看了这篇文章太多同感了，我们就是low-end Henry...明年税是不是又要长了？ 被o8盯上了报税时候还说我们top多少的，我则么觉得很穷。 -------------- Why the 'rich' aren't feeling so rich Even as the economy recovers, the HENRYs - high earners, not rich yet - are struggling.
Shawn Tully, senior editor-at-large, On Monday May 3, 2010, 10:50 am EDT
On Tax Day, April 15th, I picked up the Wall Street Journal and was amazed to see an editorial titled "A Message from HENRY" by a California financial advisor. The author, Mike Donahue, condemned the big and growing tax burden shouldered by high-earners like himself, a group he identified as "the HENRYs," in words so scorching that steam practically rose from the page. "We may be only a small percentage of the population, but we pay a large portion of the taxes and employ many," Donahue concluded. "If you take the incentives away, you will lose the HENRYs." For this writer, it was a proud moment. I invented the name "HENRYs." I wasn't steamed that Mike Donahue didn't credit Fortune for creating the term. On the contrary, just seeing a headline about the HENRYs showed that my brainchild may be entering the culture as a catchy pop label for our times. It may even achieve the same currency as a Fortune invention from the 1980s, "Trophy Wives." The Journal story inspired me to revisit the folks behind the acronym. I first wrote extensively about the HENRYs in a November, 2008, cover story called "Look Who Pays for the Bailout." It described the plight of a strata of affluent Americans I called "High Earners, Not Rich Yet," or the HENRYs for short. They're the doctors, attorneys, accountants, owners of real estate agencies and security firms, who earn -- or used to earn -- between $250,000 and $500,000 a year. These aren't investment bankers, hedge fund managers, CEOs, trust fund babies or other members of the super-rich. No, the HENRYs are generally folks in their 30s and 40s who got the best grades in high school, worked their way through college, and logged long hours as law firm associates or consultants on the rise. In most HENRY households, the husband and wife both work to tally those big incomes. Put simply, the five million HENRYs form the core of the nation's entrepreneurial and professional class. Obama eyes the HENRY class When my story appeared, just before the presidential election, Barack Obama was targeting the HENRYs for big tax increases, declaring that families making over $250,000 a year were "the rich" and needed to "pay their fair share." Even then, I argued, the HENRYs were so squeezed between their big expenses for the things they considered staples -- private schools and day care for the kids, for example -- and an immense tax burden that typically took at $100,000 from a $350,000 income, that they not only weren't rich, but stood little chance of ever saving the big nest egg to qualify as truly wealthy. The story predicted that the squeeze would become far tighter as Obama raised the top tax rates, and the AMT -- the dreaded parallel system that bars the high-earners from deducting their heavy property and state income taxes -- trapped more and more of the HENRYs. To be sure, the promised increases are scheduled to hit next year, along with a new Medicare surtax aimed straight at the HENRYs. The high earner in a recession-scarred era But the world has changed immensely since late 2008 in the wake of the financial crisis and soaring jobless rate. So as it turns out, the rising levies, though painful, aren't the biggest problem the HENRYs are now facing. To examine the HENRYs new challenges, I called one of the financial planners who proved so helpful in the 2008 story, Barry Glassman of McLean, Virginia. Most of Glassman's high-earner clients are classic HENRYs: physicians, partners in law firms, and business owners. "Most of these people have seen their incomes drop by 20% to 25%," says Glassman. "The families that were earning $400,000 two years ago now make maybe $300,000, and the $250,000 families are below $200,000." The latter are even dropping out of HENRY range. The HENRYs, says Glassman, saw their incomes huaren.us in the great economy of the early-to-mid 2000s. During those flush years, they took on bigger and bigger fixed expenses and commitments, from big mortgage payments to private school tuition to college saving plans. "Now, the HENRYs are trying to cut their costs by shortening vacations and considering public schools," he says. The rub is that the drop in their incomes is so dramatic that they can't economize fast enough to maintain a decent flow of savings for retirement. "The HENRYs weren't saving much before," says Glassman. "Now, they're dipping into their savings and investments to maintain something close to their former lifestyles." What does that mean for their future? What looked like a far from luxurious retirement -- even in the good times, they could forget about getting rich?? -- is now looking even more modest. "The HENRYs will typically end up with $1 to $2 million in savings," says Glassman. So at 4%, they will have incomes of maybe $100,000 a year in retirement, including Social Security. And that $100,000, points out Glassman, will be worth a lot less than it is today. Of course, an economic rebound could raise their incomes to the pre-crash levels. If so, their biggest burden will shift back to gigantic looming tax increases. So as I've warned before, we might have to Gallicize the name of these members of Yankee bourgeoisie to HENRIs -- High Earners, Not Rich Indefinitely.
I think you are still too optimistic, as most people do. I just checked Warren Buffet's Berkshire prices. Going as far back as I can to 1996 on Yahoo finance, over the last 14 years it earned 8.7% per year. And this assumes you are as good as WB and you put 100% in stocks. If you buy mutual funds, you need to take out at least 0.5% for fund fees. If you say you can earn 10% over the next 30 years with normal inflation, I think you will beat the best money managers. BTW, the S&P 500 returned 8.2% annually over the last 30 years which also includes some of the hyper inflation years in the early 80s. I'm not a predictor, but I think in the future years asset returns will be far less than most people think. My point is that choosing 401k or roth does not make much difference given the low return assumptions. I like your spreadsheet very much. Very simple and intuitive. 以下是引用lovemybaby在5/6/2010 10:02:00 PM的发言：
I'm not a predictor, but I think in the future years asset returns will be far less than most people think. My point is that choosing 401k or roth does not make much difference given the low return assumptions.
以下是引用lovemybaby在5/6/2010 10:02:00 PM的发言：
你去把过去100年S&P 500的average return查一下好不好？ 不知道你怎么算的Berkshire的return，你算上了dividend了吗？你再去看看它过去30年的return呢？ remember, do not use short-term gain to predict long-term performance。
No Need to get defensive. I'm just stating the fact. I'd like to engage in a discussion rather than trading offensive comments. Here's more facts. I can go as far back as to 1971 on the S&P. Over the last 39 Years, teh S&P returned 6.32% annually. How's that? I think the S&P started on 1929(?). If you get that data you can do some serious calc yourself. Note that the S&P index is a total return index, which means dividends already are reflected in the index values. BTW, if you have BRK prices let me know. I don't have data going back that far. Again most people are just too optimistic. Not it's a bad thing, but being realistic is better. Any objective comments is welcome.
以下是引用lovemybaby在5/7/2010 8:14:00 AM的发言：
你去把过去100年S&P 500的average return查一下好不好？ 不知道你怎么算的Berkshire的return，你算上了dividend了吗？你再去看看它过去30年的return呢？ remember, do not use short-term gain to predict long-term performance。
Here's more facts. I can go as far back as to 1971 on the S&P. Over the last 39 Years, teh S&P returned 6.32% annually. How's that? I think the S&P started on 1929(?). If you get that data you can do some serious calc yourself. Note that the S&P index is a total return index, which means dividends already are reflected in the index values. BTW, if you have BRK prices let me know. I don't have data going back that far. Any objective comments is welcome. Well, then you could ask nicely: can you show me the proof to support 10% return instead of saying "I think you are still too optimistic, as most people do". Since I am LZMM who started this post, obviously I have proof to support my arguments.
A couple observations - I ran S&P500 as the equity market proxy, and for the 82 yr history back 1927 (earlies possible), the annual return through yesterday is 5.18% on Bloomberg. Not sure what index (assuming DJIA?) you used and why stopped at 2004. You may want to update throught 2009 at least. The up/down chart is misleading since 50% down will offset 100% up, so it is not that simple just looking at the annual bar returns. If you have access to the long term assumptions of any large reputable firm, you will see nobody is projecting 10% on equities over the next 20 - 30 years.
UPDATE: I just ran DJIA from 1911 to yesterday, and the annual return is 5.1% for the last 99 years. 以下是引用lovemybaby在5/7/2010 10:37:00 AM的发言：
I ran S&P500 as the equity market proxy, and for the 82 yr history back 1927 (earlies possible), the annual return through yesterday is 5.18% on Bloomberg. Not sure what index (assuming DJIA?) you used and why stopped at 2004. You may want to update throught 2009 at least. 对不起，我没空把过去100年的数据调出来给你做EXCEL表，我不过给你把课本里面的图表摘抄过来而已。这份图表是来自S&P500的return，是ibbotson的。如果有问题的话，请自己去参照corporate finance textbook。update到不到2009年根本无所谓，stock market本来就是一年高，一年低的。我们要看的是long term trend, 而不是short term return。 如果你修过corporate finance 的话，你应该知道average return和holding period return的差别。作为投资工具来讲的话，应该考虑的是average return。打个比方，你的401K每年都在往里面投钱，那么从长期来讲的话，你获得的应该是average return，而不是holding period return。当然要问是arithmetic还是geometric average return，差别并不是很大，arithmetic更加乐观，geometric 稍微悲观一些。 If you have access to the long term assumptions of any large reputable firm, you will see nobody is projecting 10% on equities over the next 20 - 30 years.
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/7 12:50:19编辑过] First of all, I have to say that everything we do we should base on facts and real experiences (either laws, regulations, stat numbers, live examples) rather than what other people say. Similar to all the cases in your posts, things may look easy but unless you go do it, you won't know all the details and troubles.
Here are my points. I may get into the technicals. People need not focus on the nitty gritty details but they should get the spirit, which is to find the answer by themselves.
对不起，我没空把过去100年的数据调出来给你做EXCEL表，我不过给你把金融课本里面的图表摘抄过来而已。这份图表是来自S&P500的return，是ibbotson的。如果有问题的话，请自己去参照corporate finance textbook。update到不到2009年根本无所谓，stock market本来就是一年高，一年低的。我们要看的是long term trend, 而不是short term return。
You don't need teh 100 yrs of data. Just the beginning and ending numbers to get the annualized returns. I like Ibbotson as a reliable data source, but their S&P itself either as an index or a firm doesn't go back to 1900. Why? S&P 500 was first published in 1957. S&P linked this index with the former S&P 90 to extend its history to 1918. That's when S&P first got any index. So I would question the data source here. Lesson - don't say what other people say, go for the source. I agree that data through 2004 is enough to show the trend, which does not help your arguement for 10% anyways.
如果你修过corporate finance 的话，你应该知道average return和holding period return的差别。作为投资工具来讲的话，应该考虑的是average return。打个比方，你的401K每年都在往里面投钱，那么从长期来讲的话，你获得的应该是average return，而不是holding period return。当然要问是arithmetic还是geometric average return，差别并不是很大，arithmetic更加乐观，geometric 稍微悲观一些。
In real life, to take your 401k as an example, recent returns matter more than old returns. Morningstar developed its own indices based on this theory and it makes sense. It's weighted historical return which puts more weight to more recent returns. However it is not average return. Again, simple example: yr 1 return of 100% and yr 2 return of -50%. Average return is 25%. Real life return is 0%. You know which one is correct.
Why do they use 10% in text books? It's just s whole number that's easy to use. LOL. Why do professional firms use assumptions much lower than 10% in their modeling? Because it's real life, not some textbooks. You put your money on the line, and you become realistic. You don't need to debate with me, and you should go check out what the big wigs say about future (Warren Buffet, Bill Gross, Jim Rogers, George Soros...) and you will see. I will not say I'm smarter than these guys, nor would I say you are.
If you still want to go over more details, I suggest we move to the money board.
A little bit more thoughts - You seem to rely heavily on textbooks in this discussion. But you can see I gather facts from reputable public sources. Textbooks are for classrooms and not for real life. We are talking about people's choices in real life so I would not solely rely on textbooks. I'd appreciate real life examples much more than textbook examples.
I haven't read your other posts yet (this 401k calc is your first post). I hope they are not based on textbooks only :-)
Thanks for the contribution and sharing of knowledge all the same.
Well, let's see. The reason I suggest that 10% assumption may be a little high is that this assumption will lead to a decision that's very different from a 5% assumption. At 5% the final results are not that different so staying with 401k is no big deal. But at 10% the difference is significant enough that people should act. For an average person/ID here, he/she needs to understand what to use and what to expect. That's why I suggest 10% is a little high and 15% is too high (although for respect reasons I didn't say it's too high). A reasonable person should not automatically assume 10% return as you suggested as normal. Now I think that could be misleading to the people here. An assumption is not big deal if it doesn't affect the result, but here it does. Since most people are not that familiar with investing, a little background knowledge is actually very helpful. Rather than just telling them to expect 10%, you should tell them that decision is dependent upon the assumption which again may trace back to facts. And you need to get the facts right, not just what the textbooks say. People/readers should form their own ideas, but posters here should try to get the facts right. Otherwise it will be misleading and many innocent IDs may get hurt. 以下是引用lovemybaby在5/7/2010 2:18:00 PM的发言：
Since most people are not that familiar with investing, a little background knowledge is actually very helpful. Rather than just telling them to expect 10%, you should tell them that decision is dependent upon the assumption which again may trace back to facts. And you need to get the facts right, not just what the textbooks say.
另外，agreement上说 3.875%是based on the 1.065% index value rate in effect on May 7, plus a margin of 2.25% and plus a premium of 0.56%. 这个premium就 是他们的利润吗？这个利润合理吗?
另外，agreement上说 3.875%是based on the 1.065% index value rate in effect on May 7, plus a margin of 2.25% and plus a premium of 0.56%. 这个premium就 是他们的利润吗？这个利润合理吗?
No one can predict the stock market, so neither can I. 如果不是investment pro的话，我建议不要试图time the market。Riding with the market is the best way for ordinary investors。 即使Market真的要crash的话，你 不能完全准确把握哪里是peak，哪里是bottom的话，同样还是挣不了钱的。 建议每个月投一些钱进去，这样over the long term，你能够得到market average return。
用我一朋友的话，咱不是没钱，咱是舍不得花。。 再说了，我认为，咱爱宝的气场，已经不需要靠那些大牌来支撑了。 你过奖了。 也不是不花钱，而是钱要花在刀口上。比我我愿意花钱请人帮我把家务做了，那是提高我的生活质量, significantly。 但是花几千买个包，MS没法提高我的生活质量at all。最多就是几个懂fashion的MM认出我的大牌包，赞许一下。其他的，what can I get out of it?
问爱宝宝一个问题：在你的讨价还价贴里，你说和律师讲前任房主欠的HOA费，可是HOA费不是JUNIOR LIEN，FORECLOSE后都WIPE OUT 了吗？为什么你还要负责这些欠款？
HOA的lien，和property tax的Lien都不会WIPE OUT，统统归新owner，惨吧？
我有个朋友最近买了个房子，HOA欠款1万8，欠税1万5，这一把去掉3万3，特别是HOA的lien是unexpected。（往往买房子的时候查不到具体数目的）
我现在已经正式开始拉客
NND
每个贴都看
看适合爱宝宝还是O帅
累
妈呀，怪不得你到处宣传。。。。赞一个
请问爱宝宝MM，我们的房子刚做了Inspection，有四个窗户with failed thermal seals，就是有水汽，有雾，看不清，请问是大问题么？Seller说不管，自己换要多少钱？或是能找什么公司来Estimate？详细情况是：房子是02年的，窗户是Vinyl的，样子就是就是普通的Double Hung，分为上下两块，下面的那块可以上下移动开关窗户用，上面的那块是固定的，不能动，现在坏的这四块，都是上面那块固定不动的，其中两块是左右两个上下窗户中的一块（就是田这型这种窗户，一般都是装在房子正面好看的），另外两块就是单个上下窗户中上面的那个。请问这种情况，是可以只换上面那块固定的就行还是必须上下两个也就是整个窗户都要换掉？我在网上看还有不Replace只Repair的，就是把双层玻璃里面先清洗干净，然后用工具封后好再抽成真空。谢谢
嘻嘻，MM发错地方了。不过我看到你在版上问过了，O帅接上了问题，我就不copy去装修楼下面回答了。
嘻嘻，MM发错地方了。不过我看到你在版上问过了，O帅接上了问题，我就不copy去装修楼下面回答了。
啊呀，你都把我给搞糊涂了，我先在版上问的，结果想起来你说过，你只在你的楼里回，不去别的楼里回，所以我才Copy到你这个楼的，怎么你还有个装修楼啊？我还是想听听你的意见，要不我自己Copy到你的装修楼去，555555
HOA的lien，和property tax的Lien都不会WIPE OUT，统统归新owner，惨吧？
我有个朋友最近买了个房子，HOA欠款1万8，欠税1万5，这一把去掉3万3，特别是HOA的lien是unexpected。（往往买房子的时候查不到具体数目的）
啊，我还以为PROPERTY TAX是SUPERIOR LIEN，是COURT拿到你付的钱后第一个付的就是PROPERTY TAX，不知道这个钱你还要额外付。看来那些书上说的都不准啊。
除了这两个外，还有什么LIEN是需要新OWNER负责的吗？
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/4 22:59:15编辑过]
啊呀，你都把我给搞糊涂了，我先在版上问的，结果想起来你说过，你只在你的楼里回，不去别的楼里回，所以我才Copy到你这个楼的，怎么你还有个装修楼啊？我还是想听听你的意见，要不我自己Copy到你的装修楼去，555555
这是我的理财楼啊。。。我两个楼同时经营的。
啊，我还以为PROPERTY TAX是SUPER LIEN，是COURT拿到你付的钱后第一个付的就是PROPERTY TAX，不知道这个钱你还要额外付。看来那些书上说的都不准啊。
尽信书不如无书，这些经验还是需要具体做的人有hands-on experience才行的。我开始也是先看书学习的，后来去切身考察了很多次，都研究透了才开始自己试试动手的。
尽信书不如无书，这些经验还是需要具体做的人有hands-on experience才行的。我开始也是先看书学习的，后来去切身考察了很多次，都研究透了才开始自己试试动手的。
我们县现在都是网上AUCTION，可能连实际考察的机会都没了。
我们县现在都是网上AUCTION，可能连实际考察的机会都没了。
直接上来就去网上auction对于新手不好，没有个学习机会，都整不明白到底有哪些风险。
我是去实地考察了很多次，跟那些买家都混的很熟，坐在他们旁边看他们如何操作，也看看他们都做过什么research，一有问题就问他们，这样才能学的透的。
啊，我还以为PROPERTY TAX是SUPERIOR LIEN，是COURT拿到你付的钱后第一个付的就是PROPERTY TAX，不知道这个钱你还要额外付。看来那些书上说的都不准啊。
除了这两个外，还有什么LIEN是需要新OWNER负责的吗？
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/4 22:59:15编辑过]
还有很多，各种各样的都有，比如code violation，比如construction lien，多着去了，all become your problem。
直接上来就去网上auction对于新手不好，没有个学习机会，都整不明白到底有哪些风险。
我是去实地考察了很多次，跟那些买家都混的很熟，坐在他们旁边看他们如何操作，也看看他们都做过什么research，一有问题就问他们，这样才能学的透的。
wuwuwu, 好惨。连邻近的COUNTY也搬到网上了。我怎么办。
还有很多，各种各样的都有，比如code violation，比如construction lien，多着去了，all become your problem。
那有什么LIEN是你不用负责的呢？ HOSPITAL LIEN 总不该你负责吧？
--------------
Why the 'rich' aren't feeling
so rich Even as the economy recovers, the HENRYs - high earners,
not rich yet - are struggling.
Shawn Tully, senior editor-at-large, On Monday May 3, 2010, 10:50 am EDT
On Tax Day, April 15th, I picked up the Wall
Street Journal and was amazed to see an editorial titled "A Message from
HENRY" by a California financial advisor. The author, Mike Donahue,
condemned the big and growing tax burden shouldered by high-earners like
himself, a group he identified as "the HENRYs," in words so scorching
that steam practically rose from the page. "We may be only a small
percentage of the population, but we pay a large portion of the taxes
and employ many," Donahue concluded. "If you take the incentives away,
you will lose the HENRYs." For this writer, it was a proud moment.
I invented the name "HENRYs." I wasn't steamed that Mike Donahue didn't
credit Fortune for creating the term. On the contrary, just seeing a
headline about the HENRYs showed that my brainchild may be entering the
culture as a catchy pop label for our times. It may even achieve the
same currency as a Fortune invention from the 1980s, "Trophy Wives." The
Journal story inspired me to revisit the folks behind the acronym. I
first wrote extensively about the HENRYs in a November, 2008, cover
story called "Look
Who Pays for the Bailout." It described the plight of a strata of
affluent Americans I called "High Earners, Not Rich Yet," or the HENRYs
for short. They're the doctors, attorneys, accountants, owners of real
estate agencies and security firms, who earn -- or used to earn --
between $250,000 and $500,000 a year. These aren't investment
bankers, hedge fund managers, CEOs, trust fund babies or other members
of the super-rich. No, the HENRYs are generally folks in their 30s and
40s who got the best grades in high school, worked their way through
college, and logged long hours as law firm associates or consultants on
the rise. In most HENRY households, the husband and wife both work to
tally those big incomes. Put simply, the five million HENRYs form
the core of the nation's entrepreneurial and professional class. Obama
eyes the HENRY class When my story appeared, just before the
presidential election, Barack
Obama was targeting the HENRYs for big tax increases,
declaring that families making over $250,000 a year were "the rich" and
needed to "pay their fair share." Even then, I argued, the HENRYs were
so squeezed between their big expenses for the things they considered
staples -- private schools and day care for the kids, for example -- and
an immense tax burden that typically took at $100,000 from a $350,000
income, that they not only weren't rich, but stood little chance of ever
saving the big nest egg to qualify as truly wealthy. The story
predicted that the squeeze would become far tighter as Obama raised the
top tax rates, and the AMT -- the dreaded parallel system that bars the
high-earners from deducting their heavy property and state income taxes
-- trapped more and more of the HENRYs. To be sure, the promised
increases are scheduled to hit next year, along with a new Medicare
surtax aimed straight at the HENRYs. The high earner in a
recession-scarred era But the world has changed immensely since
late 2008 in the wake of the financial crisis and soaring jobless rate.
So as it turns out, the rising levies, though painful, aren't the
biggest problem the HENRYs are now facing. To examine the HENRYs
new challenges, I called one of the financial planners who proved so
helpful in the 2008 story, Barry Glassman of McLean, Virginia. Most of
Glassman's high-earner clients are classic HENRYs: physicians, partners
in law firms, and business owners. "Most of these people have seen their
incomes drop by 20% to 25%," says Glassman. "The families that were
earning $400,000 two years ago now make maybe $300,000, and the $250,000
families are below $200,000." The latter are even dropping out of HENRY
range. The HENRYs, says Glassman, saw their incomes huaren.us in the
great economy of the early-to-mid 2000s. During those flush years, they
took on bigger and bigger fixed expenses and commitments, from big
mortgage payments to private school tuition to college saving plans.
"Now, the HENRYs are trying to cut their costs by shortening vacations
and considering public schools," he says. The rub is that the drop
in their incomes is so dramatic that they can't economize fast enough
to maintain a decent flow of savings for retirement. "The HENRYs weren't
saving much before," says Glassman. "Now, they're dipping into their
savings and investments to maintain something close to their former
lifestyles." What does that mean for their future? What looked
like a far from luxurious retirement -- even in the good times, they
could forget about getting rich?? -- is now looking even more modest.
"The HENRYs will typically end up with $1 to $2 million in savings,"
says Glassman. So at 4%, they will have incomes of maybe $100,000 a year
in retirement, including Social Security. And that $100,000, points out
Glassman, will be worth a lot less than it is today. Of course,
an economic rebound could raise their incomes to the pre-crash levels.
If so, their biggest burden will shift back to gigantic looming tax
increases. So as I've warned before, we might have to Gallicize the name
of these members of Yankee bourgeoisie to HENRIs -- High Earners, Not
Rich Indefinitely.
Second mortgage Lien 买家也要负责吗？
看情况，如果final judgment已经包括了的话，就不要，如果没有的话，你还是要deal with it。MM你如果没人教，没有学会其中的关门过节，不能贸然下手的。这中间好多tricks不是三言两语能够说清楚的。万一没买好，要赔上很多钱的。
那有什么LIEN是你不用负责的呢？ HOSPITAL LIEN 总不该你负责吧？
我倒是没有见过HOSPITAL LIEN。
看了这篇文章太多同感了，我们就是low-end Henry...明年税是不是又要长了？ 被o8盯上了
--------------
我们没法改变税法，没法拿08怎么办，但是我们可以努力多挣钱，来抵消税法的影响。
HOA的lien，和property tax的Lien都不会WIPE OUT，统统归新owner，惨吧？
我有个朋友最近买了个房子，HOA欠款1万8，欠税1万5，这一把去掉3万3，特别是HOA的lien是unexpected。（往往买房子的时候查不到具体数目的）
啊，我还以为PROPERTY TAX是SUPERIOR LIEN，是COURT拿到你付的钱后第一个付的就是PROPERTY TAX，不知道这个钱你还要额外付。看来那些书上说的都不准啊。
除了这两个外，还有什么LIEN是需要新OWNER负责的吗？
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
天啊， 你们在说什么呢？ 什么意思？
我买的short sale 的房子， 现在在贷款呢， 我没听我律师说我要付这些呀？ 我们这个肯定是欠银行的钱的， 还有PROPERTY TAX， HOA 都是欠着钱的， 还很多呢， 至少有5，6万， 因为他从05年起就没付了。 难道要我付？ 怎么我律师说他会把这些管理好的？ 天啊， 天啊， 爱宝宝你快来说说吧。
关于 home insurance 有什么建议没， 是不是一般跟车保险在一起比较划算？
今天又出新问题了。还要请教你。
差不多10天前吧，builder的broker说我可以用0.25%（就是从5%到5.25%）换5000块的origination fee。
今天我问他rate，他说很好，但是不告诉我多少，说给我5.25%还是cover那个origination fee。我就问他，你都说了今天rate好，但怎么还是5.25%和5000刀呢？该降点rate或者是多给点rebate啊。他答非所问还是email我：5.25%依旧是个好rate，我已经cover你total的origination fee了。
我就是觉得不甘心，明明rate低了，我却一点好处都没有。宝宝帮我看看我再如何跟他negociate呢？谢谢。
爱宝宝，我想请教一个问题，我们现在是买房进行时，处于１０天内还可以退出的状态。我们进行了房检，对检查结果不满意，比如说两个空调（１６年老）一个根本不work, 另一个虽然运转也有一些问题需要修。即就是现在勉强修好，我担心过不了两年，他们也会breakdown. 因此打算问卖方要一部分钱，我们自己在出一部分钱重新换两个空调。卖方根本就不想出钱。两边谈蹦了。这样的话，我们也就不想要这个房了。请问如何安全退出并拿回earnest money.我们的realtor是个新人，人很nice，但无经验，从来没有经历过解约一说，现在我们需怎么操作？先行谢过了。
很简单啊。inspection contigency无法remove，直接退出contract，可以拿回你的earnest money的.
short-sale没这些问题的。你放心好了。short-sale close的时候会给你clean title的。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
天啊， 你们在说什么呢？ 什么意思？
我买的short sale 的房子， 现在在贷款呢， 我没听我律师说我要付这些呀？ 我们这个肯定是欠银行的钱的， 还有PROPERTY TAX， HOA 都是欠着钱的， 还很多呢， 至少有5，6万， 因为他从05年起就没付了。 难道要我付？ 怎么我律师说他会把这些管理好的？ 天啊， 天啊， 爱宝宝你快来说说吧。
还有， 我本来是想上来问问home insurance 有什么是必须买的， 有什么是建议有的， 有什么是没必要的， 一上来看你们说新买主付那些欠的钱， 实在被吓着了。
关于 home insurance 有什么建议没， 是不是一般跟车保险在一起比较划算？
一般一年就几百块钱，没啥大不了的，不一定需要跟车保险一起买，没准儿其他公司有更好的deal。我一般去AM BEST上面查保险公司的rating，make sure它是个A quality的保险公司就行了。
爱宝宝，前面问了好多问题，也学到了很多东西。
今天又出新问题了。还要请教你。
差不多10天前吧，builder的broker说我可以用0.25%（就是从5%到5.25%）换5000块的origination fee。
今天我问他rate，他说很好，但是不告诉我多少，说给我5.25%还是cover那个origination fee。我就问他，你都说了今天rate好，但怎么还是5.25%和5000刀呢？该降点rate或者是多给点rebate啊。他答非所问还是email我：5.25%依旧是个好rate，我已经cover你total的origination fee了。
我就是觉得不甘心，明明rate低了，我却一点好处都没有。宝宝帮我看看我再如何跟他negociate呢？谢谢。
你打电话去其他公司啊，看看今天到底降了多少。拿到其他家的GFE，有比他低的就恐吓他不用他了呗。（另外，0.25%换5000块的origination fee，是很划算的，我前面分析过了，去首页看电梯）
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/5 18:31:12编辑过]
看情况，如果final judgment已经包括了的话，就不要，如果没有的话，你还是要deal with it。MM你如果没人教，没有学会其中的关门过节，不能贸然下手的。这中间好多tricks不是三言两语能够说清楚的。万一没买好，要赔上很多钱的。
谢谢MM提醒，怎么才能知道FINAL JUDGMENT包不包括哪些MORTGAGE 呢？ 我们州的法律是：
All mortgages shall be foreclosed in equity。不知道和这个法律条款有关不。
我是这样想的，我会去参加我们这里的RE INVESTMENT CLUB，希望能通过NETWORKING认识一两个愿意教教我的。 MM有什么Tip 可以分享一下作为新手如何和其他INVESTOR NETWORKING？
再不行，我可以找一两个精通FORECLOSURE的RE LAWYER，通过和他们买TITLE SEARCH，让他们教一些怎么分析LIEN，以及FORECLOSURE的一些TRICK。
我知道万事都是开头难的。
----------------------
谢谢宝宝.
我给他打电话, 他说2个Option
[1] 免Origination fee, 5.25%, 不能讲价
[2] 我出Origination Fee: 5000刀, 他给4.875%.
这种情况还是[1] 好吗?
谢谢MM提醒，怎么才能知道FINAL JUDGMENT包不包括哪些MORTGAGE 呢？ 我们州的法律是：
All mortgages shall be foreclosed in equity。不知道和这个法律条款有关不。
不会吧，这年头foreclosed的基本上都是upside down的。
我是这样想的，我会去参加我们这里的RE INVESTMENT CLUB，希望能通过NETWORKING认识一两个愿意教教我的。 MM有什么Tip 可以分享一下作为新手如何和其他INVESTOR NETWORKING？
真正的大牛不会去INVESTMENT CLUB的，因为他们很忙很忙，没空的。我也就是坐他们旁边跟着学的。平时他们忙的连出来吃顿饭的时间都没有。有个朋友老说要跟我吃饭，从去年说到今年了，我们还没有一起吃过饭呢。
再不行，我可以找一两个精通FORECLOSURE的RE LAWYER，通过和他们买TITLE SEARCH，让他们教一些怎么分析LIEN，以及FORECLOSURE的一些TRICK。
这个比较靠谱。
我知道万事都是开头难的。
你打电话去其他公司啊，看看今天到底降了多少。拿到其他家的GFE，有比他低的就恐吓他不用他了呗。（另外，0.25%换5000块的origination fee，是很划算的，我前面分析过了，去首页看电梯）
----------------------
谢谢宝宝.
我给他打电话, 他说2个Option
[1] 免Origination fee, 5.25%, 不能讲价
[2] 我出Origination Fee: 5000刀, 他给4.875%.
这种情况还是[1] 好吗?
看贷款数目了。
我前面帮一个MM仔细算过这笔帐了，你去首页看电梯。
看贷款数目了。
我前面帮一个MM仔细算过这笔帐了，你去首页看电梯。
谢谢. 你算过的帐我都仔细看过了. 很明白.
2个月以后refinance心里挺没有底的. 所以刚刚觉得还是从了4.875%吧.
真的谢谢宝宝,学了很多东西.
谢谢. 你算过的帐我都仔细看过了. 很明白.
2个月以后refinance心里挺没有底的. 所以刚刚觉得还是从了4.875%吧.
真的谢谢宝宝,学了很多东西.
我觉得呢，如果3年内可以省回这个5000刀的话，就值，否则，不太值。你考虑一下就好了。
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/5 20:45:23编辑过]
一般一年就几百块钱，没啥大不了的，不一定需要跟车保险一起买，没准儿其他公司有更好的deal。我一般去AM BEST上面查保险公司的rating，make sure它是个A quality的保险公司就行了。
谢谢MM， 今天下午看你们说的真把我吓着了， 这下我放心了， 继续找我的保险去了。
5.5发钱
你太快了。。。
你太快了。。。
快啥啊，她把昨天的钱拖欠到凌晨两点才发的，还快啊？
哇，强贴！满满的学习。
一个小问题－楼主的回报率假设１０％ 和１５％ ３０年是不是有一点高了？
以下是引用lovemybaby在3/31/2010 6:29:00 PM的发言：
前两天不少MM们问ROTH啊，401K之间的关系，到底哪种情况合适。
我以这个表格作为例子，来给大家讲一下，到底存哪种，是根据你现在的税率和未来的税率的来决定的。
从这张图表上，可以看出，如果现在税率跟未来税率相等的话，则无所谓；如果现在税率》未来税率的话，则是税前的401K比较合适；如果现在税率《未来税率的话，则是Roth占优势。
所以今年国家改革了税法，无论家庭年收入多少，都可以把普通的IRA转成ROTH，交税就行，对于大多数家庭来说，没有这个必要。但是有一种情况是个例外：
就是高收入家庭，如果以前存了non- deductible traditional IRA的话，因为这几年股市不景气，没啥capital gain的话，把non-deductible traditional IRA转成Roth IRA，既不需要交税，又省了以后提取时的税率，是个no-brainer。
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/4/8 11:55:20编辑过]
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/4/8 11:55:20编辑过]
10%不高的。15%有点儿高，所以10%是normal assumption。
I'm not a predictor, but I think in the future years asset returns will be far less than most people think. My point is that choosing 401k or roth does not make much difference given the low return assumptions.
I like your spreadsheet very much. Very simple and intuitive.
以下是引用lovemybaby在5/6/2010 10:02:00 PM的发言：
10%不高的。15%有点儿高，所以10%是normal assumption。
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/7 8:11:53编辑过]
I'm not a predictor, but I think in the future years asset returns will be far less than most people think. My point is that choosing 401k or roth does not make much difference given the low return assumptions.
以下是引用lovemybaby在5/6/2010 10:02:00 PM的发言：
你去把过去100年S&P 500的average return查一下好不好？
不知道你怎么算的Berkshire的return，你算上了dividend了吗？你再去看看它过去30年的return呢？
remember, do not use short-term gain to predict long-term performance。
Here's more facts. I can go as far back as to 1971 on the S&P. Over the last 39 Years, teh S&P returned 6.32% annually. How's that? I think the S&P started on 1929(?). If you get that data you can do some serious calc yourself. Note that the S&P index is a total return index, which means dividends already are reflected in the index values. BTW, if you have BRK prices let me know. I don't have data going back that far.
Again most people are just too optimistic. Not it's a bad thing, but being realistic is better.
Any objective comments is welcome.
以下是引用lovemybaby在5/7/2010 8:14:00 AM的发言：
你去把过去100年S&P 500的average return查一下好不好？
不知道你怎么算的Berkshire的return，你算上了dividend了吗？你再去看看它过去30年的return呢？
remember, do not use short-term gain to predict long-term performance。
Here's more facts. I can go as far back as to 1971 on the S&P. Over the last 39 Years, teh S&P returned 6.32% annually. How's that? I think the S&P started on 1929(?). If you get that data you can do some serious calc yourself. Note that the S&P index is a total return index, which means dividends already are reflected in the index values. BTW, if you have BRK prices let me know. I don't have data going back that far.
Any objective comments is welcome.
Well, then you could ask nicely: can you show me the proof to support 10% return instead of saying "I think you are still too optimistic, as most people do". Since I am LZMM who started this post, obviously I have proof to support my arguments.
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/7 10:42:00编辑过]
我觉得我现在最大的理财问题是想办法跳槽涨工资啊～～～
：P 谢谢！
小声说 爱宝宝管找工作么的问题么～～～
我觉得我现在最大的理财问题是想办法跳槽涨工资啊～～～
：P 谢谢！
I ran S&P500 as the equity market proxy, and for the 82 yr history back 1927 (earlies possible), the annual return through yesterday is 5.18% on Bloomberg. Not sure what index (assuming DJIA?) you used and why stopped at 2004. You may want to update throught 2009 at least.
The up/down chart is misleading since 50% down will offset 100% up, so it is not that simple just looking at the annual bar returns.
If you have access to the long term assumptions of any large reputable firm, you will see nobody is projecting 10% on equities over the next 20 - 30 years.
UPDATE: I just ran DJIA from 1911 to yesterday, and the annual return is 5.1% for the last 99 years.
以下是引用lovemybaby在5/7/2010 10:37:00 AM的发言：
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/7 10:42:00编辑过]
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/7 12:30:23编辑过]
很现实的啊
不过我现在有两个军师给我的简历指导意见完全是两个方向的
所以我分裂中
I ran S&P500 as the equity market proxy, and for the 82 yr history back 1927 (earlies possible), the annual return through yesterday is 5.18% on Bloomberg. Not sure what index (assuming DJIA?) you used and why stopped at 2004. You may want to update throught 2009 at least.
对不起，我没空把过去100年的数据调出来给你做EXCEL表，我不过给你把课本里面的图表摘抄过来而已。这份图表是来自S&P500的return，是ibbotson的。如果有问题的话，请自己去参照corporate finance textbook。update到不到2009年根本无所谓，stock market本来就是一年高，一年低的。我们要看的是long term trend, 而不是short term return。
如果你修过corporate finance 的话，你应该知道average return和holding period return的差别。作为投资工具来讲的话，应该考虑的是average return。打个比方，你的401K每年都在往里面投钱，那么从长期来讲的话，你获得的应该是average return，而不是holding period return。当然要问是arithmetic还是geometric average return，差别并不是很大，arithmetic更加乐观，geometric 稍微悲观一些。
If you have access to the long term assumptions of any large reputable firm, you will see nobody is projecting 10% on equities over the next 20 - 30 years.
关于这个问题，我不想跟你再进行任何辩论。你去翻看任何一本corporate finance textbook，会发现大多数问题都是假设10%的annual return。Why？因为S&P500在过去100年的average return就是12%左右。你非要argue你就在某一年（还恰恰是high market价格很高的时候）把钱投进去了，以后再也不投了，所以你的return只能是5%。OK，请便。反正是个假设而已。
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/7 13:28:16编辑过]
很现实的啊
不过我现在有两个军师给我的简历指导意见完全是两个方向的
所以我分裂中
这个需要找你的同行senior才行啊。隔行如隔山，没法瞎指导的啊。
这个需要找你的同行senior才行啊。隔行如隔山，没法瞎指导的啊。
主要是格式上的
简历头上
objective下面要写qulification么？
就是抓重要的几条写。。。比如工作年数 证书 用过什么软件 大公司经验
我得到2个意见
一个说要写 因为hiring manager收到简历太多 只会看简历前几行 所以要写
qualification
另一个说不用 统统放experience里面 公司有简历搜索机器 只好简历里面有足够
关键词match上就成
还有
简历里面比较重要的关键词要bold么？
一个说要
另一个说 太花哨 无用
一个是类似行当的senior
另外一个是类似行当的consultant。。。。。
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/7 12:50:19编辑过]
First of all, I have to say that everything we do we should base on facts and real experiences (either laws, regulations, stat numbers, live examples) rather than what other people say. Similar to all the cases in your posts, things may look easy but unless you go do it, you won't know all the details and troubles.
Here are my points. I may get into the technicals. People need not focus on the nitty gritty details but they should get the spirit, which is to find the answer by themselves.
对不起，我没空把过去100年的数据调出来给你做EXCEL表，我不过给你把金融课本里面的图表摘抄过来而已。这份图表是来自S&P500的return，是ibbotson的。如果有问题的话，请自己去参照corporate finance textbook。update到不到2009年根本无所谓，stock market本来就是一年高，一年低的。我们要看的是long term trend, 而不是short term return。
You don't need teh 100 yrs of data. Just the beginning and ending numbers to get the annualized returns. I like Ibbotson as a reliable data source, but their S&P itself either as an index or a firm doesn't go back to 1900. Why? S&P 500 was first published in 1957. S&P linked this index with the former S&P 90 to extend its history to 1918. That's when S&P first got any index. So I would question the data source here. Lesson - don't say what other people say, go for the source. I agree that data through 2004 is enough to show the trend, which does not help your arguement for 10% anyways.
如果你修过corporate finance 的话，你应该知道average return和holding period return的差别。作为投资工具来讲的话，应该考虑的是average return。打个比方，你的401K每年都在往里面投钱，那么从长期来讲的话，你获得的应该是average return，而不是holding period return。当然要问是arithmetic还是geometric average return，差别并不是很大，arithmetic更加乐观，geometric 稍微悲观一些。
In real life, to take your 401k as an example, recent returns matter more than old returns. Morningstar developed its own indices based on this theory and it makes sense. It's weighted historical return which puts more weight to more recent returns. However it is not average return. Again, simple example: yr 1 return of 100% and yr 2 return of -50%. Average return is 25%. Real life return is 0%. You know which one is correct.
关于这个问题，我不想跟你再进行任何辩论。你去翻看任何一本corporate finance textbook，会发现大多数问题都是假设10%的annual return。Why？因为S&P500在过去100年的average return就是12%左右。你非要argue你就在某一年（还恰恰是high market价格很高的时候）把钱投进去了，以后再也不投了，所以你的return只能是5%。OK，请便。反正是个假设而已。
Why do they use 10% in text books? It's just s whole number that's easy to use. LOL. Why do professional firms use assumptions much lower than 10% in their modeling? Because it's real life, not some textbooks. You put your money on the line, and you become realistic. You don't need to debate with me, and you should go check out what the big wigs say about future (Warren Buffet, Bill Gross, Jim Rogers, George Soros...) and you will see. I will not say I'm smarter than these guys, nor would I say you are.
If you still want to go over more details, I suggest we move to the money board.
A little bit more thoughts - You seem to rely heavily on textbooks in this discussion. But you can see I gather facts from reputable public sources. Textbooks are for classrooms and not for real life. We are talking about people's choices in real life so I would not solely rely on textbooks. I'd appreciate real life examples much more than textbook examples.
I haven't read your other posts yet (this 401k calc is your first post). I hope they are not based on textbooks only :-)
Thanks for the contribution and sharing of knowledge all the same.
我开理财楼，主要是给大家科普点儿基本知识。没有兴趣对牛角尖问题进行深入细致的剖析，毕竟我来华人回答问题是不带薪的，所以我也没有必要写长篇大论来讨论什么是reasonable annual return。要解释一个问题，怎么着都需要有个基本的assumption。你非要抓住assumption不放，来论证这个10%是太高还是太低，我没有兴趣奉陪讨论到底，我对money board更没有兴趣。
考虑到大部分ID没有受过这方面的训练，我的解释以通俗易懂为前提。不以深精钻为己任。如果你对market annual return很有造诣的话，大可自己开新贴给大家进行科普和解释，没必要跟我在这儿argue。这里大部分MM不是做投资的，自然对于研究market return, cost of capital, discount rate，hurdle rate，没有多少课本知识，更没有实际经验，所以科普一点儿基本的book knowledge外加实际生活经历，我认为已经足够。
另外，斯为理财楼，但是实际上我给大家讲很多各种各样的理财问题，从投资到报税省税到出租房到投资房到开公司到给孩子存大学学费，都有概括。大部分源于我自己的实际经验。
主要是格式上的
简历头上
objective下面要写qulification么？
就是抓重要的几条写。。。比如工作年数 证书 用过什么软件 大公司经验
我得到2个意见
一个说要写 因为hiring manager收到简历太多 只会看简历前几行 所以要写
qualification
另一个说不用 统统放experience里面 公司有简历搜索机器 只好简历里面有足够
关键词match上就成
还有
简历里面比较重要的关键词要bold么？
一个说要
另一个说 太花哨 无用
一个是类似行当的senior
另外一个是类似行当的consultant。。。。。
我的看法是1吧，一般人翻看个简历，肯定会先看前面几行你的qualifications的。
关键词不一定要bold，但是我觉得关键词肯定是需要的。
Since most people are not that familiar with investing, a little background knowledge is actually very helpful. Rather than just telling them to expect 10%, you should tell them that decision is dependent upon the assumption which again may trace back to facts. And you need to get the facts right, not just what the textbooks say.
People/readers should form their own ideas, but posters here should try to get the facts right. Otherwise it will be misleading and many innocent IDs may get hurt.
以下是引用lovemybaby在5/7/2010 2:18:00 PM的发言：
我开理财楼，主要是给大家科普点儿基本知识。没有兴趣对牛角尖问题进行深入细致的剖析，毕竟我来华人回答问题是不带薪的，所以我也没有必要写长篇大论来讨论什么是reasonable annual return。要解释一个问题，怎么着都需要有个基本的assumption。你非要抓住assumption不放，来论证这个10%是太高还是太低，我没有兴趣奉陪讨论到底，我对money board更没有兴趣。
考虑到大部分ID没有受过这方面的训练，我的解释以通俗易懂为前提。不以深精钻为己任。如果你对market annual return很有造诣的话，大可自己开新贴给大家进行科普和解释，没必要跟我在这儿argue。这里大部分MM不是做投资的，自然对于研究market return, cost of capital, discount rate，hurdle rate，没有多少课本知识，更没有实际经验，所以科普一点儿基本的book knowledge外加实际生活经历，我认为已经足够。
另外，斯为理财楼，但是实际上我给大家讲很多各种各样的理财问题，从投资到报税省税到出租房到投资房到开公司到给孩子存大学学费，都有概括。大部分源于我自己的实际经验。
Since most people are not that familiar with investing, a little background knowledge is actually very helpful. Rather than just telling them to expect 10%, you should tell them that decision is dependent upon the assumption which again may trace back to facts. And you need to get the facts right, not just what the textbooks say.
难不成你是鲜花版傻MM的英文版？苛求别人总是容易，请问你为何自己不开贴讲解呢？
任何有EXCEL基础知识的人，都可以replicate我首页做的那个图表，也可以看到，那个例子里面，无论假设5%，10%，还是15%的return，都不影响最终结论。既然如此，我不明白你的这些长篇论调对于我的举例有任何意义。难不成你看不到我那么大一张图表里面把这三种return都已经包括进去考虑了吗？
return不return，拥有401K的人肯定知道自己过去几年的performance是如何，也会对自己的投资能力有个rational expectataion的，显然不会因为Warren Buffet的return很高，就同样期望自己能够拿到同样的return的。所以我的举例不过是抛砖引玉，帮大家把EXCEL的表格搭建好了，大家根据自己的实际情况进行替换。要是你连我这点儿苦心都看不出来的话，麻烦您少苛责，想想如何能够自己也给大家做点儿有点儿实际意义的奉献。
我的看法是1吧，一般人翻看个简历，肯定会先看前面几行你的qualifications的。
关键词不一定要bold，但是我觉得关键词肯定是需要的。
非常感谢！
那我不继续歪楼啦
：P
非常感谢！
那我不继续歪楼啦
：P
呵呵，没事儿，有问题欢迎继续问。
下午才给正式的文件.而且agreement文件上的date是今天...能否要求agent match今天的
interst或者给rebate？lock的是3.875 7/1 ARM, 今天应该能拿到3.75.
另外，agreement上说 3.875%是based on the 1.065% index value rate in effect
on May 7, plus a margin of 2.25% and plus a premium of 0.56%. 这个premium就
是他们的利润吗？这个利润合理吗?
thanks!
周一打电话让agent lock，天天催rate lock agreement,agent口头说锁定了但到今天
下午才给正式的文件.而且agreement文件上的date是今天...能否要求agent match今天的
interst或者给rebate？lock的是3.875 7/1 ARM, 今天应该能拿到3.75.
另外，agreement上说 3.875%是based on the 1.065% index value rate in effect
on May 7, plus a margin of 2.25% and plus a premium of 0.56%. 这个premium就
是他们的利润吗？这个利润合理吗?
thanks!
3.75%够低的了。这个premium不是你的mortgage broker赚的，而是银行赚的。mortgage broker只赚你的部分closing costs+银行给的rebate的。
以下是引用lovemybaby在5/7/2010 9:50:00 PM的发言：
3.75%够低的了。这个premium不是你的mortgage broker赚的，而是银行赚的。mortgage broker只赚你的部分closing costs+银行给的rebate的。
agent给的是3.875,我想争取到3.75..或者，能要credit吗?
不知道他们给不给了。你如果找到其他家可以给的话，肯定可以找他们match。要是找不到更低的，他们不给你也没办法。试试吧。
离closing只剩20天，不想换agent了。。。感觉有点被agent take advantage. 有点担心砍价太狠了， agent使坏不能按时close..
很多agent，lock以后还可以ride the index再lock一次的，你问问你的agent可以不可以。20天倒是有点儿紧，不太来得及换新的agent了。
小声说 爱宝宝管找工作么的问题么～～～
我觉得我现在最大的理财问题是想办法跳槽涨工资啊～～～
：P 谢谢！
哈哈哈哈阿。。。你太可爱了。。。
哈哈哈哈阿。。。你太可爱了。。。
我知道没有人能完全预测股票走向，只是想听听你的看法。 我倒不炒短线股，但是各种mutual fund还是有一些，现在希腊的这个经济危机弄得我有点心慌啊，不知道是不是趁早套现了好。
爱宝宝mm，我想请问一下你看好未来3-6个月的stock and mutual fund market吗？
我知道没有人能完全预测股票走向，只是想听听你的看法。 我倒不炒短线股，但是各种mutual fund还是有一些，现在希腊的这个经济危机弄得我有点心慌啊，不知道是不是趁早套现了好。
No one can predict the stock market, so neither can I.
如果不是investment pro的话，我建议不要试图time the market。Riding with the market is the best way for ordinary investors。
即使Market真的要crash的话，你 不能完全准确把握哪里是peak，哪里是bottom的话，同样还是挣不了钱的。
建议每个月投一些钱进去，这样over the long term，你能够得到market average return。
爱宝宝mm, 请问一下，你FLIP HOUSE成立公司了吗？是不是最好成立公司，这样保护私人财产，怕有LAWSUITE之类的，比如谁在你房前摔了一跤？是成立S CORP吗？
就是LLC，不是S CORP。我买了100万的umbrella insurance。投资房的investor insurance还另外有30万的liability insurance。
三年的arm要到期了，最近收到bank发信说新的rate只有3.6，而且没有别的费用，但是我看了一一下rate只保持一年。这个是不是其实就是一
年的arm rate啊？我能不能要求lock这个rate并且把它变成fixed的啊？如果想变成fixed是不是一定要refin？
爱宝mm，请问一下arm的问题啊：
三年的arm要到期了，最近收到bank发信说新的rate只有3.6，而且没有别的费用，但是我看了一一下rate只保持一年。这个是不是其实就是一
年的arm rate啊？我能不能要求lock这个rate并且把它变成fixed的啊？如果想变成fixed是不是一定要refin？
You need to refinance to get fixed rate, unless your bank has special promotion to extend your lock. 很多银行有no-closing cost的refinance的，你问一下就好。
就是LLC，不是S CORP。我买了100万的umbrella insurance。投资房的investor insurance还另外有30万的liability insurance。
谢谢MM。MM能简单讲讲选LLC而不是S CORP 的理由吗？ 我GOOGLE了一下，好像就是说LLC简单些。
谢谢MM。MM能简单讲讲选LLC而不是S CORP 的理由吗？ 我GOOGLE了一下，好像就是说LLC简单些。
S CORP会存在double taxation的问题，以前好像讲过的。你去首页看看电梯。
LLC确实很简单的，网上注册一个10分钟而已。
S CORP会存在double taxation的问题，以前好像讲过的。你去首页看看电梯。
LLC确实很简单的，网上注册一个10分钟而已。
是吗？我看见的都是说LLC和S CORP都可以避免DOUBLE TAXATION。 S CORP可以SAVE self-employee tax. 但因为self-employee tax 有上线，BASE包括个人工作收入，所以我觉得S CORP 在SAVE self-employee tax上对有工作的人并没有真正优势。
是吗？我看见的都是说LLC和S CORP都可以避免DOUBLE TAXATION。 S CORP可以SAVE self-employee tax. 但因为self-employee tax 有上线，BASE包括个人工作收入，所以我觉得S CORP 在SAVE self-employee tax上对有工作的人并没有真正优势。
S CORP卖公司的时候要交两次税的。
我前面讨论过了self-employee tax的问题了，对我们绝大多数有full-time job的人来说，没啥优势。你去首页看电梯，有讨论的。
就是LLC，不是S CORP。我买了100万的umbrella insurance。投资房的investor insurance还另外有30万的liability insurance。
这个umbrella insurance 和investor insurance, liability insurance有什么差别阿?
这个umbrella insurance 和investor insurance, liability insurance有什么差别阿?
umbrella insurance是个人买的，投资房不可以买一般的homeowner insurance，因为是vacant的，只能买更贵的investor insurance，liability coverage至少30万，多买点儿心安啊。
很多人投资家里装修，是件好事。适当的装修，能够让房子不至于过时，自己住着也能够比较enjoy。但是过度的装修，就过犹不及了。
认识的一位朋友，房子也就值个三四十万的光景。（他家小区的房子已经靠近二十年了，本身房子的质量不是很高，小区维护的一般，卖不出很高的价格）在这样一个小区里面，他家已经投入了大概三十万来装修他们的房子。大钱主要是花在厨房地面卫生间，再加上又加建了一个房间。其中，光是主卫，就花了超过五万刀。
五万刀的主卫，果然是美轮美奂的，大理石从地铺到顶，整个卫生间流光溢彩。但是想想，这样一个主卫的投资价值。在这样一个均值三四十万刀的小区里面，想卖出个六七十万的房子是absolutely impossible的，即使buyer有这个钱，再爱你的房子，也不会买在你这个区。所以这么多钱投进房子了，以后基本上是别打算卖了，否则卖起来几乎血本无归。
换个思维角度。5万刀如果用来投资的话，挑选个好的rental property，generate 10%的return还是doable的。那么就是一年5000刀。一年365天，平均每天早上用主卫花费5刀，晚上用主卫花费10刀，还不包括5万刀principle的折旧。
当然，要是买的是million dollar house，那么花这么多钱来做主卫自然是无可厚非。
所以，不同情况，是需要具体分析的。
【同理，花5万刀做fancy家庭影院的话，是个比fancy主卫还要差的investment。换算起来每个周末在家看场电影值到100刀的成本（算一个周末看两场的话），还不包括折旧费！有这么多钱的话，是不是每个周末出去吃顿饭，再去电影院看电影更加美滋滋的呢？】
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/12 21:54:04编辑过]
你是说每个投资房至少要买30万LIABILITY INSURANCE？
investor insurance 是每个房子都要单独买吧？ 好像还有BUILDER RISK INSURANCE， REHAB的时候可以买？
你是说每个投资房至少要买30万LIABILITY INSURANCE？
我们州只有一家保险公司卖这种investor insurance，没得挑。
我一般行事比较稳健，宁可多买保险，不会少买保险，所以我每次都至少买30万的liability coverage，是包含在investor insurance里面的一个选项。
非常同意爱宝的过犹不及理论。房子的价格受小区的限制很大。如果小区平均房子价格都是30-40万的，别说6，70万了，你卖upper 40万都是很难的。
嘿嘿，大半夜的，你来了？快到水楼看我跟她们辩论该不该买大牌包包，目前是一对三，我一个对三个辩论。
以下是引用XXXX在5/12/2010 9:39:00 PM的发言：
是啊， 我一个亲戚都80多了， 拎着香包还很有风度，让我觉得其实香包利用率蛮高的， 可以背很多年。。
我不知道啊我不知道，我的理财观是这样认为的：
人家大牌明星一年挣很多个M的话，自然可以随便买大牌包包。几千刀对她们来说就如同几十刀对于我们大多数人而言。
所以我认为呢，收入没有到这个水平，没必要整这些大牌包。
而且整了大牌包，穿几十刀的打折衣服也是不搭的，对不对？
以下是引用YYYY在5/12/2010 10:04:00 PM的发言：
而且好多是花父母的钱，还不知道赚钱的辛苦。
也不像，我观察人的能力还行。
闺蜜在仔细看衣服的时候，我就忙着打量前来购物的MM们了。见过几个学生模样的MM，没有那种富贵之气，不像是养尊处优的家庭里面出来的孩子。我觉得更像是省了很久可以去买心水的包包的MM。
如果真是为了买个名贵包，需要省很久，或者其他地方扣扣索索的话，真是没有意义了。失去了奢侈品的意义了。
以下是引用XXXX在5/12/2010 10:12:00 PM的发言：
爱宝看过那个菜菜子演的日剧--大和拜金女吗？ 里面的女主角就是把所有的钱都用在名牌服饰上了， 目的是钓金龟婿
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/5/12 22:11:46编辑过]
没。。。气质和气场这东西，不是大牌就能堆砌的起来的。。。更多的来自自身的素质，修养和阅历的。。。
如果是我的话，我宁可花这钱带孩子们周游世界，开阔他们的眼界，培养他们的气场，也好过给他们提供奢侈的大牌和生活方式。
以下是引用YYYY在5/12/2010 10:20:00 PM的发言：
亲耐滴，这话说得太对了，让我更耐你了。。。
本来还在纠结换版一香包，现在决定了，不买了。
好孩子，有这个钱还不如带全家一起去cruise一趟，开阔家人视野，也relax了，多好啊。
以下是引用YYYY在5/12/2010 10:21:00 PM的发言：
用我一朋友的话，咱不是没钱，咱是舍不得花。。
再说了，我认为，咱爱宝的气场，已经不需要靠那些大牌来支撑了。
你过奖了。
也不是不花钱，而是钱要花在刀口上。比我我愿意花钱请人帮我把家务做了，那是提高我的生活质量, significantly。
但是花几千买个包，MS没法提高我的生活质量at all。最多就是几个懂fashion的MM认出我的大牌包，赞许一下。其他的，what can I get out of it?
以下是引用ZZZZ在5/12/2010 10:29:00 PM的发言：
你这番话真是太实在啦！
其实背大牌包还有个危险：
你让你的boss如何想你？
你很有钱是吧？那也不需要给你raise, promotion了。反正你都富成这样了，买个包包都几千，哪里需要几千的raise啊？特别是如果有女上司的话，更是要小心又小心的。女人的嫉妒心理还是挺可怕的。
以下是引用YYYY在5/12/2010 10:42:00 PM的发言：
嗯，挣钱为啥，不奏是为了花么，哈哈。
对不起爱宝，我这人太墙头草了哈。
要花到最有意义的地方啊。。。想想你有这3000刀，可以给你孩子带来什么样的阅历呢? 可以给全家人带来什么样的欢乐呢？
又不是多到有无数个3000刀，可以随便到处扔出个3000刀，要是那样我也就不说你了。
Again，是要考虑自己可以消费的总数，然后定夺把这个钱花到哪儿。
以下是引用UUUU在5/12/2010 10:47:00 PM的发言：
看到价钱我都没有想法了，，，，不过包很美貌~~~~
嘿嘿，我觉得有点儿老气？
最近我老是装嫩，所以买了不少鲜艳的颜色。
对了，我宁可花这1350刀买上30条漂亮的裙子，每天上班穿一件新裙子，让我每天有个好心情。
爱宝什么都好， 就是.。。。。。。
嘿嘿，我是不是那话说的太直了啊？
实事求是嘛，咱们又不是9位数媳妇儿，有无数个3000刀可以到处花的。。。
以下是引用YYYY在5/12/2010 10:55:00 PM的发言：
可是不矛盾的呀，并不是说花了三千刀，娃的教育就给取消了。
也不是随便到处就能扔个三千刀，但不至于影响日常生活就是了，顶多银行存款数量少一点罢了。
墙头草又来了。。。花吧花吧，花了你高兴就好！
嘿嘿，我多攒几个3000刀，凑成3万拿去投资好了。。。
以下是引用YYYY在5/12/2010 10:58:00 PM的发言：
其实，你算算包的利用率和裙子的利用率就知道了，买包包还是挺划算的。
一条裙子一年穿几天？一个包一年背多少天。。合到price/day来看，包是值得的。
错了，包包一天背几分钟，有几分钟给人看的到的？（除非你坐地铁上班另当别论）
难不成你到了办公室，把她放到你的cubic的最上面一层格子里面，期望整个办公室的人都能看到？
往往真实情况是：我的包包难得有人看到，但是我的衣裙看到的人多多了。
以下是引用YYYY在5/12/2010 11:03:00 PM的发言：
我这不是不会投资么。。
你去我的理财贴下面好好学啊，可比在fashion版和exchange版蹲着更能帮你致富啊！
以下是引用WWWW在5/12/2010 11:07:00 PM的发言：
比裙子实用不是？ 再来个香包吧， 我嚼着那个更配你的气场。
气场来自于阅历，修养和见识，不是来自于包包的。。。我还是好好培养前者吧，还是免费的。。。
爱宝宝mm，看这个帖子受益匪浅，但觉得很多东西很复杂，一看就头疼。
现在有个问题：
要买房,offer被接受了，所以要把Vanguard里的mutual fund钱全都拿出来，总共十三四万，分在8个fund里。每个fund里有一两万。escrow 30天close，所以保险一点的话最好在两周内把钱全都exchange到Vanguard prime money market fund，最后把所有的钱从这个money market fund transfer到银行checking account.
具体怎么操作好呢？Vanguard网站上说如果东部时间4点之前request exchange，可以按当天closing price把钱取出来。那是不是每天3点多看一看股市，如果还可以的话就从每个fund取出三五千？有的fund有限制，不能频繁操作，但取出钱来应该可以吧？
对的，等到哪天market高的时候，到3点55分submit the order。只要你的fund不是最近一两个月买的，可以统统卖掉，没有redemption fee的。
多谢指点！
我每赚3万，就花十分之一在奢侈品上，这个比例还可以吧
嘿嘿，我觉得太多了点儿。
我想请你根据我家的实际情况帮我们分析一下：
我在读书，1年半到2年能毕业，自费读书，一年学费在6-7千的样子。老公一人工作，工资不高，税前6万。无孩，2年内没有购房的打算。
有个两三万的存款。没有任何投资理财。
请问：
我们应该怎么理财，401k？每年投多少？
因为不懂，所以可能问题比较低级，但是，又很想用有限的收入把日子过好，做些长久的打算。所以，真心请教。谢谢
戒指要多少钱啊？钻的吗？
我看中的最便宜的那个镶钻的trinity，5000吧。再往上就没边儿了。话说这个cartier也是年年涨价，没准儿还真能保值。。。我的预算是1万，和修院子差不多。
我看中的最便宜的那个镶钻的trinity，5000吧。再往上就没边儿了。话说这个cartier也是年年涨价，没准儿还真能保值。。。我的预算是1万，和修院子差不多。
买吧
反正多这5k块钱也顶不上啥大事儿，还不如买个高兴
爱宝宝MM，偶然发现你的帖子，一楼楼看来受益匪浅，把适合我们家的还copy下来保留，慢慢学习。
我想请你根据我家的实际情况帮我们分析一下：
我在读书，1年半到2年能毕业，自费读书，一年学费在6-7千的样子。老公一人工作，工资不高，税前6万。无孩，2年内没有购房的打算。
有个两三万的存款。没有任何投资理财。
请问：
我们应该怎么理财，401k？每年投多少？
因为不懂，所以可能问题比较低级，但是，又很想用有限的收入把日子过好，做些长久的打算。所以，真心请教。谢谢
401k有match么，有就投
其他每月也剩不下什么钱了吧？