vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Not really. High frequency traders affect mainly short term investors. If everyone invested long-term and traded infrequently, there would be no high frequency trading. For a long term investor, you by at X, hold for several years, and sell at Y. At worst, high frequency trading may affect ""X"" and ""Y"" by a few pennies (and the changes may cancel out). For a long term trader that doesn't amount to a ""hill of beans"" It is other frequent traders that will feel the loss of those ""pennies."""
With interest rates so low it could take a while.   I agree with your capital comment but one key thing to remember is that the entire company would now change and the long-term viability of it could be jeopardized. Shareholders would focus on short-term, mainly quarterly results at the expense of long-term investment and growth strategies.   This is also a reason as to why we're seeing relatively fewer IPOs in recent years compared to earlier time periods despite the value of the market growing.
"In addition to the choice that saving for retirement affords - itself a great comfort - the miracle of compounding is so great that even if you chose to work in old age, having set aside sums of money that grow will itself help your future.  The are so many versions of the ""saving money in your 20s"" that equals millions of dollars that the numbers aren't worth showing here. Still, any time value of money example will illustrate the truth.  That said, time value of money does start with the assumption that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. Inflation, after all, eats away at the value of a dollar. It's just that compounding so outshines inflation that any mature person who is willing to wait, should be convinced. Until you work the examples, however, it's not at all obvious.  It took my daughter years to figure out that saving her allowance let her get way better stuff. The same is true of everyone."
You goal should be in rupees, as you are earning in rupees and spending in rupees. Any other currency is of no value / meaning.   More than being worried about the USD/INR rate, you should be worried about inflation and savings rate. This will change the amount that you need to save for your retirement. The USD/INR rate would anyways get reflected into some of the prices of some of the items and would get relfected into Inflation. Your savings goal should not be an arbitrary number. It should have a purpose. The purpose for saving goal could be to meet education in future, wedding, kids education, vacation, downpayment for house, retirement etc.  Say your goal is to save enough for you Masters degree that you plan to do after 3 years. Say As of today you find the cost fees/book/etc is Rs 100,000 for you Masters degree. Say Additional Rs 100,000 for your stay & food expenses. So essentially you need to save Rs 200,000 in next 3 years. However here is the catch, in 3 years time the inflation around 10% may mean you need to save Rs 200,000 * 1.1 = 220,000 at the end of first year, and 220,000 * 1.1 = 242000 for second year, and 242,000 * 1.1 = 266,200. So essentially you need to save more. If you run this in XLS it will be easy to track and moniter. Now at the end of 1st year whatever you have saved, you may keep it in short term fixed deposits, this would get you interest. So effectively this calculation will tell you how much you need to save monthly. For longer goals, you may say decide to invest the money in shares / PPF / or other instruments, the essential is same the returns that you are getting adds value and the inflation removes value.
To make this more general: should you save for retirement or for education?  The answer is simple: save for your education first. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on   behalf Universities UK in 2006 and   another by the Washington-based   College Board in 2007 indicate that   graduates of higher education can earn   anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million   more, after tax and education loans   are paid, than do those who start work   with only a high-school qualification. [From my blog...] Over your lifetime your higher education will earn you far more than any other income and investments you forego while attaining that education.  Make those sacrifices now to reap greater rewards later.
It would be quite the miracle if you found that you know, now, just graduating college, what your tax rate would be at retirement.  But, it's fair to say that chances are that you'll be in a higher tax bracket in years to come due to promotions,better job, or he joy of dual income after marriage. So, I'd suggest Roth for now, with an eye towards pretax savings as your income and bracket rises. Ideally, a retiree finds himself in a bracket no higher than while working, but also not lower. You see, saving in Roth 100% and missing the ability to withdraw at 0, 10, and 15%, is as bad as saving 100% in pretax, and fining you retire in a higher bracket. No one can tell you the best path, but at any given moment, the highest probability outcome may be visible.
Pensions are pretty much gone and likely to be drastically cut back where available for my generation.  Every recession provides excuses to cut or freeze more of them.  Who hasn't seen that compound interest infographic that shows investor A saving for retirement in the first decade of their career coming out ahead of investor B that starts a decade later and contributes for 25 years because of 'compound interest'?  That doesn't work the same way when that first decade is a 'lost decade'.  Investor A is always behind in that situation and must become investor C that contributes the whole time.  Who hasn't see that average college grads that start their careers in a recession take a decade or more to catch up to the income of those that graduated into a recovery or boom?  Who hasn't seen an odd money mentality of those who lived through the great depression?  It clearly stuck with many people for the rest of their lives.  My grandmother is 97 and is paranoid about running out of money.  At her current burn rate she has over 20 years of savings left...
So there's no extra money from your employer if you contribute extra to your 403(b)? My answer will be a bit different than most others, but I'd recommend not paying another dime into your 403(b).  Pay your taxes now, and be done with them. Retirement saving does not need to be in a tax-deferred or tax-free account. Rent vs. buy is another question.  Buy from a distressed seller at a heavy discount.  You have time.  Don't panic or rush in.
"It's called disposable income for a reason. It's what's left after obligations, whatever bills you have, and saving. Saving half one's income is pretty much at one end of the spectrum, very few can afford this. The combination of high savings and low actual spending will enable you to retire very early if you wish.  Saving 'only' 15% might actually be out of your comfort zone, maybe 25% will keep you happy. What remains is yours to spend on what you wish, whatever makes you happy. There was a time I joked ""I spent most of my money on women and beer. The rest, I wasted."" Now, I don't mind travel, but it's not my passion. If traveling the world is yours, do it. Enjoy every minute of it."
If you are in the 15% marginal tax bracket, I'd agree, no harm in using Roth. If you are in the 25% bracket or above, it would take quite a bit of savings to retire in a higher bracket. I can't know your entire situation, but the average person is barely saving enough to be in the 15% bracket in retirement, let alone higher.
"To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are. Not only is this a horrible idea, but I think you have some alarming misunderstandings about what it means to save for retirement. First off, precious metals are not an ""investment""; they are store of value. The old saying that a gold coin would buy a suit 300 years ago and will still buy a suit today is pretty accurate. Buying precious metals and expecting them to ""appreciate"" in the future because they are ""undervalued"" is just flat-out speculation and really doesn't belong in a well-planned retirement account, unless it's a very small part for the purposes of diversification. So the upshot to all of this is the most likely outcome is you get zero return after inflation (maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll be very unlucky). Next you would say that sure, you're giving up some expected return for a reduction in risk. But, you've done away with diversification which is the most effective way to minimize risk... And I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining that the stock market or any other reasonable investment doesn't make any returns. If you invest in a market wide index fund, then the expected return is going to be roughly in proportion with productivity gains. To say that there will be no appreciation of the stock market over the next 40 years is to say that technological progress will stop and/or we will have large-scale economic disruptions that will wipe out 40 years of progress. If that happens, I would say it's highly questionable whether silver will actually be worth anything at all. I'd rather have food, property, and firearms. So, to answer your question, practically any other retirement savings plan would be better than the one that you currently outlined, but the best plan is just to put your money in a very low-cost index fund at Vanguard and let it sit until you retire. The expense ratios are so stupidly small, that it's not going to meaningfully affect your return."
"Don't mind the percentages. They are highly misleading. First, ""saving"" is making available for future use. It might be ""hoarding"", ""investing"" or a combination thereof. It might be for a specific use (a car, a college education, retirement, etc.), or for a non-specific use (for an emergency, for when you decide to spend some of those savings, or just for lack of a compelling use as of the moment). In first case, whatever you save should be available by the date you intend to use it. In second case, it might be prudent to have savings (and investments, see below) of various liquidity (cash you have at hand, bank account you can draw next day, mutual fund account you can draw in a month, maybe something you can only cash in a year etc.). You will see that the actual percentages you ""save"" fluctuate enormously throughout your life, varying with the progress of your career, changes of marital status and family cmposition, etc., etc. What you should really do is to come up with a rough plan of how you expect, from right now and to the end of your life at whatever age, have enough money for whatever level of comfort you plan for each period of your life, allowing for some specified level of perturbations. Then you just execute that plan or change it as you go."
I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date).
The reason for the 10% rule of thumb is that this is roughly what you'll need to save for retirement in order to have the same standard of living in retirement as you do during your working years. Since each additional dollar produces less happiness you will maximize your happiness by equalizing your income over your entire life and thus this produces the maximum happiness.
This why economists hate people like OP: They only read headlines and abstracts.   &gt;Given the importance of low wealth at retirement in explaining low wealth late in life, this paper begins by exploring the factors that are associated with low saving before retirement. We pay particular attention to the links between education, health status, and wealth at age 65 and at the end of life. We examine the distribution of lifetime earnings, a key determinant of savings capacity, and calculate a “saving ratio,” the ratio of wealth at retirement to lifetime earnings. This ratio depends on a household’s saving  2 rate over the life course, as well as on the rate of return earned on this saving. We also present new evidence on how health and family status shocks affect the trajectory of wealth after retirement, and in particular how they affect the likelihood of reporting very low wealth at the end of life.
As you move toward retirement, your portfolio is supposed to move toward low risk, stable investments, more bonds, less stocks, etc.  Your question implies that you want to increase your income, most likely because your income is not satisfying your desires. First, any idea that you have that risks your savings, just eliminate it.  You are not able to replace those savings.  The time for those kind of plays has passed. However, you can improve your situation.  Do random odd jobs.  Find a part time job that you're willing to do for 10 hours a week or something.  Keep this money separate from your retirement savings.  Research the stock trades you would like to make and use that 'extra' money to play in the market.  Set a rule that you do not touch your nest egg for trading.  You may find that being retired gives you the time to do the #1 thing that helps investors make good investments -- research. Then when you make your first million doing this, write a book.  If you call it Retire - And Then Get Rich, I expect royalties and a dedication.
I think JohnFx's answer is pretty much the right thing to do. I'd just like to suggest that the budget doesn't have to be fixed. It sounds like you aren't completely sure what an acceptable lifestyle costs for you, and it might feel like a budget locks you into a spending pattern that could end up being unfulfilling, or keep you in debt longer than necessary. To reduce that risk, you could start with a very easy level of contributions, then every month see if you can spend $10-$50 less without sacrificing in the lifestyle department. And eventually if you feel like you're missing out, you can stick with the previous month's budget. You might avoid depriving yourself by starting with something easy, but I think if you make an effort to save money, you'll more likely be surprised how much you can improve your lifestyle while spending less. I like a lot of the advice on Mr. Money Mustache and Early Retirement Extreme, and I'd recommend the introductory sections of both blogs if you ever hit a block at some level of contribution. And one minor (highly situational) comment: You mentioned having less to save if you contribute more, but if you have high interest loans, paying them down early can be (pretty much) a guaranteed very high ROI. So while you might want to prioritize an emergency fund and maybe an employer match first, most saving will probably be less useful than extra contributions.
begin having them take community college courses while they are still in high school - this should be a better use of time than AP courses. if they continue and get an associates degree the credits should be transferrable anywhere take the associates degree to a state school and have them finish just their two years (4 semesters) at the state school. that should be an non-stressful and affordable approach that will give them a time/age-based advantage over their peers. so instead of playing with financial aid and retirement plan rules, this sort of goal can help you save, without creating inconsequential and unnecessary expectations for yourself or your family
I would focus first on maxing out your RRSPs (or 401k) each year, and once you've done that, try to put another 10% of your income away into unregistered long term growth savings. Let's say you're 30 and you've been doing that since you graduated 7 years ago, and maybe you averaged 8% p.a. return and an average of $50k per year salary (as a round number).  I would say you should have 60k to 120k in straight up investments around age 30.  If that's the case, you're probably well on your way to a very comfortable retirement.
Yes.  If you're still 20 years off from retirement, it wouldn't make sense to liquidate everything; it'd be an attempt to time the market. If you're *very* worried and retirement is soon, then it'd be something to consider (albeit bonds would make more sense at that point).
Invest in kids, not pension - they never inflate. Without kids your retirement will be miserable anyway. And with them you'll be good. Personally, I do not believe that that our current savings will be worth it in 30 years in these times.
"Yes, you can certainly keep it in a savings account until you spend it. You'll get much less interest than you will be paying on the loan, but it will be better than nothing. However, you may want to ask if you can use the loan flexibly instead - i.e. only ""draw down"" the money you need when you need it, and not start paying interest until that happens. That would save you a lot more money. Note that the ISA limit is currently £5,760 and the limit is on total deposits so you won't be able to reuse the amount later in the tax year. Since that ends on April 5th that probably won't be an issue for you."
Lets say that college costs 100K per kid and they you have 3 (ages 8,9,10) and expect tuition and fees inflation of 8% per year; you are 40 and want to retire at age 65, and would have to replace 80% of you final years salary and expect your salary to increase 2% above inflation, but you do have a pension that based on the number of years of service you will have if you don't switch companies will replace 40% of you final salary, but if you leave now will only cover 15%; the equivalent of social security will replace 10%; your spouse works part time and has no company provided pension; your big single bucket of long term savings has 123,456. Are you on target? You can't answer the question without first determining how much money each of those individual buckets (kid 1, kid 2, kid 3, pension, social security and retirement) needs to have today and in the future. Then you take the money you do have and assign it to the buckets. Of course different accounts have different tax, age, deposit and use rules. Also what happens after the last child graduates, so the amount of money available each year will change significantly. The key to not stealing money from long term savings goals is to realize you also need an emergency fund and a life happens fund. That way an engine repair does require you to pull money from the education fund.
A lot of people don't, but some do and some of those give back in volunteering their time, knowledge, or expertise and sometimes the only way to do that is to retire with good savings.   My granddad lived to 102 and he retired around 65, but he did nothing of any real substance for his community. He was kind and sort of funny and he loved me, but he wasted most of his life after retirement just watching tv.
if someone wants to retire, they can save up for it themselves. we're no longer the richest country in the world surrounded by a rest-of-the-world destroyed by world war II. big news. on average, people need to work to get by.
No, no they don't. No more so than wages do. A pension is not some magical pot of money that you retire and suddenly are a billionaire. A pension payment replaces your wages. It is retirement savings.   This is like saying we should eliminate 401K's, Roth, and Keogh IRA's and simply take the money. This is like saying we should seize homes and other properties. You need to elaborate why you think paying out pensions is going to raise inflation, that doesn't make sense.
"There are so many people who did not save throughout their work careers largely because they had a safe and secure pension to count on. Many of these people turned down other more lucrative opportunities and gave generously from whatever saving they had. They did this because they had a state pension that they could count on. Apart from a tiny SS amount, the ""untouchable"" and thought-to-be, guaranteed pension was the only retirement plan. Suddenly and with no time to save money to replace pension shortfalls, their earnings could be greatly reduced, or completely wiped out.   Tragic."
So if you manage to save enough to have a $40k/year source of income, you would want to tax it heavily so they are forced into poverty for the rest of their retirement life?  I'd rather we just let people help themselves and not tax them into a bad spot so that we can help people
"Firstly, you should familiarise yourself with your options for your pension fund. They changed as of 6th April 2015 so it's all quite new. The Government's guidance on it is here. If you haven't already taken a tax-free lump sum from your pension fund, you can take up to 25% totally tax free immediately. That makes getting a house for 40K very accessible. Beyond the 25%, you can take any of it out whenever you want (""flexi-access drawdown"" or ""lump sum payment"", depending on whether you take the 25% out up front or not). That'll be taxed, as if you earned it as income. So if you didn't have any other income, you can take another £10600 without tax this tax year, and then another £10600 or whatever the allowance goes up to next tax year, and so on. Above that you'd have to pay 20% tax until you reach the higher-rate tax threshold at about £40K/year. You say you do have other income so you'll have to take that into account as well when calculating what tax you'd have to pay. If you've reached state pension age that will add some more income, of course. Or, as you suggest, you can buy an annuity. You can do that with some or all of the money, and you can still take the 25% tax-free first. If you do buy an annuity the income from it will all be taxed, but again your personal allowance will apply. Essentially an annuity is the least risky option, particularly if you get one that is uprated with inflation. Uprating with inflation makes the initial income even lower but protects you against cost of living rises as you get older. In exchange for avoiding that risk, you probably lose out on average compared to some more risky options. You might choose to get an annuity large enough to cover your basic needs and take more chances with the rest."