Hi graywings, I started reading this thread without noting the dates the posts were written. Dave, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I am wondering how the accounts you spoke of in 2007, the 72c Guaranteed Savings accounts (equity-indexed fixed life contract, or annuity contract) have weathered over the last three years. Heh... you can "put me on the spot" in this regard *ANY* time ;~) Both the equity indexed life & annuity products have *VERY* strongly outperformed the unprotected stock index markets over the same periods of time (since 2007. In fact, going back from today to almost as far as you'd like.) Their design is that they capture & credit any annual upside (to a maximum gain,) and lock that amount permanently to your credit. On any years with a downside, your account sits tight with no losses at all (guaranteed by the insured backings of the company reserves and the state's guarantee association (each state's equivalent of a regional "FDIC" in essence.) If you put $100,000 in the S&P 500 for the last decade, you'd actually be holding a bit LESS than $100,000 today (not deducting the tax or management fees that may also be applied.) The same $100,000 in an insured indexing account would be approximately $211,768, net of everything (taxes & fees,) *OR* about an average annual tax-free rate of return of 7.06% Alternatively, those folks who decided to take their working capital OUT of growth, and put it into their real estate equity, have been double-stung; Not only have they gained nothing toward retirement, their equity values have decayed from 10-30% (depending on the area.) The clients who've been with us the last 3-5 years have been rather relieved, ecstatic, and pleasantly bored, all at the same time. Its a very nice financial reality to provide. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner (PS. to re-paraphrase celticmoon; When everyone else's retirement nest-egg is drowning deep underwater... its kinda nice to be riding on the back of a "duck" ;~)

You can get either death or disability insurance on your mortgage, or both. There's about four times the possibility of disability for an extended period that there is of death ... and, while a funeral is expensive, dead people don't eat, but disabled people do ... and may need medical/rehabilitative costs, as well. Some prefer to buy a term policy for one or both, themselves, for if the bank sets it up, they are the payee, not the person(s) purchasing the home, whle if the homeowner purchases it, they are the payee and it will be their responsibility to pay the lender. Some prefer to have coverage at a specific level throughout, rather than the decreasing value as the principal gets paid off, as usually there is little difference in premium, and as the debt is reduced through regular payment down of principal, there is some extra available to support the family in a difficult time. When paying student loan, usually one knows what portion of the payent goes for interest and which goes to pay down principal owing. But the level of mortgage payment remains level throughout, which means that in the early days of the loan, when the balance owing is high, the amount that goes to interest each year must be high, meaning that little of each payment goes to pay off principal. Many people pay little attention to the amount of principal that is paid off annually through the first few years, though many of them received a schedule showing what the ratios were at the time of each payment, throughout. They are greatly surprised when they find out how little of the principal has actually been paid, at the end of each year. They are suprised to learn that, in those early years, if they made an additional payment of an amount equal to one of the month's payment, designating it as to reduce principal only, it would reduce the balance owing by a larger amount than did all of the other 12 monthly payments. With student loans, the amount allocated to principal and to interest is more easily identifiable, I think. Good wishes. ole joyful

>>The recent run up in the market has put me in a mind to move money around, but attempting to time the market has always proven to be a losing proposition for me!!! Every time I have tried to time the market, I have lost money.... if I would have just stayed put, I'd be much better off today. Exactly. You are following (what it sounds like to me, so apologies if this isn't correct) the "herd" mentality and buying when it is popular (high) and then panic selling when the market falls. It's no different than buying a house at the top of the RE runup and then watching the RE 'bubble' burst on you (yeah, it happened to us in 1989, so I know how it feels!). Steady, reasoned investing with a diversified portfolio - which you are NOT doing by having only 2 funds in mind - gives better results over time. You will not gain hugely in hot stock years, but you will also not lose hugely in bad ones, such as the 27% drop in the S&P 500 from 2000-2002 and the dot-com implosion. Our retirement portfolio was 85% invested in the S&P 500 in 2000. Lost my job in the dot-com implosion and watched my husband's retirement savings lose a quarter of their value. My husband asked me what we should do. I told him the fundamentals were still in our favor, we're investing for the long term, and that the big stocks would recover first which is the historical norm. Within 18 months we had regained the losses and the portfolio has gained 11-22% annually since, BUT we are currently more aggressively diversified into international stocks on the advice of my ex-boss. He's an independent Certified Financial Planner who can pick and choose his customers because he's semi-retired and only takes referrals, no hard advertising for years now. What I learned from him that was a lot more important than any stock tip was to get my legal and financial house in order! This meant a customized Revocable Trust (we learned what NOT to have while trying to update my widowed MIL's outdated Trust!), new wills, power of attorney docs, durable healthcare POA updates (including the crucial HIPAA release which nobody ever tells you about, but legally a doctor can't even tell your spouse what's wrong with you, emergency or no, without it). I also finally consolidated all my previous employer 401k's into one IRA at a low-cost brokerage. I'd been meaning to do it for years, but kept putting it off. I finally got a first-hand lesson just before I left the CFP's employ - a widow signed on as a new client and her husband had left half a dozen 401k's scattered around at various tech companies. It was a paperwork NIGHTMARE to get them consolidated under the widow's name! So that was on my to-do list before I could start looking for work, LOL. You cannot "time" the market. Free advice is usually worth what you have paid for it. Heck, even a lot of paid advice often isn't worth it! As my ex-boss would tell people, "Hey, if I knew what the next hot stock would be, do you think I'd still be doing the CFP thing??!??" Mind you, he makes a very comfortable living; nothing outrageous and nouveau riche, just a good solid six-figure income plus he loves what he does, working with people and helping them secure a good financial future. Set up a regular investment program and diversify through mutual funds at a low-cost brokerage. At least 3 funds in different markets, preferably 5 as your portfolio grows. Check the 10 yr average returns because the 5 yr averages are now skewed - the 'dog years' of 2000-2001 have now fallen off the 5 yr average. For those who are saving for college, 529 plans are not counted in most college aid plans because the adult retains ownership, a child is merely the beneficiary and it can be changed at any time. However, 529 plans are only useful if your investment horizon is at least 10-15 years. A UTMA account can be transferred to a 529 plan but you will need to talk to your financial advisor or brokerage for full details.

>>If you decide to see a financial planner, avoid the ones who spam internet message boards with their services.Mona could not be speaking of Dave Donhoff, whose input I also enjoy and respect immensely. Dave is NOT a financial planner, nor does he pass himself off as one. He is, however, very knowledgeable in his field, which is mortgages and equity - how people handle their debt, in other words. The only true financial planners are Certified Financial Planners (CFP), who specialize in estate and financial planning, either through annual fees (percentage of investible portfolio) or hourly. They are registered and licensed. No stock broker or any kind of financial advisor who is not a CFP, has any true fiduciary responsibility when handling your money. Note I said handling, not advising. You can take advice from anyone, even me or Dave. But you don't want anybody EXCEPT someone with fiduciary (e.g., legal) responsibility, to be handling your money. Many people get confused and think financial planners are those guys who give "free" seminars and then try to railroad you into buying insurance you don't need or wild'n'wacky hedge funds. But people who are the "real deal" in the CFP world don't operate that way. It isn't worth their while - most of them have minimums of at least $250K for a client's portfolio. Those are liquid funds for investing, not your house equity or stock options. And many go even higher, to $1M+ needed in liquidity before you can become a client.