# Investing in US treasury



## RoadRash (Sep 29, 2010)

If the fiscal cliff hits ....
Do you think the gobberment will force US citizens to buy treasury bonds and not invest in offshore investments? 
Or will this come in the form of taxation?


----------



## PennyPincher (Dec 5, 2011)

We have already seen this start. 401K's used to offer money market accounts as the 'safe haven.' Now these have been ruled not a safe haven even though no money market account has EVER been worth less than was invested in it. Now treasury funds are the 'safe havens.'


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Can I answer both???


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

I expect the federal government to seize all private pension and 401k accounts. That's what governments do that are the road to bankruptcy.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

I cant see them forcing the average citizen to purchase UST's, but certainly the banks. They already do it in other countries, Spain, Greece and Japan off the top of my head.

I never really understood the mm deal, but it didnt matter to me because I would never have money in them. I had thought that they were basically bank bonds backed by the gubt. I have never been one to have money on the sidelines, not that I have enough to matter.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

BillS said:


> I expect the federal government to seize all private pension and 401k accounts. That's what governments do that are the road to bankruptcy.


Barry and the Boys already floated this idea a couple of years ago. They get your hard-earned money now and you get a pension when you're old enough to retire (if you live that long.) It's kind of like Social Security and the Social Security trust fund which has been raided for years and years. Oops.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

If it ain't under your bed, and you can't carry it around, and put it where you want it, and defend it if someone wants to take it from you THEN its not really yours, Social Security, Gold and Silver Paper, and 401ks alike.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

I need to add a few thinking points to the gov taking private pensions and 401K from private citizens.

BTW I'm just looking for comments. These are just idle thoughts without any knowledge of any answers.

I see a difference between a private pension fund that is available (preretirement) to an employee and a private pension that is already being drawn on by that employee. After the employee starts to collect their retirement, I see it more difficult to take that money. The pension money that is in an account waiting for the employee to retire would be very easy to take over. 

My company keeps separate accounts for this purpose. Over the past 10 years most private companies have discontinued that traditional private pension in favor of the 401K. The 401K, which is a company sponsored retirement vehicle would be the money of choice for the government to go after.

The IRA is just a tax deferred private savings account that is owned solely by an individual citizen and taking this money would be the same as taking the money out of your savings. I have not seen the IRA mentioned in the news as a possible take over by Gov.

One more thing, if the printing of money is so easy to do, why would they what to take retirement money and cause a huge backlash from all directions.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

This is crazy talk! The government can't pass laws that require citizens to buy a product or else pay a penalty disguised as a tax!

.... Oh..... Wait a minute....


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Hah! Lulz at Turtle!

Tweto, I see your sentiment, but I would point you to Madoff, MFGlobal, and PFG. That money can be 'vaporized' instantly.

Padre is ultimately correct, 'possession is 9/10ths of the law'.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

The thing about both pensions and 401ks are they are typically controlled by asset management companies. For example, your statements may say Goldman Sachs, but in fact a good percentage of the fund is run by a specialization firm such as Cornerstone Investment Partners or Earnest Partners or even Investco. So if the economy gets to the point where the government is trying to capture this money, 90% is tied up in the market - both equity and fixed Income... If the economy is that bad, then that money is going to be significantly less because the markets should be crashing at this time.


Just my opinion here..


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> Hah! Lulz at Turtle!
> 
> Tweto, I see your sentiment, but I would point you to Madoff, MFGlobal, and PFG. That money can be 'vaporized' instantly.
> 
> Padre is ultimately correct, 'possession is 9/10ths of the law'.


Immolatus;

Thanks for your comment. All these companies you mentioned are private companies run into the ground by greedy CEO's. Hopefully the US government would be a little more careful about pi55ing everybody off.

I do agree with Padre, and if I thought for a second that the government was going to confiscate retirement money, mine would be under my bed in 4 days. For now, I'm making enough from the investments to provide me with a comfortable retirement so I'll just leave it.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

invision said:


> The thing about both pensions and 401ks are they are typically controlled by asset management companies. For example, your statements may say Goldman Sachs, but in fact a good percentage of the fund is run by a specialization firm such as Cornerstone Investment Partners or Earnest Partners or even Investco. So if the economy gets to the point where the government is trying to capture this money, 90% is tied up in the market - both equity and fixed Income... If the economy is that bad, then that money is going to be significantly less because the markets should be crashing at this time.
> 
> Just my opinion here..


I think that 95% or more of investors let some "professional" control their money and for them your statement is true. I have always solely controlled my investments and I have avoided losing any money even back in 2007-2008. Back then it was actually easy to see that the markets were going to crash, just like I now see the markets crashing in the near future, so I'm in a asset protection mode for the foreseeable future.

So by just saying that it doesn't matter weather the government takes it because you will lose it any way doesn't cut it with me.

I could also read your post as to mean that the government would not want the money because it would be much less at the time they would need it because the collapse had started already. If that is what you meant to say then I agree with you.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Tweto said:


> I see a difference between a private pension fund that is available (preretirement) to an employee and a private pension that is already being drawn on by that employee. After the employee starts to collect their retirement, I see it more difficult to take that money. The pension money that is in an account waiting for the employee to retire would be very easy to take over.


I see no difference actually. Recall that Obama is of the opinion that there exists a condition he calls "having too much money." This type of mindset indicates that the subjective judgment of Obama supercedes property law or contract law. All that he need do is come up with a zero-sum condition where he deems you able to live on $X per year and the surplus is needed to fund someone else's food stamps. Once that condition is imposed on you the problem of how you are to live on a budget of $X per year is your problem, not his or society's.

So if someone is getting a pension of $150,000 per year and Obama says everyone should be able to survive on an income of $50,000 per year, then your assets which support an income stream of $150,000 per year can safely and "justly" and "lawfully" be expropriated away from you to the tune of 2/3 of your portfolio value.

Societies prosper when they are built on a foundation of trust. The Anglo-Saxon societies have that foundation and so do the Germanic societies, but things get shakier when we get into southern European societies and when we get to Latin American and Africa and Middle Eastern societies, then all bets are off. Asian societies are harder to read because there are too few advanced economies with enough history behind them - basically Japan is pretty good, South Korea is too new on the block, China is a black box. The point here is that the nature of American society is changing. We're now a glorious multicultural nirvana with people who come from the low-trust traditions of these other societies and we're departing from the Angle-Saxon cultural foundation which launched us. We just saw Obama screw over Chrysler's secured creditors and reward the unions in direct contravention of bankruptcy law. So law no longer reigns supreme and impartial - now politics and cronyism are gaining an upper hand. The security of pensions depends ENTIRELY on the impartiality of the law. If the law can be bent for political purposes, then you have no security.



> The IRA is just a tax deferred private savings account that is owned solely by an individual citizen and taking this money would be the same as taking the money out of your savings. I have not seen the IRA mentioned in the news as a possible take over by Gov.


Mention it in the news and watch IRA accounts get depleted as a precautionary measure. Don't mention it and they sit there under a false sense of security.

Look, with Democrats in charge we never have the institutional protection for property. Look at what the liberals on the Supreme Court did with the KELO decision regarding eminent domain expropriations by government on behalf of private developers. The conservatives opposed that weakening of property rights but the liberals didn't think highly enough about property rights to protect them.



> One more thing, if the printing of money is so easy to do, why would they what to take retirement money and cause a huge backlash from all directions.


Printing money causes inflationary problems. Stealing money avoids those problems and it offers the bonus of creating as domestic enemies those who have money to burn when other people are suffering. Why should you live in a 3,000 sf house and go golfing and eat in nice restaurants all paid for by your retirement savings when other people are suffering? You are the enemy. This class warfare strategy is old hat.

Secondly, as Amy Chua notes in her academic work, if you belong to a market dominant minority and you are wealthier than the majority then you are likely to be targeted as a racial exploiter of the masses. This happens in other countries and now that we're in a multicultural society where there exists clear race divisions in terms of income earned and assets owned, this is going to be a festering issue. Here is what the State Demographer of Texas has to say on this issue:

Less notice was taken however, when Texas State Rep. Pete Gallego (Democrat, Alpine) observed last week that "by the year 2025, if we keep doing what we're doing now, Texas will have the economy of a Third Word country." No furor erupted. Although I'm sure that in 2025, if any non-Democrat observes that Gallego's prophecy has come true, an indignant furor will then erupt over his/her having the temerity to note the transition

Gallego's comments were fair though, and occurred in response to the predictions of the State Demographer, Steve Murdoch, as cited in the San Antonio Express-News. Murdoch's forecasts indicate, in short, *that within 25 years Texas will likely consist of an aging "Anglo"* population, educated but retired and dependent upon state social services and thus a net drain on the economy, juxtaposed with a majority Hispanic population, young and largely uneducated, and thus unable to contribute much to the economy.*

By 2030, 16 to 20% of the state's population will be over 65 and most of these will be Anglo. Hispanics could represent as much as 53% of the population, with Anglos declining to only 30% -an overwhelming and sudden demographic change primarily driven by immigration, most of which has been illegal. In 1980, by contrast, Anglos were 66% of the population, while Hispanics were only 21%, with many Hispanics having roots in the state going back several generations and being as well assimilated as any other ethnic group.​
It's one thing for there to be intergenerational wealth transfer, when society is having adults paying taxes to care for society's parents and the society is cohesive but when we have an elderly population which is predominantly white and the working population is majority minority, then it is no longer the case of the children of the white elderly paying for their retirement and willing to carry that burden. Now the working young are going to be looking at very high tax rates and they're going to question why they must be made to suffer so that old "rich" white people can lead more well-to-do lives than the workers.

So having government steal your money in order to lessen the burden on the young is a preferable option to inflating the currency and causing everyone a lot of pain.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Padre said:


> If it ain't under your bed, and you can't carry it around, and put it where you want it, and defend it if someone wants to take it from you THEN its not really yours, Social Security, Gold and Silver Paper, and 401ks alike.


Im makin copies of this and passin it out. Thanks. Truth hurts sometimes but needs to be said regardless.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Societies prosper when they are built on a foundation of trust. The Anglo-Saxon societies have that foundation and so do the Germanic societies...


Ahem....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Saxony


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> I see no difference actually. Recall that Obama is of the opinion that there exists a condition he calls "having too much money." This type of mindset indicates that the subjective judgment of Obama supercedes property law or contract law. All that he need do is come up with a zero-sum condition where he deems you able to live on $X per year and the surplus is needed to fund someone else's food stamps. Once that condition is imposed on you the problem of how you are to live on a budget of $X per year is your problem, not his or society's.
> 
> So if someone is getting a pension of $150,000 per year and Obama says everyone should be able to survive on an income of $50,000 per year, then your assets which support an income stream of $150,000 per year can safely and "justly" and "lawfully" be expropriated away from you to the tune of 2/3 of your portfolio value.
> 
> ...


Bobbb;

You explained it in way that makes complete sense. I've never thought about this issue based in a mental predisposition to financial attitudes based on cultural backgrounds, I do agree with your position on this.

On the point of the shifting racial future and the aging white race slowly turning into a burden for the poorer and over taxed working age population, I also agree to this point.

This knowledge will be a big help in planning my next few financial moves.

Thanks


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Tweto said:


> I think that 95% or more of investors let some "professional" control their money and for them your statement is true. I have always solely controlled my investments and I have avoided losing any money even back in 2007-2008. Back then it was actually easy to see that the markets were going to crash, just like I now see the markets crashing in the near future, so I'm in a asset protection mode for the foreseeable future.
> 
> So by just saying that it doesn't matter weather the government takes it because you will lose it any way doesn't cut it with me.
> 
> I could also read your post as to mean that the government would not want the money because it would be much less at the time they would need it because the collapse had started already. If that is what you meant to say then I agree with you.


Ok, I think you misunderstood me... Do you have a pension or a 401K plan... if yes... even though you manage your own 401K - as in moving from one fund to the next or from fund to bonds or visa versa... Those FUNDS within the 401K (and with the same is true within a pension fund) are controlled two and sometimes three layers down by asset management firms... For examle - there maybe a fund in your 401K that you can self direct money too called Vangard Small Caps. Vangard Small Caps is made up of a variety of small cap stocks... Additionally, it may also have other small cap funds controlled by a different Asset Management fund - say EP Small Caps Fund... OR - Vangard may passout x% of the fund to be "managed" on a daily basis by a different asset management firm... aka outsourcing fund management... So even though you direct where you want your money to go in the 401K - aka this fund or that fund, the funds themselves are most often times outsourced in regards to the daily management of the fund itself or to several different firms... See what I mean now???


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Marcus said:


> Ahem....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Saxony


Here is a graphic which measures transparency, rule of law, and degrees of political corruption.










Notice the Nordic countries, societies with very low levels of multiculturalism, are the most honest. Multiculturalism erodes trust because it fosters racial voting blocs and racial voting blocs put fealty to group above fealty to trust of society. They're small nations though. Now look at all the nations which are built on the Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage. The UK, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore (Chose to keep the UK model of governance) and Japan (had model imposed on them after WWII + they are a high trust society with extremely low levels of multiculturalism).

Now within that group look at how the rule of law and lack of corruption correlates with degree of multiculturalism. New Zealand and Canada fare better because they're less multicultural.

Loads of academic students clearly point to the corrosive effects that multiculturalism has on trust, and corruption in government and business is easier to develop in places where trust is denigrated and eroded.

So pointing to historical Saxony misses the point. The point is not barbaric origins but what grew from that foundation and what exists today. If you want to argue that Mexico or Brazil or Indonesia are high trust societies, then good luck with that argument.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> If you want to argue that Mexico or Brazil or Indonesia are high trust societies, then good luck with that argument.


Nope. I was just pointing out that the term Anglo-Saxon denotes Germanic tribes so adding in the Germanic societies was redundant.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

Marcus said:


> Nope. I was just pointing out that the term Anglo-Saxon denotes Germanic tribes so adding in the Germanic societies was redundant.


OK, I understand your point now. Differences in culture did emerge from foundational beginnings but those foundational effects are still evident today. Germany, Austria and Switzerland all do well in terms of trustworthiness of society.

The sad aspect to all of this is that it is these high trust societies which are most infected with the cancer of multiculturalism. There seems to be a naive belief that there is something in the water in these nations which produces the good effects and that these effects will wash over the multicultural enclaves established within the host societies. If you look at time data you see that the US has been falling in terms of trustworthiness and transparency as it gets deeper into the multicultural disease. In fact, this election with the prominence of racial voting blocs is evidence that trust is receding.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

invision said:


> Ok, I think you misunderstood me... Do you have a pension or a 401K plan... if yes... even though you manage your own 401K - as in moving from one fund to the next or from fund to bonds or visa versa... Those FUNDS within the 401K (and with the same is true within a pension fund) are controlled two and sometimes three layers down by asset management firms... For examle - there maybe a fund in your 401K that you can self direct money too called Vangard Small Caps. Vangard Small Caps is made up of a variety of small cap stocks... Additionally, it may also have other small cap funds controlled by a different Asset Management fund - say EP Small Caps Fund... OR - Vangard may passout x% of the fund to be "managed" on a daily basis by a different asset management firm... aka outsourcing fund management... So even though you direct where you want your money to go in the 401K - aka this fund or that fund, the funds themselves are most often times outsourced in regards to the daily management of the fund itself or to several different firms... See what I mean now???


Thanks for going into a further explanation of your post.

I have a service pension and a IRA (not a 401K). I have no personal money manager even though I keep getting calls from want to be managers of my money. Last Thursday was the last call from some one wanting to control it. The only professional managers I have are the ones that control whatever funds that I decide to invest in. Fund managers do not work for me as much as they do for their bosses at the investment house, I have complete control and do invest in whatever I want, individual stocks, ETF's, stock funds, Bonds, Bond funds, etc..

Personal money managers are a big mistake. They are salesman first and spend very little time watching the markets for shifts in the trends. I know personally over 8 retired people that have been screwed by money managers and have lost money. In fact, I don't know of any one that has made money with a money managers. I have not lost any money, so the decision is an easy one.

One thing that I have learned and had me eyes opened by is that lack of understanding of retirement investing from anyone that's not in retirement.
I've come to the conclusion that the average person goes through 3 major phases in life, the first is the education phase and then the working phase and then the retirement phase. When I was in the education phase, I was always wondering what the working for a living was like. Then for 40 working years I was wondering what retirement was like. Now that I'm retired, I know that retirement is not at all like I thought it would be. I have had money managers that have wanted to manage my money bad enough to put together 30 page plans for my money and that still had me investing in the plan even though I was already retired. Another clue is talking about the 401K after retirement. The 401K as very limited investment opportunities Vs the IRA. After retirement almost every one converts their money to an IRA for personal control. Plus the advantage is control of the deferred money with the click of a mouse to convert it into a taxable account and the ability to move it to any bank at any time with limited trouble.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

I can't stress enough the points Tweto made. I also include rolling over an old 401Ks from a previous employer into an IRA. Every company that manages 401Ks earns money off of the account in some way. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

Part of being a man (or an adult to avoid genderizations) is learning to take care of your own financial resources *even if you don't want to learn how.*


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

The government will just pass a tax on any earnings from 401k's or mutual funds, ect and exempt any earnings from treasury funds to force investors there.

Treasury funds are backed by the "full faith and credit of the U S Government !


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

BillM said:


> Treasury funds are backed by the "full faith and credit of the U S Government !


ROTFLMAO
That and a dime...er...a quarter...er..a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Tweto said:


> Thanks for going into a further explanation of your post.
> 
> I have a service pension and a IRA (not a 401K). I have no personal money manager even though I keep getting calls from want to be managers of my money. Last Thursday was the last call from some one wanting to control it. The only professional managers I have are the ones that control whatever funds that I decide to invest in. Fund managers do not work for me as much as they do for their bosses at the investment house, I have complete control and do invest in whatever I want, individual stocks, ETF's, stock funds, Bonds, Bond funds, etc..
> 
> ...


Ok, we are talking totally different things, your absolutely correct a professional wealth management individual is a salesman first, but in the case of your service pension, someone actually monitors which stocks are invested in, typically the managers of the pension will outsource parts of the plan to different asset management firms, they are the ones that do the day to day trading...

My point is if the government were to come in and grab all the 401k, pensions, etc, then it would already be to late... The markets would start crashing immediately with sell orders... Automatic stop gates would trigger, but the number of sells would keep. It on the downward path till it hit zero...

Since I deal with Asset Management firms, I have zero in the market... My wife has a 401k with 100% match, we move and shift it around all the time... The day before the elections she moved out of stocks into bonds... We will wait for a solid upswing before it moves back... She lost very little in 08 because I had her move it just as the housing bubble was starting, I could FEEL the stress in my clients offices... So I knew something was going to be bad...

I still think the best over all investment is Gold and Silver, more Silver than Gold too... I buy around $1000 in silver per month, and 1 ounce of gold every other month...


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

invision said:


> Ok, we are talking totally different things, your absolutely correct a professional wealth management individual is a salesman first, but in the case of your service pension, someone actually monitors which stocks are invested in, typically the managers of the pension will outsource parts of the plan to different asset management firms, they are the ones that do the day to day trading...
> 
> My point is if the government were to come in and grab all the 401k, pensions, etc, then it would already be to late... The markets would start crashing immediately with sell orders... Automatic stop gates would trigger, but the number of sells would keep. It on the downward path till it hit zero...
> 
> ...


I do admit to large risk on the service pension. The company has been using some company is Florida to manage the retirement funds. I get yearly reports and the financial health of the retirement funds and so far it has been solvent. I think that the only reason for this is that there are very few retires as a percentage of work force.

Back when I was about 30, I made the decision to take every penny from what ever raises I got and but it in the company 401K and if I had any more money left to but it into post tax. By doing this I was making 3 different and separate retirement funds (pension, 401K, post tax).Of these 3, the plan was to only need 2 to retire.

My investment philosophy since retiring has been "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered". If I can get a safe 6% on my investments I'm happy. The worst year I've had is 3% and the best has been 8%.

Inflation is the killer of comfortable retirements and this is my biggest concern. However in retirement, living expenses are under allot more control then If I was still working. As an example of this, I'm not buying new cars because I don't need a newer car to get to work, so I just maintain and drive older cars and just carry liability insurance. As another example, when I was working (because of lack of time) I had to hire some one to do any maintenance on my house or repair a car, since retiring I have not hired any one, I just do all the work, and most of the time do it for 20% of the cost.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

while i have to admit i still maintain some faith in the stocks market, we are all remiss in not addressing hft, fraud and rehypothecation. it seems as if (i see numbers from 60-70%) most trades are now done by computers, so the basic fundamental of the market ( true price discovery by a human being ) is history.
to fraud, tweto you are right that they were driven under by their ceos, but they literally stole the money they were supposed to be managing, and shouldve been completely protected by law. we see how that worked out in the case of mfg. corzine and jpm stole the money, and noone is in prison, and the money is gone. vaporized.
rehypothecation- it seems impossible that this could happen with someone like vanguard, but we are alla assuming that the money ( at heart- the collateral, a very important distinction) is all actually there in the firzt place. see germany and others trying to get at least an accounting if not the actual physical of their gold. chances are in at least some cases, its not actually there, or the ownership has been transferred to another party. some of this is conspirscy stuff, and prolly somewhat doubtful when discussing a sovereign nations gold, but its definitely possible, and even moreso when speaking about individual holdings held by a brokerage firm, no matter how upstanding. would you trust your money with jpm or gs?
we are all muppets to them. i have prolly gone a bit overboard, but the possibility exists.
i have for the most part kept money in stocks, and still invest small amounts in some big boys like pm, but am more comfortable lately with shiny things i can hold in my hands.
i have not reached the point where i feel i need to pull vertyhting out of the market, but i am very tempted. its a very dangerous game.
funny how typing like this makes it harder for me to form coherent thoughts. that doesnt make sense.
i have an ira and a standard private trading accojnt. i would like to transfer the ira to my local credit union, so at least theoretically it is closer to me if i ned to bail and get the money immediately.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> while i have to admit i still maintain some faith in the stocks market, we are all remiss in not addressing hft, fraud and rehypothecation. it seems as if (i see numbers from 60-70%) most trades are now done by computers, so the basic fundamental of the market ( true price discovery by a human being ) is history.
> to fraud, tweto you are right that they were driven under by their ceos, but they literally stole the money they were supposed to be managing, and shouldve been completely protected by law. we see how that worked out in the case of mfg. corzine and jpm stole the money, and noone is in prison, and the money is gone. vaporized.
> rehypothecation- it seems impossible that this could happen with someone like vanguard, but we are alla assuming that the money ( at heart- the collateral, a very important distinction) is all actually there in the firzt place. see germany and others trying to get at least an accounting if not the actual physical of their gold. chances are in at least some cases, its not actually there, or the ownership has been transferred to another party. some of this is conspirscy stuff, and prolly somewhat doubtful when discussing a sovereign nations gold, but its definitely possible, and even moreso when speaking about individual holdings held by a brokerage firm, no matter how upstanding. would you trust your money with jpm or gs?
> we are all muppets to them. i have prolly gone a bit overboard, but the possibility exists.
> ...


I agree with everything you are saying. I too am riding the razors edge and concerned that it could all go away in a heart beat. In my case, I have just a few months till I'm 59 1/2 and can transfer the money minus the 10% penalty. I'm working on my plans for that time. However, If something serious happens before I'm 59 1/2 than I will not worry about paying the 10% and just move it any way. I stay very close to the financial news and have made split second decisions an investments based on breaking news, so far it has been good to me. The sacrifice is time, I spend several hours a day reading and watching the financial news.

I have been out of equities for several months now. I have the money invested in cash, gold, bond funds. The bond funds are doing really well right now, but could turn on a dime. I have positioned my self in non fee based funds that allow selling and buying without financial costs.

When it comes to money, I manage risk. Without risk, there is no gain. But to manage risk it takes time, more time then working people have, but since I'm retired it has become my part time job.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Some in the government have been talking about taking part of people's 401Ks long before Barry came along.


----------



## machinist (Jul 4, 2012)

I don't have a clue what the govt. will do. I am pretty sure we won't like it. 

For investments, if it is not a tangible, hard goods item, I don't want any.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

machinist said:


> I don't have a clue what the govt. will do. I am pretty sure we won't like it.


Oh, I think thats a guarantee.
Its hard for me to completely let go of my old mentality that stocks are the way to go, but the more you learn about it the harder it is to stay in. A piece of me is always thinking I could be wrong (about everything in general) and I try to maintain at least some semblance of a balance. Maybe a holdover from my old Taoist zen days, which Im trying desperately to get back to. I dont want to go completely overboard and sell everything because I might be going nuts and becoming a total 'conspiracy nut'.
Might be a little late for that. 

Must...escape...Matrix...

If they ever actually announce something leaning towards forcing us to buy UST's or nationalizing IRA's, 401k's whatever, if its not too late, Im totally out. I dont know if that in itself would cause a crash? I guess it would have to, no?


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

*Good article addressing the OP*

From this article; originally from Simon Black, the so called Sovereign Man, of whom I am not a fan.

When a big crash occurs, these unhedged broad market positions get hammered the most. Don't worry though, your fund manager will still get a big fat bonus check, because his performance is irrelevant.​ This is when Congress will step in. Citing its desire to 'protect' the American people from future market shocks, the politicians will mandate that a portion of all managed retirement funds be invested in the 'safety and security' of US Treasury bonds. And, just to be on the safe side, let's park them in 30-year bonds that yield 4.35%.​ Sound fair? Well who asked you anyways... just be a good citizen and turn over your money already. The important part is that the big financial institutions still get their big fat fees, and the government gets its hands on the mother lode.​ This is how US taxpayers will end up being forced to loan their hard earned retirement savings to the government at rates far below any expected inflation.


----------



## preponomics (Nov 18, 2012)

Stocks are so propped that you must be good at predicting intervention and what will be manipulated, regulated or punished next. So to me stocks are only a short term exercised of predicting the next move from those who control it. Although there is still a lot of honest business out there it unfortunately can be affected in more ways that one can count.

------------
Five stranded men were on the edge of a bluff, which was on a deserted island. Food was scarce and four agreed to contribute what food they had to the sea gods, in hope that the sea would wash up a reward. However the one that disagreed was then thrown off to his death upon the rocks by the angry four due to his disagreement. Then the four saw his horrific fall and realized that he was the primary provider of their food and water for which they wanted to so easily offer. They ate their food and his food and all died not knowing how to sustain their own lives.
------------
cheezy but to make a point

To me the whole country is willing to throw the capitalist off the cliff in order to force a fair investment that redistributes and those in charge will continue to sacrifice the individual for the greater so-called-good. 

Until this country reclaims individual economic freedom with real markets that are free, the vultures will continue to consume the carcass of the falling regulated capitalists.

Sound money is gone, and perversions in our market place are so bad it is no longer recognizable. To those here who can still wield a favorable outcome with standard stocks, funds and 401Ks, I applaud you. Its really getting tough to invest in a normal way anymore.


----------



## machinist (Jul 4, 2012)

We need more prosecution of the laws presently on the books. Do what Iceland did. Prosecute the persecutors/banksters, bail out the people, and get on with life. Iceland is starting to come out of its' depression now, while we are going deeper into ours.


----------

