AMMO Needed. -quickly

**Greebo** · 08-07-2008, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by angrypuppy

Let us know how it goes. We have been putting off getting a FP, because we assume they will put more emphasis on accumulation than debt reduction. For us the reduction will let us live more free.

I look at my parents who have saved a substantial amount of money, but still have debt. With out the debt they would be home free. Witht the debt, they will still have to be careful with the remaining money during retirement. If they had focused on the debt and then saving I think they could be in about the same position in regards to investment, but would feel much better about their financial position during the next stage of their life.

http://www.daveramsey.com/sa/mutualfunds/

Dave Ramsey Endorsed local providers for investing. If they put debt reduction low on the priority scale, tell Dave!

**missmanny** · 08-07-2008, 06:04 PM

rcannon,

I think that the thing to remember is that you pay your FP to help you to manage your money in a way that you want, not in what he thinks is best for you or what makes him the most money.

I think that before you meet with the planner it might be a good idea to really sit down with your wife and discuss what you are going to talk about and how you feel about these things, come to a consensus and then go in to see the FP.

IMHO, your desire to get out of debt first is the best idea. The wealth creation can come just as soon as that is done. That is the way the I am approaching life.

It's simple though and not complex, which is what FP love - it shows you that they are cleaver and know what they are talking about. And helps them to convince you that they have what you need.

Now if he could help you to come up with ideas to lower your debt I would be impressed.

**mikandmari** · 08-07-2008, 06:18 PM

"You have that backwards.

Over the short term, losing money is easy in the market.

Over the long term, in good funds, you can find investments which have averaged over 10%."

True, Greebo... I guess I should have elaborated more... historically, stocks have had about a 7% return, so it IS possible for a person to see a 10% return over the long term. But many people only invest over a period of a few decades, and if you'd been in the market from the late 1960s thru the late 1970s, well, those were not profitable years. I saw (as a kid) what inflation did to my Dad's paycheck, and that was the 'pension' generation.

My remark was actually based on my own belief that the next decade is probably not going to be a good one for stocks (or real estate, or maybe bonds, or ..). I really don't feel "gloom and doom" about it, people just have to realize that the party can't last forever. Right now, I think that paying down debt is a better investment.

**Russ** · 08-07-2008, 08:39 PM

ok, here's what happened. We went in and he always goes through how things have gone aver the past 6 months to one year. Well, you all KNOW how the past year has been in the financial markets.

After the bad news, the first thing I said was, "better off paying down debt right now." NO RESPONSE! from either my wife or him. No argument, nothing.

So I was all stressed about nothing. I think maybe he is starting to learn how to deal with me.

**MomToTwoBoys** · 08-07-2008, 08:56 PM

See, I think even he knew that pushing investments into a rocky economy would have been really bad juju on his part more than what they might have tried on you. I'm glad neither of them tried to get you into that argument again. I know if I was the one in your shoes, I'd call him nuts and walk right out of the office.

**Ceashels** · 08-07-2008, 09:01 PM

You tell 'em Russ!

I'm glad it went well.

**Greebo** · 08-07-2008, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by mikandmari

True, Greebo... I guess I should have elaborated more... historically, stocks have had about a 7% return, so it IS possible for a person to see a 10% return over the long term. But many people only invest over a period of a few decades, and if you'd been in the market from the late 1960s thru the late 1970s, well, those were not profitable years. I saw (as a kid) what inflation did to my Dad's paycheck, and that was the 'pension' generation.

To my knowledge, historically, there has never been a single 10 year period (that is, for example, from 61 to 70, 62 to 71, etc) that has lost money overall, and 90% of all 5 year periods also gain money.

I've been looking for hard numbers to back that up for a while now.

**mikandmari** · 08-08-2008, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Greebo

To my knowledge, historically, there has never been a single 10 year period (that is, for example, from 61 to 70, 62 to 71, etc) that has lost money overall, and 90% of all 5 year periods also gain money.

I've been looking for hard numbers to back that up for a while now.

For the 1970s the average was 5.82% (http://www.bullinvestors.com/Stock_Market_History.htm)

But inflation was, some years, 10-12%

No investments could match that. In the 1970s, the average household debt was WAY less than than it is now. IMHO, in today's world, in MOST situations, a person would be better off paying down debt (often at exorbitant rates) than investing... even the original poster's financial adviser didn't argue that.

I never said people would lose money ~overall~, just that they can't count on a 10% return. (I often hear the 10% return thing used as an example of stock market investments.) My 1990s optimism is gone...