Inflation


D

Don

One possibility that I am considering is buying a couple of apartments
to rent out, but I am a little put off by the hassle factor.
That might not be a bad idea. Not everything, but at least some of your
money in rental property could help. One thing I noticed a long time
ago is that rents keep going up over the years along with inflation,
but the mortgage payments always stay the same! And once the mortage is
paid off, the yield can be very attractive. My wife and I have done
well with rental property. People may tell you there is a lot of hassle
in owning rental property, but if you have a good rental agent and/or
property manager, there is not as much as you might think. We own
property over 3000 miles away from our primary residence and do not
much trouble at all.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Sgt.Sausage

Tad Borek said:
Ignoramus1214 wrote:
I have to ask, why do you think $1M@37 is "nothing special"? I'm working
on a project aimed at savers/investors your age and that issue is coming
up - highly inflated ideas about how much wealth is out there. What makes
you believe it's not a big deal/nothing special? (I believe today that
would be in 98th or higher percentile for 37 year olds).

Because it isn't:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={1A925213-33C7-4D4A-A4F5-69D0604A0259}&print=1&siteid=mktw

When there' almost *9 MILLION MILLIONAIRES* in the U.S,
it ain't all that "special".

(Granted, the data's 3 years outta date, but I couln't
find anything current with a quick search)
 
D

dapperdobbs

?  We're talking about a person's portfolio moving
significantly because 30% of it is a single stock. Five
percent allocations are fine, AFAIC. [snip]

CSCO management was said to be misleading the public about
its performance.
Elle - I'm a bit puzzled that you refer to Berkshire as "a single
stock"? It's a portfolio of companies there, some public, some
private, and the investment mix changes from time to time. With at
least ten known holdings, even though I haven't checked the
weightings, one-tenth of 30% is (very roughly) under a 3% weighting in
any single company for the OP.

Companies do lie about their financial positions, A noteable example
of this can be seen by reading Wachovia's 2007 3rd quarter earnings
release, in which they represented that they "even stood to benefit"
from the "current market disruptions". Since then I think they've
written off about $20 billion, the stock has crashed, the dividend all
but eliminated, and the "new management" now expects everyone to
believe them? Ho. Ho.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
E

Elizabeth Richardson

Sgt.Sausage said:
Because it isn't:

When there' almost *9 MILLION MILLIONAIRES* in the U.S,
it ain't all that "special".
So that's something less than 3% of the population. How many of the them are
37 years old?

Elizabeth Richardson

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
C

Coffee's For Closers

My question is what sorts of investments, would, more or
less,
compensate the owner for inflation[?]
If inflation is fairly uniform across all products and
services, have you considered that company earnings will
also similarly inflate? Company earnings and inflation are
inextricably tied together, after all. Hence I think the
most rational hedge against inflation is a diverse portfolio
of stocks.

It can depend on the product/service. With prices increasing
across the board, consumers will cut back on certain luxury
goods/services, due to being forced to spend more on necessities.

So "necessity" companies would have earnings inflate, while
"luxury" companies would have reductions.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
E

Elle

dapperdobbs said:
I'm a bit puzzled that you refer to Berkshire as "a single
stock"? It's a portfolio of companies there, some public,
some
private, and the investment mix changes from time to time.
With at
least ten known holdings, even though I haven't checked
the
weightings, one-tenth of 30% is (very roughly) under a 3%
weighting in
any single company for the OP.
As I noted earlier, if one wishes to view Berkshire Hathaway
stock as a kind of mutual fund, I might be persuaded of
this; depends. E.g. If BH's insurance side is as small a
fraction as the stock positions it holds, then this would
also be compelling. From my general reading, I believe BH's
business remains largely insurance.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

BreadWithSpam

Because it isn't:
When there' almost *9 MILLION MILLIONAIRES* in the U.S,
it ain't all that "special".
First off, that 9 million out of 115 million or so households.
(or 300+ million individuals, but I don't think that's the
right measure).

That puts him in the top 10% - and he's only 37 years old -
his best earning and investment growth years are still ahead
of him.

$1 million at 37 is VERY special and out of the ordinary.
While only maybe top 10% nationwide, for his age group,
it's almost certainly top 1%.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
B

BreadWithSpam

dapperdobbs said:
Elle - I'm a bit puzzled that you refer to Berkshire as "a single
stock"? It's a portfolio of companies there, some public, some
private, and the investment mix changes from time to time. With at
Um, kind of. It's a holding company which wholly owns several
companies, as well as managing a portfolio of publicly traded
equities and, at last check a huge wad of cash, too.

But it's overwhelmingly an insurance company. Geico and
General Re account for a very large swath of BRK's earnings.
least ten known holdings, even though I haven't checked the
weightings, one-tenth of 30% is (very roughly) under a 3% weighting in
any single company for the OP.
The insurance operations account for about 1/3 of BRK's revenues
(and a somewhat higher proportion than that of earnings, IIRC).

(McLane company is responsible for nearly as much revenue as
the insurance operations, but is far far less profitable -
margins for a "wholesale distributor of groceries" are way
tighter)

Insurance makes far more in earnings than the investment
portfolio, too, though that's somewhat misleading because
"earnings" in the investment portfolio at BRK only count
realized gains, not untaxed capital appreciation.

Anyway, the market cap of the publicly traded equity
portfolio held by BRK is only about a third of the
market cap of BRK. Add in the cash and you still have
only about half the market cap. The rest is mostly those
insurance operations.

BRK is nowhere near as diversified as a typical diversified
mutual fund. But it is better diversified than a typical
insurance or other finance company.

If you're looking for diversification, having a disproportionate
allocation of BRK is a better bet than most other individual
equities, but it's not the same thing as a fund by any stretch.
A single position in BRK is more like taking half that position
in a closed-end fund (which is trading at a premium) and taking
half of it and buying an insurance company.

If the OP has 30% of his assets in BRK, it's like he has
15% of his assets in insurance and 15% in a CEF. For my
taste, that's still a bit concentrated in the insurance
and potentially somewhat risky. But not horrible.

(see BRK's 2007 annual report. My numbers about BRK above
are from there, but only approximately)


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
P

PeterL

Because it isn't:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={1A925213-33C7-4D4A-A4F5-69D0604A0259}&print=1&siteid=mktw

When there' almost *9 MILLION MILLIONAIRES* in the U.S,
it ain't all that "special".
9 million out of 280 million people is pretty special. And OP is
under 40 yr old.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
O

Otis

Ignoramus1214 said:
Has anyone put any serious thought into inflation proofing themselves?
It's clear that if one is 55 and separated, they can annuitize their 401k
into a fixed, level, single premium annuity and comply with the
'substantially equal' payments rule. What happens, though, if you "inflation
proof" yourself, as ignoramus puts it, and get an annuity with a 5% annual
bump in the payout (or, as AIG puts it 'Graded Payment Option'
http://www.aigretirementgold.com/vlip/jsp/popup_cola.jsp )? Is this no
longer 'substantially equal'? Or does *any* annuity still qualify?

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
R

Ron Peterson

9 million out of 280 million people is pretty special.  And OP is
under 40 yr old.
Those wealth statistics refer to families and the US has slightly more
than 100 million families.

Peak wealth occurs as the head of the family approaches 60, so there
are proportionally more older millionaire families.

--
Ron

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
Ad

Advertisements

H

HW \Skip\ Weldon

It's clear that if one is 55 and separated, they can annuitize their 401k
into a fixed, level, single premium annuity and comply with the
'substantially equal' payments rule. What happens, though, if you "inflation
proof" yourself, as ignoramus puts it, and get an annuity with a 5% annual
bump in the payout (or, as AIG puts it 'Graded Payment Option'
http://www.aigretirementgold.com/vlip/jsp/popup_cola.jsp )? Is this no
longer 'substantially equal'? Or does *any* annuity still qualify?
I don't know whether a graded immediate annuity complies with
"substantially equal" rule, but the above example (age 55 and
separated from employment) does not have to comply - it is one of the
allowed exceptions to the premature distribution penalty.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
O

Otis

HW "Skip" Weldon said:
I don't know whether a graded immediate annuity complies with
"substantially equal" rule, but the above example (age 55 and
separated from employment) does not have to comply - it is one of the
allowed exceptions to the premature distribution penalty.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC
I may be over thinking this, or thinking about it incorreclty, but I recall
from somewhere, that the mechanics of annuitizing a 401k required that it
first go into an IRA, if only for an instant. Now, the 55 and separated rule
saves you for that transfer to the IRA, but then the new problem is
annuitizing the IRA. I don't think 55 and separated applies to the IRA, does
it?

Am I completely off the rails here?

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
D

dapperdobbs

On Aug 23, 6:40 pm, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
[snip]
If the OP has 30% of his assets in BRK, it's like he has
15% of his assets in insurance and 15% in a CEF. For my
taste, that's still a bit concentrated in the insurance
and potentially somewhat risky. But not horrible.

(see BRK's 2007 annual report. My numbers about BRK above
are from there, but only approximately)
Elle and Bread,

Thanks for your clarification and Bread for your analysis. (I'll take
your word for it since I'm looking over the 10Q for the first time,
and Buffett describes the insurance business as "the cornerstone of
Berkshire", but I make the insurance underwriting income of $360m to
be about 13% of total, since $884m is investment income from equity
investments, the balance of the $2,880m total falling outside the
insurance industry. The underwriting is down subtantially from 2007
(about 25% of total), which may be down slightly from 2006.) BRK is
still an analysis-oriented investment manager, with 76 company
holdings, and acquired primarily manufacturing interests in it's $4.5b
purchase of 60% of Marmon. "During the past two decades, however, we
have put ever more emphasis on the development of earnings from non-
insurance businesses." (Letter to Shareholders," 2007.)

I just wondered if it was good to recommend the OP lighten up on his
shares (even if he did convert "A" to "B" beforehand). The capital
gains tax issue comes in. As far as I can tell, there is no dividend,
but OP may not need the current income and would prefer to defer
taxation. New money could be invested outside, contributing to better
diversification that way. Still, diversification is not synonymous
with returns.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
E

Elle

dapperdobbs said:
I make the insurance underwriting income of $360m to
be about 13% of total, since $884m is investment income
from equity
investments, the balance of the $2,880m total falling
outside the
insurance industry.
So I can be clear: I gather you are saying that equity
investment is an essential part of any insurance company's
operations. Big picture, the insurance company takes its
customers' premiums and invests them in a diverse portfolio
of stocks as a long term actuarially-based bet. Are you
saying that one should take this insurance company equity
investment to be more like BH's other non-insurance-related
equity investments? Perhaps it is naïve on my part, but I am
not yet sure this is an appropriate way to look at things.
If the insurance side suffers calamities due to weather
yada, it is going to tap on those equity investments, it
seems to me.

I am looking at the 2008 2nd Qtr 10Q, printed page 12, from
the berkshire hath web site, and the numbers are similar to
what you mention above. Yet the bottom line earnings are:
"Total insurance group" = $1,764m
All operating businesses (including total insurance group) =
$3,632m
This puts the fraction of earnings due to the total
insurance group at about 48%. Looking at other figures from
the 10Q, I lean towards Bread's take and my original
impression.

snip
As far as I can tell, there is no dividend,
Interesting aside: Buffett has been emphatic about not
paying dividends as long as BH can prove reinvesting
earnings gets more bang for the buck. The very folksy BH
documents at the web site talk about this. There is also
talk at the site about how, as Berkshire gets larger,
reinvesting earnings is less likely to be superior to paying
a dividend.

Two other things that concern me. First, Buffett and his
second-in-command Charles Munger are 77 and 84. Documents at
the web site authored by Buffett show consciousness of how,
well, they could go at any moment. When Mssrs. Buffett and
Munger are gone, I wonder about BH's direction. Second,
finance.yahoo shows BH's ROA and ROE to be 4% and just shy
of 10%, respectively. BH is listed by yahoo and morningstar
as being in the financial sector and in the insurance
industry. Again pardon any naiveté here, but to me BRK is by
far more like a bank or insurance company than any other
animal.

I still look forward to Buffett's comments on buying into
Bank of America last year. Granted BH documents make clear
BH buys for the long run, and owners of BH stock need to
have the same attitude, Buffet urges. Still, Buffett spoke
about the housing bubble and subprime mortgages with some
derision before buying BAC near a stock price peak, yet he
bought BAC anyway. Was he fooled?

I frequently celebrate Buffett's general public comments on
stocks and investing. Yet I do not care what kind of wizard
Buffett is. I think it good advice to avoid betting more
than 5% of one's stock portfolio on any one man or company.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
K

kastnna

So I can be clear: I gather you are saying that equity
investment is an essential part of any insurance company's
operations. Big picture, the insurance company takes its
customers' premiums and invests them in a diverse portfolio
of stocks as a long term actuarially-based bet. Are you
saying that one should take this insurance company equity
investment to be more like BH's other non-insurance-related
equity investments? Perhaps it is naïve on my part, but I am
not yet sure this is an appropriate way to look at things.
If the insurance side suffers calamities due to weather
yada, it is going to tap on those equity investments, it
seems to me.
The following data may help everyone's understanding of insurance
company operations. This is just raw data. I am deferring offering my
opinion on the current discussion at hand.

The vast majority of insurance companies do not invest in diverse
portfolios of stocks. Berkshire is an anomaly and even they only
invest 22.5% of their insurance subsidiaries assets in stocks. Of the
remaining assets, 55.6% is in bonds and 21.8% in short term/cash. On
average insurance companies invest only 2-3% of their assets in stocks/
equities. The vast majority of investments are in bonds and cash. The
5 year average yield on Berkshires total invested assets was 5.38%
(all this according VitalSigns Carrier Reporting System).

Simply put, insurance companies go to great lengths to assure existing
and potential clients that they will be around long enough to honor
future claims. For better or worse, having large holdings in "safe"
investments is one of the primary ways in which they do so.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

BreadWithSpam

Elle said:
I still look forward to Buffett's comments on buying into
Bank of America last year. Granted BH documents make clear
Should be interesting.
I frequently celebrate Buffett's general public comments on
stocks and investing. Yet I do not care what kind of wizard
Buffett is. I think it good advice to avoid betting more
than 5% of one's stock portfolio on any one man or company.
Two things - as we've discussed here so many times before,
Buffet himself suggests massive diversification and indexing
for those who don't have the time or knowledge or skills to
manage active, more concentrated portfolios.

But the second thing - a question - when you say to avoid
betting more than 5% on any one man or company - do you
apply that to actively managed funds as well?

By that rule, sure, you could put 50% of your assets into
an index equity fund. But would you limit actively managed
funds to <5% ?

(Actually, that's probably not a terrible idea, but in
practice, I think very few folks would place such a limit
on actively managed funds except for, perhaps, undiversified
or sector funds)

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
E

Elle

Should be interesting.
After reading more on Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway, I
think maybe he is given too much messianic, celebrity
credit. I think illustrating this well is the fool.com piece
from December 07,
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2007/12/19/buffetts-subprime-bets.aspx .
It seems a very erroneous piece. Buffett himself seems
humble enough, but finance "journalism" now often seems to
cross the line to sell sensationalism and create prophets
where they are not.

snip; agreed with all comments
when you say to avoid
betting more than 5% on any one man or company - do you
apply that to actively managed funds as well?
I think you know this, but to be clear: I do not like
actively managed funds in the first place. I am not
convinced such funds' fees pay for themselves in the long
run. But if I was stuck with actively managed funds because,
say, my 401(k) had only them, then I think how much I
limited my investment in each fund would depend on the
fund's mission and its legal obligation to conform with this
mission. (Not sure of the vocabularly here. I trust you know
what I mean.) I can imagine instances where I would not want
to put more than 5% in certain actively managed mutual
funds, for some of the reasons I gave earlier.

Somewhat related and interesting is the paragraph comparing
BH to a mutual fund at
http://www.focusinvestor.com/brkfaq.htm#Q3
(Actually, that's probably not a terrible idea, but in
practice, I think very few folks would place such a limit
on actively managed funds except for, perhaps,
undiversified
or sector funds)
I think we are on the same page. That is, the more actively
managed the fund is, the closer I want my exposure in it
limited to a low percent, generally speaking.

kastnna, thanks for the elaboration.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
T

Tad Borek

$1 million at 37 is VERY special and out of the ordinary.
Exactly!

Even if we accept the oft-quoted figure of 9 million millionaires in the
US (I don't), millionaire households are heavily skewed towards older
individuals. An EBRI study from 2007 reported that 96% of working
Americans age 35-44 had savings of under $500k. Home equity wouldn't be
a substantial addition to their collective balance sheet, as most
homeowners in that age range still have large mortgages. I agree that
the percentage of 37 year olds with net worth of $1M+ is probably in the
1% range, even counting principal residence.

If 1% isn't enough to be special and out of the ordinary, what is?

-Tad

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 
Ad

Advertisements

W

Will Trice

Don said:
I find it extremely interesting how inflation has become a much
discussed topic recently. Just a year or two ago, all sorts of ideas
about financial planning were being tossed around with hardly any
mention of inflation.
I don't know what you've been reading, but I know that I've been reading
about inflation in financial planning for quite some time. Perhaps
Google this group, you'll see plenty of hits in that time period.

-Will

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Inflation 10
Inflation? 7
Inflation 31
Inflation Tables 2
Inflation of Gold 10
What is inflation? 8
inflation hedges 11
Calculating Inflation 8

Top