Any 50yo+ with retirement savings less than $2million?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife works at a financial profit and I work at the SEC with a 470K in combined income. Our 3M home in Langley is already paid off. We have about 10M in savings because I purchased Apple stock in 2001. We’re very lucky. I am 56 and DW is 38. I am going to retire soon.

Love this story! A close friend’s colleague bought Apple stock in the late 90s because her kid liked the Apple symbol! Instead of buying a new iPhone in 2015ish I invested that amount in stock and it’s up over 500%. Other than that I have a pension coming plus $350k in a 401k and $50k in multiple brokerage accounts. I 50 now, no kids, and want enough to be comfortable at retirement but know too many people who, sadly, passed at or before retirement to deprive myself today.

This is an interesting lesson for newbies and older folks like my self. 63. I was cautious in my early 30s as I was constructing my investment portfolio, picked some dividend payers and a few growth stocks but mostly diversified mutual funds. So I really never hit a home run on my stock investments. And while my stock mutual funds have kept up with the market, no clear out performance. But most of us don't have the time or inclination like Charlie Munger to do the research to pick quality firms. But individual stocks clearly have the ability to out perform, or in some cases, one stock can make you financially independent. Like Apple, NVDA, AVGO, XOM if bought years ago, etc.... Amazing stories of wealth building with stocks.

The example you quote from PP (Apple) is an example of luck and survivor bias. I still remember the day, September of 2000, I walked into the Starbucks near the World Bank, saw someone on TV yakking about bad news for stocks, went back to the office and bought 150 shares of Apple and 100 shares of Starbucks. With stock splits and DRIP, those purchases have grown to about 9000 Apple and 1000 Starbucks shares, about 20% of my portfolio. Things could have very easily gone South. I just got lucky. Also, what I didn't (and most people don't) keep track of are the many losers I've had over time and the opportunity cost of holding cash hoping to time the market. All things considered, I would likely have been at the same level of net worth if I had diligently invested all my savings in index funds over time instead of picking stocks.

You’re making a straw man argument. No one is saying to invest all your money in relatively green, growing companies, like Apple and Starbucks in 2000 were.

Apple in 2013 was established, 5 years after the iPhone debuted in 2008. Ditto Amazon. Ditto Costco. Apple has gone up almost 10x what is was 10 years ago; Amazon has increased by 7x; Costco has increased by 5x. The S&P 500 hasn’t even tripled over the same time. Investing in FAANG or the Magnificent Seven over the S&P is common sense now. These large corporations aren’t going anywhere.

From Charlie Munger:

https://www.yapss.com/amp/collection-charlie-munger-262-charlie-munger-s-view-on-investing-in-just-three-stocks

“If you take the Mungers, I care about the Mungers. The Mungers have three stocks. We have a block of Berkshire, we have a block of Costco, we have a block of Li Lu’s Fund, and the rest is dribs and drabs.

And is three stocks enough? What are the chances that Costco’s going to fail? What are the chances that Berkshire Hathaway’s going to fail? What are the chances that Li Lu’s portfolio in China is going to fail? The chances that any one of those things happening is almost zero, the chances that all three of them are going to fail.

If you’re a know-nothing investor of course you’re going to own the average, but if you’re not a know-nothing investor, if you’re actually capable of figuring out something that will work better, you’re just hurting yourselves looking for 50 when three will suffice. Hell, one will suffice if you do it right. One. If you have one cinch, what else do you need in life. And so the whole idea that the ‘know-something’ investor needs a lot of diversification.”

You are making my point. Munger's choices sound great in hindsight. How many Mungers have we not heard about because their 3 picks crashed and burned and they lost their shirt? Most people that pick stocks are not know-nothing investors. A lot of them are reasonably educated and know what they are doing. They just didn't pick the right stocks.

Let's try an exercise.. What stocks today are the equivalent of Amazon, Apple and Costco 10 years ago?

Amazon was $2.50 a share 20 years ago. Apple was 37 Cents. Costco was around $36. At a certain point you have to realize that these companies are not going anywhere and are going to continue to grow. Apple is going to be the tip of the spear in tech in 10 years like it always has. If anyone gets in their way they’ll just use a few billion and buy them before they become a threat. Amazon and Costco have moats and aren’t going anywhere.

The kind of financial advice you’re giving is outmoded and was relevant in a time where companies like Apple didn’t exist. Sears Roebuck didn’t have factories and customers in India and China. 20th Century financial advice doesn’t bear as much weight in this new world of behemoth multinational corporations like Apple.

So it’s different this time? Lol. Good luck with that long term. I’m not saying any of these companies will crash and burn but to have a non diversified porttfolio like this is taking a huge risk. It might pay off, but it’s s huge risk.

Investing a lot of money in a company like Apple, which went from 37 cents to $20 from 2003 to 2013 and is now at $193 in 2023, is a huge risk? Investing in a company that has cash streams from a streaming service that produces Emmy and Oscar award nominated productions, an App Store that makes truckloads of money, digital watches, $199 ear buds, and $1,300 iPhones is a risky investment? Investing heavily in the company that has all this and electric cars and VR goggles in the pipeline for the next 5 fiscal years is risky?

Are you serious or are you so beholden to conventional wisdom that you can’t change your mind based on a 20 year track record of consistently crushing index funds and a rosy future? No one is recommending investing everything in Nvidia or a blue chip stock here. This is Apple we’re talking about. Berkshire was run by two conservative geriatrics from Kansas and they have a more risky investment strategy than what you’re recommending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife works at a financial profit and I work at the SEC with a 470K in combined income. Our 3M home in Langley is already paid off. We have about 10M in savings because I purchased Apple stock in 2001. We’re very lucky. I am 56 and DW is 38. I am going to retire soon.

Love this story! A close friend’s colleague bought Apple stock in the late 90s because her kid liked the Apple symbol! Instead of buying a new iPhone in 2015ish I invested that amount in stock and it’s up over 500%. Other than that I have a pension coming plus $350k in a 401k and $50k in multiple brokerage accounts. I 50 now, no kids, and want enough to be comfortable at retirement but know too many people who, sadly, passed at or before retirement to deprive myself today.

This is an interesting lesson for newbies and older folks like my self. 63. I was cautious in my early 30s as I was constructing my investment portfolio, picked some dividend payers and a few growth stocks but mostly diversified mutual funds. So I really never hit a home run on my stock investments. And while my stock mutual funds have kept up with the market, no clear out performance. But most of us don't have the time or inclination like Charlie Munger to do the research to pick quality firms. But individual stocks clearly have the ability to out perform, or in some cases, one stock can make you financially independent. Like Apple, NVDA, AVGO, XOM if bought years ago, etc.... Amazing stories of wealth building with stocks.

The example you quote from PP (Apple) is an example of luck and survivor bias. I still remember the day, September of 2000, I walked into the Starbucks near the World Bank, saw someone on TV yakking about bad news for stocks, went back to the office and bought 150 shares of Apple and 100 shares of Starbucks. With stock splits and DRIP, those purchases have grown to about 9000 Apple and 1000 Starbucks shares, about 20% of my portfolio. Things could have very easily gone South. I just got lucky. Also, what I didn't (and most people don't) keep track of are the many losers I've had over time and the opportunity cost of holding cash hoping to time the market. All things considered, I would likely have been at the same level of net worth if I had diligently invested all my savings in index funds over time instead of picking stocks.

You’re making a straw man argument. No one is saying to invest all your money in relatively green, growing companies, like Apple and Starbucks in 2000 were.

Apple in 2013 was established, 5 years after the iPhone debuted in 2008. Ditto Amazon. Ditto Costco. Apple has gone up almost 10x what is was 10 years ago; Amazon has increased by 7x; Costco has increased by 5x. The S&P 500 hasn’t even tripled over the same time. Investing in FAANG or the Magnificent Seven over the S&P is common sense now. These large corporations aren’t going anywhere.

From Charlie Munger:

https://www.yapss.com/amp/collection-charlie-munger-262-charlie-munger-s-view-on-investing-in-just-three-stocks

“If you take the Mungers, I care about the Mungers. The Mungers have three stocks. We have a block of Berkshire, we have a block of Costco, we have a block of Li Lu’s Fund, and the rest is dribs and drabs.

And is three stocks enough? What are the chances that Costco’s going to fail? What are the chances that Berkshire Hathaway’s going to fail? What are the chances that Li Lu’s portfolio in China is going to fail? The chances that any one of those things happening is almost zero, the chances that all three of them are going to fail.

If you’re a know-nothing investor of course you’re going to own the average, but if you’re not a know-nothing investor, if you’re actually capable of figuring out something that will work better, you’re just hurting yourselves looking for 50 when three will suffice. Hell, one will suffice if you do it right. One. If you have one cinch, what else do you need in life. And so the whole idea that the ‘know-something’ investor needs a lot of diversification.”

You are making my point. Munger's choices sound great in hindsight. How many Mungers have we not heard about because their 3 picks crashed and burned and they lost their shirt? Most people that pick stocks are not know-nothing investors. A lot of them are reasonably educated and know what they are doing. They just didn't pick the right stocks.

Let's try an exercise.. What stocks today are the equivalent of Amazon, Apple and Costco 10 years ago?

Amazon was $2.50 a share 20 years ago. Apple was 37 Cents. Costco was around $36. At a certain point you have to realize that these companies are not going anywhere and are going to continue to grow. Apple is going to be the tip of the spear in tech in 10 years like it always has. If anyone gets in their way they’ll just use a few billion and buy them before they become a threat. Amazon and Costco have moats and aren’t going anywhere.

The kind of financial advice you’re giving is outmoded and was relevant in a time where companies like Apple didn’t exist. Sears Roebuck didn’t have factories and customers in India and China. 20th Century financial advice doesn’t bear as much weight in this new world of behemoth multinational corporations like Apple.

Not disagreeing with you. My question is what are the equivalent stocks to Apple, Amazon and costco today? How convinced are you about them and willing to bet the farm on them?

For every Apple picker, there was an Intel picker who, while not bankrupt, is not doing as well. They had the same level of intelligence, knowledge and a valid 'thesis'. If you pick stocks, you'll have to watch and adjust constantly (which is what I try to do). I was merely pointing out that I would have achieved the same results by just investing in the broad market on a regular basis rather than wait for the home run. If I had been unlucky with Apple, I would have been worse off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife works at a financial profit and I work at the SEC with a 470K in combined income. Our 3M home in Langley is already paid off. We have about 10M in savings because I purchased Apple stock in 2001. We’re very lucky. I am 56 and DW is 38. I am going to retire soon.

Love this story! A close friend’s colleague bought Apple stock in the late 90s because her kid liked the Apple symbol! Instead of buying a new iPhone in 2015ish I invested that amount in stock and it’s up over 500%. Other than that I have a pension coming plus $350k in a 401k and $50k in multiple brokerage accounts. I 50 now, no kids, and want enough to be comfortable at retirement but know too many people who, sadly, passed at or before retirement to deprive myself today.

This is an interesting lesson for newbies and older folks like my self. 63. I was cautious in my early 30s as I was constructing my investment portfolio, picked some dividend payers and a few growth stocks but mostly diversified mutual funds. So I really never hit a home run on my stock investments. And while my stock mutual funds have kept up with the market, no clear out performance. But most of us don't have the time or inclination like Charlie Munger to do the research to pick quality firms. But individual stocks clearly have the ability to out perform, or in some cases, one stock can make you financially independent. Like Apple, NVDA, AVGO, XOM if bought years ago, etc.... Amazing stories of wealth building with stocks.

The example you quote from PP (Apple) is an example of luck and survivor bias. I still remember the day, September of 2000, I walked into the Starbucks near the World Bank, saw someone on TV yakking about bad news for stocks, went back to the office and bought 150 shares of Apple and 100 shares of Starbucks. With stock splits and DRIP, those purchases have grown to about 9000 Apple and 1000 Starbucks shares, about 20% of my portfolio. Things could have very easily gone South. I just got lucky. Also, what I didn't (and most people don't) keep track of are the many losers I've had over time and the opportunity cost of holding cash hoping to time the market. All things considered, I would likely have been at the same level of net worth if I had diligently invested all my savings in index funds over time instead of picking stocks.

You’re making a straw man argument. No one is saying to invest all your money in relatively green, growing companies, like Apple and Starbucks in 2000 were.

Apple in 2013 was established, 5 years after the iPhone debuted in 2008. Ditto Amazon. Ditto Costco. Apple has gone up almost 10x what is was 10 years ago; Amazon has increased by 7x; Costco has increased by 5x. The S&P 500 hasn’t even tripled over the same time. Investing in FAANG or the Magnificent Seven over the S&P is common sense now. These large corporations aren’t going anywhere.

From Charlie Munger:

https://www.yapss.com/amp/collection-charlie-munger-262-charlie-munger-s-view-on-investing-in-just-three-stocks

“If you take the Mungers, I care about the Mungers. The Mungers have three stocks. We have a block of Berkshire, we have a block of Costco, we have a block of Li Lu’s Fund, and the rest is dribs and drabs.

And is three stocks enough? What are the chances that Costco’s going to fail? What are the chances that Berkshire Hathaway’s going to fail? What are the chances that Li Lu’s portfolio in China is going to fail? The chances that any one of those things happening is almost zero, the chances that all three of them are going to fail.

If you’re a know-nothing investor of course you’re going to own the average, but if you’re not a know-nothing investor, if you’re actually capable of figuring out something that will work better, you’re just hurting yourselves looking for 50 when three will suffice. Hell, one will suffice if you do it right. One. If you have one cinch, what else do you need in life. And so the whole idea that the ‘know-something’ investor needs a lot of diversification.”

You are making my point. Munger's choices sound great in hindsight. How many Mungers have we not heard about because their 3 picks crashed and burned and they lost their shirt? Most people that pick stocks are not know-nothing investors. A lot of them are reasonably educated and know what they are doing. They just didn't pick the right stocks.

Let's try an exercise.. What stocks today are the equivalent of Amazon, Apple and Costco 10 years ago?

Amazon was $2.50 a share 20 years ago. Apple was 37 Cents. Costco was around $36. At a certain point you have to realize that these companies are not going anywhere and are going to continue to grow. Apple is going to be the tip of the spear in tech in 10 years like it always has. If anyone gets in their way they’ll just use a few billion and buy them before they become a threat. Amazon and Costco have moats and aren’t going anywhere.

The kind of financial advice you’re giving is outmoded and was relevant in a time where companies like Apple didn’t exist. Sears Roebuck didn’t have factories and customers in India and China. 20th Century financial advice doesn’t bear as much weight in this new world of behemoth multinational corporations like Apple.

Not disagreeing with you. My question is what are the equivalent stocks to Apple, Amazon and costco today? How convinced are you about them and willing to bet the farm on them?

For every Apple picker, there was an Intel picker who, while not bankrupt, is not doing as well. They had the same level of intelligence, knowledge and a valid 'thesis'. If you pick stocks, you'll have to watch and adjust constantly (which is what I try to do). I was merely pointing out that I would have achieved the same results by just investing in the broad market on a regular basis rather than wait for the home run. If I had been unlucky with Apple, I would have been worse off!

Apple is going to beat the S&P by a long shot in the next 20 years as well. Amazon and Costco probably will as well, but I’m less sure about them than Apple. Apple almost increased 5x in the last 5 years. It wasn’t a home run pick 5 years ago, it’s not one now. It’s simply the biggest company on the planet that continues to innovate with every single product or service it releases and there’s no reason to think a $3 trillion dollar company like Apple is going to stop now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife works at a financial profit and I work at the SEC with a 470K in combined income. Our 3M home in Langley is already paid off. We have about 10M in savings because I purchased Apple stock in 2001. We’re very lucky. I am 56 and DW is 38. I am going to retire soon.

Love this story! A close friend’s colleague bought Apple stock in the late 90s because her kid liked the Apple symbol! Instead of buying a new iPhone in 2015ish I invested that amount in stock and it’s up over 500%. Other than that I have a pension coming plus $350k in a 401k and $50k in multiple brokerage accounts. I 50 now, no kids, and want enough to be comfortable at retirement but know too many people who, sadly, passed at or before retirement to deprive myself today.

This is an interesting lesson for newbies and older folks like my self. 63. I was cautious in my early 30s as I was constructing my investment portfolio, picked some dividend payers and a few growth stocks but mostly diversified mutual funds. So I really never hit a home run on my stock investments. And while my stock mutual funds have kept up with the market, no clear out performance. But most of us don't have the time or inclination like Charlie Munger to do the research to pick quality firms. But individual stocks clearly have the ability to out perform, or in some cases, one stock can make you financially independent. Like Apple, NVDA, AVGO, XOM if bought years ago, etc.... Amazing stories of wealth building with stocks.

The example you quote from PP (Apple) is an example of luck and survivor bias. I still remember the day, September of 2000, I walked into the Starbucks near the World Bank, saw someone on TV yakking about bad news for stocks, went back to the office and bought 150 shares of Apple and 100 shares of Starbucks. With stock splits and DRIP, those purchases have grown to about 9000 Apple and 1000 Starbucks shares, about 20% of my portfolio. Things could have very easily gone South. I just got lucky. Also, what I didn't (and most people don't) keep track of are the many losers I've had over time and the opportunity cost of holding cash hoping to time the market. All things considered, I would likely have been at the same level of net worth if I had diligently invested all my savings in index funds over time instead of picking stocks.

You’re making a straw man argument. No one is saying to invest all your money in relatively green, growing companies, like Apple and Starbucks in 2000 were.

Apple in 2013 was established, 5 years after the iPhone debuted in 2008. Ditto Amazon. Ditto Costco. Apple has gone up almost 10x what is was 10 years ago; Amazon has increased by 7x; Costco has increased by 5x. The S&P 500 hasn’t even tripled over the same time. Investing in FAANG or the Magnificent Seven over the S&P is common sense now. These large corporations aren’t going anywhere.

From Charlie Munger:

https://www.yapss.com/amp/collection-charlie-munger-262-charlie-munger-s-view-on-investing-in-just-three-stocks

“If you take the Mungers, I care about the Mungers. The Mungers have three stocks. We have a block of Berkshire, we have a block of Costco, we have a block of Li Lu’s Fund, and the rest is dribs and drabs.

And is three stocks enough? What are the chances that Costco’s going to fail? What are the chances that Berkshire Hathaway’s going to fail? What are the chances that Li Lu’s portfolio in China is going to fail? The chances that any one of those things happening is almost zero, the chances that all three of them are going to fail.

If you’re a know-nothing investor of course you’re going to own the average, but if you’re not a know-nothing investor, if you’re actually capable of figuring out something that will work better, you’re just hurting yourselves looking for 50 when three will suffice. Hell, one will suffice if you do it right. One. If you have one cinch, what else do you need in life. And so the whole idea that the ‘know-something’ investor needs a lot of diversification.”

You are making my point. Munger's choices sound great in hindsight. How many Mungers have we not heard about because their 3 picks crashed and burned and they lost their shirt? Most people that pick stocks are not know-nothing investors. A lot of them are reasonably educated and know what they are doing. They just didn't pick the right stocks.

Let's try an exercise.. What stocks today are the equivalent of Amazon, Apple and Costco 10 years ago?

Amazon was $2.50 a share 20 years ago. Apple was 37 Cents. Costco was around $36. At a certain point you have to realize that these companies are not going anywhere and are going to continue to grow. Apple is going to be the tip of the spear in tech in 10 years like it always has. If anyone gets in their way they’ll just use a few billion and buy them before they become a threat. Amazon and Costco have moats and aren’t going anywhere.

The kind of financial advice you’re giving is outmoded and was relevant in a time where companies like Apple didn’t exist. Sears Roebuck didn’t have factories and customers in India and China. 20th Century financial advice doesn’t bear as much weight in this new world of behemoth multinational corporations like Apple.

Not disagreeing with you. My question is what are the equivalent stocks to Apple, Amazon and costco today? How convinced are you about them and willing to bet the farm on them?

For every Apple picker, there was an Intel picker who, while not bankrupt, is not doing as well. They had the same level of intelligence, knowledge and a valid 'thesis'. If you pick stocks, you'll have to watch and adjust constantly (which is what I try to do). I was merely pointing out that I would have achieved the same results by just investing in the broad market on a regular basis rather than wait for the home run. If I had been unlucky with Apple, I would have been worse off!

Apple is going to beat the S&P by a long shot in the next 20 years as well. Amazon and Costco probably will as well, but I’m less sure about them than Apple. Apple almost increased 5x in the last 5 years. It wasn’t a home run pick 5 years ago, it’s not one now. It’s simply the biggest company on the planet that continues to innovate with every single product or service it releases and there’s no reason to think a $3 trillion dollar company like Apple is going to stop now.

I own Apple, Amazon and Costco--I think of them at this point as steady mild growth earners that I have faith will not tank. Costco even produces a dividend, sometimes a big one (like the $10/share surprise a bit back). They may beat the S&P 500 if it craps out, or they may not. They aren't likely going to produce the wild gains that make you rich, but I'm betting at this point they are more likely to make me not poor. So I hold onto them because my bet is not that they will beat the S&P500, but that they will cushion losses by being steady gainers--basically reduce my downside volatility. But really, that's just a story I tell myself and in part I'm just sort of attached to the stocks that have done well for me. I honestly believe stocks are a random walk--everything we all think about them priced in, and the reason they tend to go up is that they retain and reinvest some of their earnings. Apple, Amazon and Costco are great at using their earnings to improve their business.

But what makes you so sure about S&P500 beating growth? What big innovation has Apple had of late besides the iphone that has really produced wealth, and how much more phone market share is there really there--could they double the amount they make from phones? People only have 1 phone and more people are dying than being born all over the world--and all evidence currently points to trends of holding onto your phone a little longer. Even if they launch new ventures that skyrocket, they will be a tiny percentage of the 3T company that shareholders won't feel much of their growth for a long while. Being a 3T company is what will hold them from big growth--it's a lot harder to double your stock value at that price. At this point I am very confident in them as a stable company that will manage its wealth well, but it's just very hard to have meaningful growth at that size.

But of course I could be wrong--just like everybody could be wrong.