nothing.

I do doubt the lobbyists for investment firms allow this to happen though. It would not benefit them in the slightest.

[Nightfyre]

That would be so ****ed up. Americans suck at saving for retirement already. Taking away the tax incentives to do so would only hurt that. Plus, 401ks are literally designed for the working class. The ultra wealthy all have trusts to shield them from tax obligations. This tax reform will be even more regressive than the previous system by the looks of it.

[eDave]

Volumes will crash. Fluctuations will be weighted much heavier. Ergo: Volatility. Most investors like volatility.

[ChiliConCarnage]

Originally Posted by lewdog

That's an absolutely shitty idea if I've ever heard one. Especially cutting the allowed maximum to next to nothing.

I do doubt the lobbyists for investment firms allow this to happen though. It would not benefit them in the slightest.

I knew it was a possibility. I can't imagine they'd really make the limit 2400. If they made it 10k and you had to contribute the last 8.5k to a ROTH 401k that wouldn't affect a lot of ppl and would bring in some extra money now.

I know the Tea Party has been against it as a financial trick and not really fixing the spending/debt issue. It's just pulling future revenue forward

[lewdog]

Well the IRS says **** you GOP!!!

$18,500 for 401k contribution.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/20/the-...ts-by-500.html

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by ChiliConCarnage

I knew it was a possibility. I can't imagine they'd really make the limit 2400. If they made it 10k and you had to contribute the last 8.5k to a ROTH 401k that wouldn't affect a lot of ppl and would bring in some extra money now.

I know the Tea Party has been against it as a financial trick and not really fixing the spending/debt issue. It's just pulling future revenue forward

I think it simply redistributes where my money goes and does little for the middle class as far as savings goes.

So I don't get a tax break if they limit my 401k that much. Fine, my federal taxes end up lower with this plan and my take home pay is more. However, I have to shuttle more of my take home pay into after tax investment accounts. However, the current max for a Roth IRA is $5,500 and if they cap the 401k at $2,400, my current yearly investment amount will be tremendously limited compared to where it is now ($7,900 vs $24,000). So I end up putting even more after tax money into a brokerage account which is taxed even further than either a ROTH or 401k.

This is a **** on the middle class.

[scho63]

I really don't understand what they hell is going on with the idea of pre-taxing 401K investments. Sounds like one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard and would be a big disincentive to invest.

I want to see that it actually says as I keep hearing different stories on what it really is going to be.

[ChiliConCarnage]

Originally Posted by lewdog

I think it simply redistributes where my money goes and does little for the middle class as far as savings goes.

However, the current max for a Roth IRA is $5,500.

You'd get the same tax break as your ROTH IRA. The government limits your pre-tax contributions to 0 for your IRA. The question is should the gov limit your pre-tax contributions to a (traditional) 401k. This would force you to contribute to your ROTH 401k. You'd pay (more) taxes now instead of later. Its not a lowering of the total 401k max contribution. Just when you pay

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by ChiliConCarnage

You'd get the same tax break as your ROTH IRA. The government limits your pre-tax contributions to 0 for your IRA. The question is should the gov limit your pre-tax contributions to a (traditional) 401k. This would force you to contribute to your ROTH 401k. You'd pay (more) taxes now instead of later. Its not a lowering of the total 401k max contribution. Just when you pay

So what's the max contribution for a Roth 401k?

And my employer doesn't have a Roth 401k option, so it would definitely **** me.

I contribute to my own ROTH IRA outside of my employer.

[ChiliConCarnage]

Originally Posted by lewdog

So what's the max contribution for a Roth 401k?

And my employer doesn't have a Roth 401k option, so it would definitely **** me.

I contribute to my own ROTH IRA outside of my employer.

The max contribution to a 401k is 18k/24k this year. It doesnt matter if you do it all pre tax or post tax or some mix currently. The ROTH option was nowhere when I first started working but it seems available more frequently now. It surely would be more so if they limited pre-tax contributions so low.

I still find that 2400 number laughable. That's vote yourself out of office territory.

Edit:. One note, even if you do 100% ROTH contributions in a year any company match is treated as traditional.

[Cornstock]

Originally Posted by eDave

Max out your 401K investments while you can:

How the GOP Tax Bill Could Squeeze Your 401(k)

Lobbyists and others in the retirement and financial services industries who have spoken to congressional staff and committee members say lawmakers are looking at proposals that would allow 401(k) participants to contribute significantly less than what is currently allowed in a traditional tax-deferred 401(k). An often mentioned amount is $2,400 a year. It isn't clear whether that would only apply to 401(k)s or IRAs or both.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...our-401-k.html

I guess this would increase tax revenue in the near term.

The big gamble for most people when it comes to ira's is whether they will actually have an advantage if their contributions are pre or post tax. It depends on so many variables between their personal income level as they enter retirement (which can be strategized) and what tax law will look like when they finally do retire. There is no way to predict legislative risk for someone like me, with an RMD horizon 40 years away.

But reducing the amount of tax shelter available between either of these is criminal for the middle class. people who are conscious enough to be investing at all will be forced to do so in a taxable account outside of a 401k (probably self directing), and incur significant capital gains repercussions in addition to all their investments being post tax. A Roth with no tax benefit.

Most people will not notice anything besides an increase in their take home pay, and will not invest the difference. Which will significantly harm their retirement picture.