If you invest $1.00 at 5% and let it run for 50 years, it would have grown to $11.00+, without allowing for the erosion of your income, whether annually or after a period of years, several times, by income tax, or the ongoing erosion in value of your asset by inflation. If, however, you could invest it at 10%, after that same 50 year period it would have grown to $117.00+. Your investment could lose 3/4 of its value and still come out ahead of having invested it at 5%. Actually, more than that - for it's the value after taxes and inflation that really counts. Do you expect that companies like Exxon, Gillette, Coca Cola, and such, or other major petroleum, pipeline companies, etc. may go out of business? Or even suffer serious losses. A person who invests a major portion of his (probably less likely "her", cause women generally are more risk-averse and less likely to plunge; [some would say, "smarter"]) total invested asset into highly speculative issues seems to me to have cheese for brains. The stock markets as a whole have average growth of 7 - 8% or so, over the long term. Few mutual fund managers' holdings have grown faster. And they charge fees for their expertise - somewhere between 1 - 2% in the U.S. for equity (i.e. stock market based) funds, most of them over 2% annually in Canada. If they match the long-term average growth of the market ... they're reaping about a fifth to a quarter of the growth, a larger proportion in Canada. Unfortunately, if there is no growth - they still get their percentage. Many persons calling themselves financial planners/advisors are actually mutual fund sales people: that's all the equity-related financial issues that they're licensed to sell. They don't want to talk to you about individual stocks, for they can't sell them and it's illegal for them to recommend them unless they've taken the courses that stockbrokers take (which few have - their courses are much less complex). There are a few who sell no financial products, but many of them stop doing that because often their income levels are much lower, despite many people who want to invest saying that they'd really love independent advice. One should investigate what kind of training a prospective personal financial advisor has taken and whether s/he has advanced courses above the minimum requirements. Also what kind and length of experience the prospective advisor has. Also what lifestle experience the prospect has: some have seen a great deal more of life than others - and have learned much more per year than many who have lived as many years. Finally - you need a person whose personality and ideas are compatible with yours. You will trust that person with a very important part of your life. Some years ago, when I had a display at a county fall fair, someone asked me what right I had to call myself a financial planner. I said that we could get rid of unemployment tomorrow - we need only have every unemployed person put out a shingle on his front lawn calling himself a financial planner, as it was unregulated - any darn fool could do it. Stock brokers were regulated, as were mutual fund salespeople, but in our area at that time financial planners were not, as there were few of them operating outside of stockbrokerage and mutual fund sales agencies. That's not the case now - but it would be a good idea to ask several of them what kind of regulations there are governing them. I took the course that stockbrokers take, over 20 years ago and worked for a mutual fund sales brokerage (i.e. they could offer mutual funds managed by a large number of managers, rather than only funds managed by their own company). I didn't produce enough sales to suit them, so was there for only one year. I'm more tuned into the idea of helping people set their financial goals, look at some concepts that they might not have thought of, and work toward achieving them. I am totally devoted to helping my clients decide what they want to achieve and start out on a plan of how to achieve that/those goals. They don't have to be concerned that my advice or recommendations may be slanted toward various financial products that I just happen to sell, for I don't sell any. One local person that I met a few years ago said that he'd done well in business and managing his investments, so some friends asked him to manage some money for them. He asked for a minimum investment of $10,000., asked the client to sign a power of attorney for that account only, and when he made decisions about investments, a copy of the confirmation went to the client and one to him. He charged 10% of the growth (exclusive of dividends, if I remember correctly). Rather a good idea, for if he doesn't produce, he doesn't get paid. There is a fairly major proviso, though - that he might choose some fairly risky investments where there could well be a possibility of major gain. He being a person of integrity, I think that he was quite strongly guided by the level of risk that his clients were willing to tolerate. When I asked what happened if there were no gain - he said that there hadn't been a year yet that he hadn't been able to send a request for payment to every client. I'm not sure how many years the concept had been in operation. This has been rather off topic - sorry about that. As for many people lacking time to manage their investments ... ... many people spend more time on consideration of where they'll go for a two week vacation than they do on an investment system that may well be in place for forty years (or more). Good wishes for making your money work well for you - rather than better for someone else. joyful guy

If you'd like to see the overhead transpaencies that Dale Ennis, editor of "Canadian MoneySaver" magazine used at that meeting, go to www.canadianmoneysaver.ca and look for "Tips and Tools". There's a lot of other interesting stuff on their website, as well - some of it of interest only to Canadians. Plain paper, no slick stuff - mostly writing; no ads. Pictures of the guys who write the two - three page articles, and contact info at the end of their articles. They are good about answering questions related to those articles, which are often rather condensed to fully cover a substantial issue, if rather sketchily, on occasion. The mag is totally subscriber driven, as they carry no ads. Subscribers asked for seminars with the guys who write the articles - they've been happening for several years. Seminars in winter in warm climes, on cruise, etc. Subscribers meet in about 40 locations in Canada. Ours in London has been meeting for over 10 years, I've been attending for six or so. Usually about 20 attend the monthly two-hour meeting and one learns a good deal about various approaches to money management there - we have to defend our viewpoints, as well. Plus about half of us adjourn to a coffee shop for another hour: manager brought us over a plate of goodies, a few months ago. Cost: gas to get there (and some from nearby communities ride together). (But the coffee at the after-meeting is costly, though they have "loyalty" cards (they're not the biggest chain in the country, by far - Starbucks ain't, either). We usually have the first guy to arrive get a card, then get it stamped for other members' purchases, so often we accumulate nearly the ten needed to get a free coffee during one evening's business. I think the corporation would say that one can only accumulate the increments on one's own accont - but management doesn't appear to care (haven't shut us down, yet, anyway). Sorry - I forgot that this isn't the "frugal" forum! Hope you're all enjoying a great week. One of the great things about retirement - every day's holiday. As I used to say when I was a personal financial advisor - "If you give me 10% of your money - I'll have you retire early". Actually, that message gives a false impression: my main philosophy was that I wanted my clients to learn how to manage their own money more effectively. ole joyful

My suggestion to clients (and others - like, for example, here) was that I don't like getting tax refunds - which means that I paid too much from every payment, last year. If a person gets $1,200.00 back, it means that $100.00/mo. too much was deducted and sent to the income tax people every month last year, on which they paid no interest. Then your loan to them stayed at $1,200. from Jan. 1 till (Canada) the end of April, on which they paid no interest. It used to be that they'd start paying interest on overpaid money beginning May 1 ... but a few years ago they dropped that date back to June 15 (by which time a major part of the refunds had been sent out). If you'd like to make interest-free loans for even a short period, I'd like to stand in line to get some - where should I stand? And how soon do you want it paid back? Heck - I have to pay the bank 5.0% (or, did, until the Bank of Canada cut the Prime Rate this morning ... and most of the banks immediately followed suit - maybe it'll be 4.5% now). I like 0% better than that. When I put my money into the bank, they give me a bit over 0% ... but not much. Have a lovely week, everyone. ole joyful ... who doesn't like to either earn - or pay - interest Why not earn? Taxed too high! (Canadian dividends much lower). o j

Like I said - rich folks. With only one kind of income. They own quite a few Canadian stocks. Suppose the stocks pay them an income of $46,000. Suppose, now that the prices of bank shares have gone down quite a lot recently, they have about $660,000. invested that are paying 7%, to produce $46,200. last year. [Caution: I would not want to see someone with a substantial amount invested have chosen to invest it all in one company - way too risky!] When the single person calculates his/her tax load ... it'll be zero. If the "taxpayer" has a low-income spouse with some tax credits to transfer ... or makes some political contributions ... or donates some to a registered charity (and the credit is at a high rate when one contributes over $200. per year) ... or pays upwards of 5% of net income in eligible medical/dental expenses ... the tax-free amount goes even higher. You may have heard me say in some of my posts that I don't like earning interest - the number of underlying invested dollars can't grow. And the only income that it produces ... is produced now ... and it's taxed now ... at top rate. If you have stocks of Canadian companies that pay dividends and have other kinds of income, the tax-free amount reduces rather rapidly ... but you'll pay tax on the dividend portion at a much lower rate than that on most other kinds of income. If this doesn't explain it adequately, ask and I'll try again. Perhaps if you check the link and read carefully, you'll find it explained a little differently and in a way that'll be clear to you, over there. ole joyful