On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:58:41 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:43:47 -0400, John H
wrote:

Forgot this. Next month I plan to remove my portfolio from the Wells Fargo management folks. They've
been consistently well under performing the S&P. My question to them is why not just invest
everything in the SPDR S&P 500? At least I wouldn't be as far behind the S&P as I've been, nor would
I be paying them for 'management'.

(Thirty years in the military did not teach me a lot about investing.)

====

I think that's a good plan. Charles Schwab has excellent service and
low commissions, especially compared to Wells Fargo. The Vanguard
index funds (which can be purchased directly or via Schwab) are
excellent and have low management fees.

Thanks again. Our Wells Fargo meeting is later this month. They've basically let some computer
algorithm pick stocks for buying and selling and I may have shares in a couple hundred different
stocks at one time. Of course, the number of shares per stock is small, and I'm not charged for the
transactions. But last year there were about 80 that were reportable. Drives me up a wall at income
tax time. I think a few funds might be much easier to manage.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:28:10 -0400, John H
wrote:

I think a few funds might be much easier to manage.

===

Absolutely, probably significanly lower fees as well. Except for
dividends/distributions, nothing is reportable for tax purposes until
you sell.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:08:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:52:32 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:47 -0400, wrote:

Gold is not a necessity

=======

Unless you want to protect yourself from hyperinflation. Governmental
money printing always ends badly sooner or later.

*If* I wanted to buy gold, and didn't continuously listen to Glen Beck like Harry, where would you
suggest the purchase be made?

John (Gun Nut) H.

I, like most intelligent people would go to a gold broker.....

===

[not]

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:43:47 -0400, John H
wrote:

Forgot this. Next month I plan to remove my portfolio from the Wells Fargo management folks. They've
been consistently well under performing the S&P. My question to them is why not just invest
everything in the SPDR S&P 500? At least I wouldn't be as far behind the S&P as I've been, nor would
I be paying them for 'management'.

(Thirty years in the military did not teach me a lot about investing.)

====

I think that's a good plan. Charles Schwab has excellent service and
low commissions, especially compared to Wells Fargo. The Vanguard
index funds (which can be purchased directly or via Schwab) are
excellent and have low management fees.

I deal with Schwab as well, and am fairly happy with them. And a double
yes on Vanguard.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:08:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:52:32 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:47 -0400, wrote:

Gold is not a necessity

=======

Unless you want to protect yourself from hyperinflation. Governmental
money printing always ends badly sooner or later.

*If* I wanted to buy gold, and didn't continuously listen to Glen Beck like Harry, where would you
suggest the purchase be made?

John (Gun Nut) H.

I, like most intelligent people would go to a gold broker.....

===

[not]

Why, if you know the price of gold going in, what's the worry?

On 6/27/2013 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:07:46 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Gold is not a necessity and once the bubble bursts. the gold in the
market now is enough to supply actual need. When gold is a decreasing
asset, that jewelry will lose it's luster and a lot of it will be
melted down ... as it has been for thousands of years. Simply the fact
that the bubble price drove miners to exploit tapped out mines and
make that profitable does not imply that the market cost of the gold
would support it if people were not expecting a price increase and
stopped buying.

Gold is money, money is a necessity in this world today.

Gold is not money when there is this much irrational speculation. It
is like the people who said real estate was money.



You got that right... I bought a house on that premise in 1990, bought
it for 90,000. A bit over a decade later it was worth 235 but I made the
mistake of not selling then, now it's worth 180 again, but I won't get
that for it.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:42:38 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:08:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:52:32 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:47 -0400, wrote:

Gold is not a necessity

=======

Unless you want to protect yourself from hyperinflation. Governmental
money printing always ends badly sooner or later.

*If* I wanted to buy gold, and didn't continuously listen to Glen Beck like Harry, where would you
suggest the purchase be made?

John (Gun Nut) H.

I, like most intelligent people would go to a gold broker.....

===

[not]

Why, if you know the price of gold going in, what's the worry?

===

Transaction costs. The gold brokers are in that business to make
money - lots of money - your money. Buying and selling coins and
bullion through a broker is subject to many fees, commissions and even
sales taxes in some venues. Then you have the issue of where and how
to store it and insure it. When you go to sell, you have to be able
to authenticate it.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:59:48 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 6/27/2013 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:07:46 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Gold is not a necessity and once the bubble bursts. the gold in the
market now is enough to supply actual need. When gold is a decreasing
asset, that jewelry will lose it's luster and a lot of it will be
melted down ... as it has been for thousands of years. Simply the fact
that the bubble price drove miners to exploit tapped out mines and
make that profitable does not imply that the market cost of the gold
would support it if people were not expecting a price increase and
stopped buying.

Gold is money, money is a necessity in this world today.

Gold is not money when there is this much irrational speculation. It
is like the people who said real estate was money.



You got that right... I bought a house on that premise in 1990, bought
it for 90,000. A bit over a decade later it was worth 235 but I made the
mistake of not selling then, now it's worth 180 again, but I won't get
that for it.

===

Real estate has *very* high transaction costs and long transaction
cycle time.

On 6/27/2013 5:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:59:48 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 6/27/2013 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:07:46 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Gold is not a necessity and once the bubble bursts. the gold in the
market now is enough to supply actual need. When gold is a decreasing
asset, that jewelry will lose it's luster and a lot of it will be
melted down ... as it has been for thousands of years. Simply the fact
that the bubble price drove miners to exploit tapped out mines and
make that profitable does not imply that the market cost of the gold
would support it if people were not expecting a price increase and
stopped buying.

Gold is money, money is a necessity in this world today.

Gold is not money when there is this much irrational speculation. It
is like the people who said real estate was money.



You got that right... I bought a house on that premise in 1990, bought
it for 90,000. A bit over a decade later it was worth 235 but I made the
mistake of not selling then, now it's worth 180 again, but I won't get
that for it.

===

Real estate has *very* high transaction costs and long transaction
cycle time.


When we came in we had a plan to keep the house for 20 years.. We paid
ahead and extra the first 15, then when we moved up here we made the
mistake of keeping it to rent to a friend.. who is no longer a friend...
If we had stuck to our plan we would have bought in 1990 for 90grand, 6%
interest (average), if we sold when I wanted to we would have gotten 230
for it which would have covered the fees nicely