It's unfortunate that a lot of people are so quick to write off a low-carb, grain-free, or Paleo approach to eating as just another fad. There is actually an extensive amount of science and research behind the principles.
Yes, some folks are riding the "fad train" and profiting handsomely from the current popularity. That is true no matter whether it is a diet, a sports team, or a TV show that is currently en vogue. However, there are quite a few people who are actually focused on the science and evidence behind human nutrition and health.
The best book I've come across that dives into the research and nearly every important epidemiological study in the last 200-300 years is Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes (http://amzn.to/149HYzi). It's not exactly an airplane read and certainly not a "diet" book; however, it completely changed the way I think about nutrition, exercise, disease, and overall health.
I would also recommend anything by Loren Cordain or Robb Wolf.
Personally, I'd go with Ally. Free ATM rebates. Competitive interest rates. Easy to set up automatic transfers to savings. Free ACH transfers. Remote deposit being rolled out now.
You can't go wrong with any of the other banks either (ING and Schwab are great also), but Ally really has a nice offering.
Also, be careful when and where you use your debit card.
If someone gets a hold of your debit card info, they are accessing your cash directly. With a credit card, they are creating a future liability (no cash out of your account). Further, the consumer protections are not nearly as good on debit cards as they are for credit cards.
Credit scoring is relative and the magnitude for which most actions affect different people can vary significantly. However, directionally speaking, you may see a negative effect on your score from "churning" cards due to the following:
1) Lowering your average age of accounts. All else equal, if you have 2 credit cards open, one that you've had for 8 years and one that you've had for 6 years, the average age would obviously be 7. If you proceed to open a dozen airline cards in one year (regardless of whether you close them or not), your average age would plummet and could negatively impact your score.
2) Each time you apply for credit or a loan, a "hard inquiry" shows up on your credit report and can negatively impact your score. The scoring system is designed to account for multiple inquiries in a short period of time to allow people to shop around for a mortgage or auto loan by grouping them as one inquiry (as long as they are done in a 30-45 day period). This is not the case for credit or store card applications.
3) In addition to simply applying for credit, having numerous recently open accounts and newly available credit is also perceived as a risk and can lower your score.
The above being said, you may or may not experience a significant hit on your score through "churning." Don't assume that because someone else did it without any negative impacts that the same will be true for you. If you will be applying for a mortgage in the near future, I would advise against it. For everyone else, YMMV.
Citi has been doing this for years on their credit card statements. Checking/saving accounts was the next logical step.
With the easy money (credit card interest, late fees, debit card interchange fees, etc) drying up, banks will explore every possible alternative to generate revenue and cut costs. Anything short of stealing money right from your account won't surprise me going forward.
This topic always brings me back to the same place: As a culture, when it comes to the "rich" and the "wealthy" we tend to focus almost exclusively on revenue (income) and assets (stuff). Anyone who looks at a simple income statement and balance sheet knows that there is a lot more to the equation.
If someone makes $500k and spends $500k, not only is their net income $0, they have added nothing to their net worth. Conversely, someone who makes $75k and spends $30k has a positive net income of $45k and adds $45k to their net worth. However, because we don't have nearly as much insight into the income statements and balance sheets of our neighbor, we compare our "income" and "stuff" to their "income" and "stuff" (as opposed to what we really should be comparing which is net income and net worth).
I'm also reminded of a great book by P.T. Barnum called The Art of Money Getting (http://manybooks.net/titles/barnumptetext05barnm10.html). It was published in 1880, but it's amazing how relevant it still is. He tells some great stories about life, money, and wealth. This is one of my favorites:
"I know a gentleman of fortune who says, that when he first began to prosper, his wife would have a new and elegant sofa. "That sofa," he says, "cost me thirty thousand dollars!" When the sofa reached the house, it was found necessary to get chairs to match; then side-boards, carpets and tables "to correspond" with them, and so on through the entire stock of furniture.
When at last it was found that the house itself was quite too small and old-fashioned for the furniture, and a new one was built to correspond with the new purchases; "thus," added my friend, "summing up an outlay of thirty thousand dollars, caused by that single sofa, and saddling on me, in the shape of servants, equipage, and the necessary expenses attendant upon keeping up a fine ’establishment,’ a yearly outlay of eleven thousand dollars, and a tight pinch at that: whereas, ten years ago, we lived with much more real comfort, because with much less care, on as many hundreds.
The truth is," he continued, "that sofa would have brought me to inevitable bankruptcy, had not a most unexampled title to prosperity kept me above it, and had I not checked the natural desire to ’cut a dash’."
What you are referring to is known as the "glide path." An investor in the early accumulation years starts off with a high allocation to equities and reduces it over time as they gets closer to retirement (thus reducing risk, in theory). However, I'm not sure I understand your comment as this concept that you are referring to is part of the point that I was trying to make.
What happens specifically to the S&P 500 would not be the primary concern for an investor whose portfolio consists of a wide variety of asset classes and who follows a glide path approach by reducing their allocation to stocks (and increasing their allocation to bonds) over time. Thus an investor using this approach would not be 100% invested in the S&P 500 at the beginning or the end horizon (or at any point in between) of their investment.
I guess my point is that even just adjusting this data to include a 60%/40% equity/bond portfolio, rebalanced annually would be a heck of a lot more useful for retirement planning.
Although it may spark some interesting conversation and debate, this chart isn't really all that relevant in light of modern portfolio theory and asset allocation. While I don't disagree with the data itself, the premise that a reasonable retirement portfolio would include a single mutual fund (or ETF) that is composed of 100% stocks, not to mention the fact that they are primarily large-cap growth stocks (the S&P 500), is illogical at best.
Not only should a retirement portfolio be exposed to a much wider range of risk factors than simply large-cap U.S. growth/blend stocks (bonds, TIPS, international stocks, REITs, small-cap value, etc.), but holding only a single asset class eliminates the possibility for an investor to rebalance their portfolio to maintain an appropriate asset allocation that is in line with their ability, willingess, and need to take risk (not to mention the fact that rebalancing, by definition, requires an investor to sell investments that have increased in price and purchase those that have decreased in price).
Quite simply it demonstrates that the performance of different asset classes relative to each other can change drastically from one year to the next. It would actually be a much better chart if it included more asset classes, but at the very least it shows that returns are unpredictable in the near-term and that diversification doesn't simply mean holding a bunch of stocks (especially when they are all large-cap U.S. growth/blend like the S&P 500).
This bank "overlay" concept appears to be very similar to what SmartyPig (http://www.smartypig.com) has been doing for a couple years. The revenue model is slightly different (SmartyPig partners with retailers to offer cash back bonuses to customers if they convert their savings goal into a retailer gift card or load it on to the SmartyPig Cash Rewards Card), but the general model of leveraging existing banks for client deposits is the same. I will be interested to see how competitive BankSimple's interest rates are and if they can differentiate themselves in a meaningful way from the many great online banks that already exist (INGDirect, Ally, etc.).
I'm sorry, but this is just lunacy. Warren Buffett will go down as the greatest investor of all-time. Unlike many of the hedge fund managers out there who like to talk a big game based on 1, 2, or 3 year returns, Buffett has been beating the market for over 50 years. While you are right that he is the first to admit when he makes a mistake, his record is obvious, mistakes and all: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/personalfinance/persona...
For the rest of us, please take his advice and invest in an index fund. And don't try to time the market. As long as you are investing for at least 10 years, trying to pick the bottom is a loser's game.
Working in financial models all day in Excel, I can't imagine having to use the mouse for any more than 10% of my work. Keyboard shortcuts are so much faster that they basically render a mouse useless.
It takes some getting used to and a bit of practice, but once you get comfortable with the keyboard, there's no turning back. I really only use the mouse for casual web browsing and solitaire.
You hit the nail on the head. When valuing a privately held company, an investor will almost always apply a discount for lack of marketability because unlike 100 shares of stock in say IBM, for example, an investor doesn't have an easily available market to quickly sell their shares in a private company.
While I would generally agree that his advice is more "common sense" than any amazing "secrets", the issue lies not in knowing what to do, but rather in doing it. Many of us have heard Buffett's rules before in one way or another, and some of us may even preach them to others, but how many of us actually live by them ourselves?
Point very well taken and I appreciate your advice.
I have several ideas that I feel have potential, but I am open to working with someone elses dream idea just the same (in my opinion it's less about the idea and more about the execution). I boostrap my life and would expect to run a startup in much the same way. Depending on the type of startup, however, VC funding may very well be valuable. I have advanced Excel modeling skills and I build financial models everyday. I have experience working with numerous small to mid size companies and closed $10k-$20k web projects with my clients on a consistent basis while I was a junior/senior in college. I'm obviously not a programmer, but I learned enough to basically run the sales efforts for this company, make us a leader in working with alternative energy clients, and make clients comfortable with sending a $10k check to a small company they had never even heard of before.
Thanks for the advice and I couldn't agree more. Ending the planning and beginning the doing is the theme of my day today. Trouble is, since im not a programmer, me "doing" something would consist of market research, putting my ideas on paper (i.e. summary business plans), and trying to network. If I knew that I could turn one of my ideas into even a small reality, then I would have plenty more to do in terms of copywriting, marketing, etc. I just need to either begin an active search for a hacker co-founder, pursue a non-software type of startup, or try to outsource the development.
Yes, some folks are riding the "fad train" and profiting handsomely from the current popularity. That is true no matter whether it is a diet, a sports team, or a TV show that is currently en vogue. However, there are quite a few people who are actually focused on the science and evidence behind human nutrition and health.
The best book I've come across that dives into the research and nearly every important epidemiological study in the last 200-300 years is Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes (http://amzn.to/149HYzi). It's not exactly an airplane read and certainly not a "diet" book; however, it completely changed the way I think about nutrition, exercise, disease, and overall health.
I would also recommend anything by Loren Cordain or Robb Wolf.
Before you make any judgments, do the research.