F U account

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
What can they do that you can't manually? My cash has been parked at ally for years (from when it was still GMAC), now also at BarclaysUS. Almost 0.9% APY. Not only that, but there are 2+% APY 5-year CDs that can be broken with only 6 month-interest early withdrawal penalty (BarclaysUS, for example).

0.08% annual commission is huge at today's yields. Savings accounts rates don't change so fast nowadays.

If I am going to give a third-party access to my cash account (and thus void any protection for fraudulent access), I prefer something established like Yodlee.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What can they do that you can't manually? My cash has been parked at ally for years (from when it was still GMAC), now also at BarclaysUS. Almost 0.9% APY. Not only that, but there are 2+% APY 5-year CDs that can be broken with only 6 month-interest early withdrawal penalty (BarclaysUS, for example).

0.08% annual commission is huge at today's yields. Savings accounts rates don't change so fast nowadays.

If I am going to give a third-party access to my cash account (and thus void any protection for fraudulent access), I prefer something established like Yodlee.


Of course you can do this manually. But, those guys offer a service for a low fee. I don't think it's a scam. In addition, they monitor rates for you and advise which bank has the best interest rate.

Convenience carries a fee and 0.08% isn't huge considering the vast majority of Americans are earning less than 0.1% right now on their cash reserves.

What about this service? https://www.sigfig.com/
 
Of course you can do this manually. But, those guys offer a service for a low fee. I don't think it's a scam. In addition, they monitor rates for you and advise which bank has the best interest rate.

Convenience carries a fee and 0.08% isn't huge considering the vast majority of Americans are earning less than 0.1% right now on their cash reserves.
It's probably not a scam, but 0.08% out of 0.9% is a lot. Even if I didn't look at the savings market for 6 months, they wouldn't be able to save me more than 0.1-0.2%; not worth the headache.
What about this service? https://www.sigfig.com/
I don't know them. I have been using version 9.x of Yodlee Moneycenter (now Labs) for years, because all big banks and brokerages which offer consolidated account views do it through them (so they are probably the most secure) and I hate the current version. I don't get any significant capital analysis (as one would get with Personal Capital, and probably sigfig), but all I need it for is tracking my finances. I tend to keep things simple, a la John C. Bogle if possible. I'm long overdue to sit down my butt and rebalance my holdings, but the more third-parties I give access to, the worse I will sleep at night.

Again, be very careful with giving third-parties access to any of your accounts. You lose fraud protection from your financial institution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bogle. Go, Bogle, go. 👍

I have a lot of money with Vanguard. Doing quite well.
 
After maxing your retirement account, is it too risky to put your money in stocks and bonds? Why settle for a 0.9% interest when stocks average 8% or so return? I guess the risk may be harder to stomach when you are close to retirement, but for us younger folks, do you think putting cash into stock is smart?
 
Depends on what you can stomach. As long as you have a plan (you know what you buy and why, when to buy and when to sell that stock/ETF and why), and you know you have the stomach to stick to it (even in case of a temporary 70-80% loss that can last years), you're fine investing in stocks, even 100%. Otherwise, create a mix of investments that fall (and rise) less with market fluctuations, where you can stay on track and not buy high and sell low, when the market tanks, like most of the stupid people who gamble in it. Buy and hold is the tortoise that beats the hare.

Stocks used to return 8% on average, but that was in a 4+% inflationary economy. Nowadays, be happy if you get 4-5% annually long-term.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the last thing I need is yet another expert telling me I should pay him to dick around with my money to maybe squeeze another fraction of a percent out of an emergency fund account.

LOL.

SERIOUSLY.

Why is it that people making 500K per year are worried about getting an extra 0.5% (or whatever) out of 10K in some stupid-a$$ account?

Why do you even care?

Buy mutual funds and indices when the market crashes.
Hold forever.

I would rather put the money in stocks that have crashed HARD (you can use this screener to find them: https://www.zecco.com/ ) than some pointless cash account. It reminds me of my mother always harping away about getting an extra 0.01% (or whatever) in the checking vs. the savings (or was it the savings vs the checking?).

Why do you even care?
 
After maxing your retirement account, is it too risky to put your money in stocks and bonds? Why settle for a 0.9% interest when stocks average 8% or so return? I guess the risk may be harder to stomach when you are close to retirement, but for us younger folks, do you think putting cash into stock is smart?

Are you talking true stocks or "Vanguard?"
 
Depends on what you can stomach. As long as you have a plan (you know what you buy and why, when to buy and when to sell that stock/ETF and why), and you know you have the stomach to stick to it (even in case of a temporary 70-80% loss that can last years), you're fine investing in stocks, even 100%. Otherwise, create a mix of investments that fall (and rise) less with market fluctuations, where you can stay on track and not buy high and sell low, when the market tanks, like most of the stupid people who gamble in it. Buy and hold is the tortoise that beats the hare.

Stocks used to return 8% on average, but that was in a 4+% inflationary economy. Nowadays, be happy if you get 4-5% annually long-term.

Truer words have never been spoken, except for the highlighted portion.

Earlier today (yesterday?) another poster and I fleshed this out on a Pharmacy forum thread in which a frequent poster of theirs did the math (and I the explaining of historical fluctuations):

See post #111 on down to post #115:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...-this-profession.1089072/page-3#post-15538326
 
LOL.

SERIOUSLY.

Why is it that people making 500K per year are worried about getting an extra 0.5% (or whatever) out of 10K in some stupid-a$$ account?

Why do you even care?

Because hopefully it's a lot more than 10K. Hopefully it's more like 300K or 500K or whatever.

I currently park my cash reserves at Capital One 360 (formerly ING) for 0.75% APY. And everybody should have cash reserves. Nobody should be 100% stocks or bonds or whatever regardless of how young they are. As a physician, you should probably aim to keep 9-12 months of expenses in cash (minimum).

Personally I keep about 12 months of expenses in cash as an emergency fund. I also have separate cash that is part of my overall savings plan which is currently about 75% stocks, 15% cash, 10% bonds (including breakdown from mutual funds).

I agree that being young it is important to be heavily in stocks. But if the market tanks, you need to be able to buy more stocks and it takes cash to do that. You can't be 100% stocks and then just ride it out. I mean you could, but then you wouldn't really be taking advantage of a time when stocks get cheap.
 
Truer words have never been spoken, except for the highlighted portion.

Earlier today (yesterday?) another poster and I fleshed this out on a Pharmacy forum thread in which a frequent poster of theirs did the math (and I the explaining of historical fluctuations):

See post #111 on down to post #115:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...-this-profession.1089072/page-3#post-15538326
You cannot judge based just on 1980-2000. In 1980 the inflation was 13.5%. The prime interest rate reached 21.5% in December 1980. The inflation, after the Fed intervened, was followed by a nice recession. Also, obviously, as the prime rate went down, the bond return went down and people went into stocks, thus raising their value. Then, in the 90's, you had the Internet craze, which had never happened before. It was like the tulip craze, once again, but that happens rarely.

Anyway, the idea is that one cannot count on past performance when planning for retirement. Stocks are still among the best investments for regular mortals (as long as great businesses don't go private, which is the latest trend), but I would be very happy to get an annualized 8% for the 25-30 years I still have till retirement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL.

SERIOUSLY.

Why is it that people making 500K per year are worried about getting an extra 0.5% (or whatever) out of 10K in some stupid-a$$ account?

Why do you even care?

Buy mutual funds and indices when the market crashes.
Hold forever.

I would rather put the money in stocks that have crashed HARD (you can use this screener to find them: https://www.zecco.com/ ) than some pointless cash account. It reminds me of my mother always harping away about getting an extra 0.01% (or whatever) in the checking vs. the savings (or was it the savings vs the checking?).

Why do you even care?
Momentum investing does not work. It's been proven again and again. Dollar cost averaging is much better long-term. You might buy more when the market dips, but waiting for the market to crash you'll probably lose out on a lot of return. This is one of my pet peeves with myself, given that I sit on about 35% cash (which allows me to sleep way better at night, thank you).

Why do we care about the return on 10K? Because this is about good habits. If you look at most millionaires, many of them had built their wealth not only by making good investments, but also by staying frugal. Stay hungry, stay foolish!
 
Ally bank offers 0.87% APR, easy to setup and transfer back and forth with my regular checking account.
 
You guys know that once you reach a certain "critical mass" in whichever bank account you have you can go in and negotiate higher rates with the bankers holding your account, right? I did this at two of the banks I have accounts at. Don't believe me? Threaten to move your money elsewhere and see what happens.
 
I actually have a cd laddering system for my fu money because getting 0.85% is just ridiculous. I work had for this money.

So 7 years ago for my fu money, I bought over a few months the penfed 6% cd's. People said I was crazy and that interest rates were going to go up. And as my cd's mature monthly, I just look at the website bankdeals to see which institution, whether bank or credit union, is offering the best deal. So do you guys want to hear about an interesting cd deal today? Well, listen to this, tobyhana fcu is offering a 7 year 3.04% cd. The beauty of this cd is you can add later on, so what I've been doing monthly is buying the minimum amount on this cd, which is $1000. And so if in years 5 and 6 interest rates are still lousy, I'll just add. And another feature the cd has is if the prime rate goes up to 6%, the rate on this cd will go up also, but the floor on the cd is 3.04%.

Now, how do I get a good rate while keeping money liquid? How about a 2.25% fdic insured account with bbt bank. The kicker is it is a 529 account. So just open the account in your name. And when you need the money, you just pay a 10% penalty on the interest, so it is really a 2% account for your fu money which outdoes the 0.85% ally bank gives you.

So for the person that asks what is the big deal to get an extra 0.1% on $500,000, to me that is $500 bucks. So doing a little homework can net a good amount of extra cash.

Lastly, they've shown dollar cost averaging does not lead to greater returns, but you may as well invest in something, because there will come a day when you can't physically work anymore.
 
Based on many years of ally use, I vote for it. It also has 2-step authentication for new computers.
 
Why is an FU account $300-500K? That's a hell of an emergency fund. Why does that much money need to be available as cash tomorrow?

CD ladders are a good option for near-instant-access cash. I-Bonds are very good too but it takes a few years to overcome the $10K/year purchase limit.

But the real answer is that the priorities for an emergency fund are safety and liquidity, not return. Take your risks and get your returns on the equity side.

If another .3% of return on your $500K in cash is important, the answer is $475K of cash and $25K of stocks or a similar plan; ie your asset allocation should change, not your willingness to take huckster website advice and pay fees for the illusion of better risk-free gains.
 
Why is an FU account $300-500K? That's a hell of an emergency fund. Why does that much money need to be available as cash tomorrow?

CD ladders are a good option for near-instant-access cash. I-Bonds are very good too but it takes a few years to overcome the $10K/year purchase limit.

But the real answer is that the priorities for an emergency fund are safety and liquidity, not return. Take your risks and get your returns on the equity side.

If another .3% of return on your $500K in cash is important, the answer is $475K of cash and $25K of stocks or a similar plan; ie your asset allocation should change, not your willingness to take huckster website advice and pay fees for the illusion of better risk-free gains.


I acquire cash when stocks become overvalued and then wait for a correction. If one applied this philosophy to the stock market since 1999 your returns would be phenomenal. I'm not timing the market just avoid buying stocks when they become overvalued. Morningstar states the market is overvalued and I'll wait for a 10% pullback before deploying any new cash.


Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1.

Warren Buffett


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/warrenbuff149683.html#tRvGrMaOVSo25xvX.99
 
I'm not timing the market just avoid buying stocks when they become overvalued.

I love ya Blade, but what on earth would you call "market timing" if not "avoid buying stocks when they become overvalued" ?

That IS market timing. It's the very definition. It's the attempt to buy low and sell high based on gut feeling, or your analysis of the numbers, or when someone else (Morningstar) tells you to do it, or when the chicken guts strewn across the still-warm corpse of a MSNBC analyst are more north-south than east-west.

And I don't believe you can do it. I don't believe anyone can do it.
 
Ya'll are funny.

Remember, there is always a bear market and always a bull market. You need to look for stocks that have lost the most value or that have been flat for a protracted period of time and buy only those.

"When others are fearful, be greedy; when others are greedy, be fearful."
 
Our clients say, "Well, bond returns have been so terrible. I'm afraid the bonds are going to lose money when rates rise. I'm going to go to stocks." This is out of the frying pan and into the fire. When we look historically, obviously by the sheer math of bonds, rising rates are not great for bonds. But depending on what it is that triggers the rising rates, it's not necessarily good for stocks, either. It slows the economy. If we are getting inflation, we've got other problems. One scenario that is good for stocks is if rising rates are just off of sheer awesome economic growth because everything is going well. But a lot of other things that trigger interest rate increases are actually bad for stocks. So, if you try to get out of bonds and into stocks to deal with a rising-rate environment, you could actually end up with something that performs even worse in the rising-rate environment.





 
I love ya Blade, but what on earth would you call "market timing" if not "avoid buying stocks when they become overvalued" ?

That IS market timing. It's the very definition. It's the attempt to buy low and sell high based on gut feeling, or your analysis of the numbers, or when someone else (Morningstar) tells you to do it, or when the chicken guts strewn across the still-warm corpse of a MSNBC analyst are more north-south than east-west.

And I don't believe you can do it. I don't believe anyone can do it.


I call it equity allocation with flexibility. When stocks exceed the 1.05 ratio (as they are right now) the prudent thing to do is raise cash to 30-35%. Don't sell everything but be ready to deploy the cash when the fair value ratio falls to 0.90. I will slowly deploy cash into ETFs once the ratio hits 0.95.

My model isn't "timing" just common sense which has worked well in this market for the past 15 years. Treasuries are riskier than 3 or 5 year CDs right now as interest rates will rise next year. I'd rather stick with 1% or 1.5% and NOT lose money in bonds. Patience is a virtue and when the market has a steep pullback I'll be there with my CASH.
 
I love ya Blade, but what on earth would you call "market timing" if not "avoid buying stocks when they become overvalued" ?

That IS market timing. It's the very definition. It's the attempt to buy low and sell high based on gut feeling, or your analysis of the numbers, or when someone else (Morningstar) tells you to do it, or when the chicken guts strewn across the still-warm corpse of a MSNBC analyst are more north-south than east-west.

And I don't believe you can do it. I don't believe anyone can do it.


I did it in late 2008/early 2009 with several hundred thousand dollars and I'll do it again this year or next when Mr. wallstreet panics and sells off heavily.

It's common sense and all one needs is time, patience and a boat load of cash. I flex my stock portfolio based on fair value. If less than 0.90 I go to 85%, If less than 0.80 I'm at 90%. In 2009 the fair value hit 0.55!! That's right 0.55!! I was all in at 0.65 so I missed the bottom.

Once fair value exceeds 1.00 I begin to raise cash slowly (no sudden moves). My equity allocation falls to 65% as Fair value hits 1.05. I'm never less than 50% invested in equities at any time.

I'm quite happy with this model as I sleep like a baby at night. Risk allocation is based on fair value of stocks vs bonds vs cash. I'm not concerned about MAKING more money than someone else but rather LOSING more money than the overall market. The basis for VALUE investing is buying stocks when they are cheap.
 
Last edited:
Stocks used to return 8% on average, but that was in a 4+% inflationary economy. Nowadays, be happy if you get 4-5% annually long-term.

4-5% nominal? So like 0.5-2.0% real, in your estimation? Yikes.
 
I use BarclaysUS for savings. They are OK. No idea about GE.


The online setup/account opening was very quick with Ally. Is Barclays USA as good as Ally with their web/online data? Are any Brokerages like Schwab or Fidelity offering a savings account?
 
The online setup/account opening was very quick with Ally. Is Barclays USA as good as Ally with their web/online data? Are any Brokerages like Schwab or Fidelity offering a savings account?
BarclaysUS is decent. Their interface gets the job done. I would say ally is in a superior league.

I don't know of any brokerages offering decent savings accounts. Plus I tend not to trust them much when about FDIC protection, given how SIPC is a joke.
 
Of course you can do this manually. But, those guys offer a service for a low fee. I don't think it's a scam. In addition, they monitor rates for you and advise which bank has the best interest rate.

Convenience carries a fee and 0.08% isn't huge considering the vast majority of Americans are earning less than 0.1% right now on their cash reserves.

What about this service? https://www.sigfig.com/

I know the people who started maxmyinterest.com and can assure you it it not a scam. As a busy doctor I don't have time to move my money around manually so the service is perfect for me.
 
I know the people who started maxmyinterest.com and can assure you it it not a scam. As a busy doctor I don't have time to move my money around manually so the service is perfect for me.
Yeah, the fact that a first-time poster, a busy doctor even, chooses exactly this thread is truly reassuring.

I am all wet down there from the emotion and honor of leaving my money under the control of a 4 month-old limited-liability startup.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is an FU account $300-500K? That's a hell of an emergency fund. Why does that much money need to be available as cash tomorrow?

Who said that was the FU account? I said the FU account, which for me is all cash, is 12 months of expenses. But I also have cash as a part of my overall savings plan, which is separate from the FU account.

I keep about 100K of FU money laying around for a rainy day. The rest of my cash is the 10-15% of my overall investing strategy that depends on how things are going. If the stock market were to drop 50% tomorrow, I'd probably put 90% of that cash into stocks. You can't have 100% of your investments tied up in stocks and bonds and real estate. Gotta leave a little cash laying around.
 
The overlooked advantage, I guess, of this program (for attendings) is the ability to have multiple FDIC insured accounts, given that the FDIC limit is 250k. So you cold have 1 mil in 4 separate FDIC insured accounts. Lucky for me, the years of government compensation I was able to save before residency doesn't put me in that predicament...
 
The overlooked advantage, I guess, of this program (for attendings) is the ability to have multiple FDIC insured accounts, given that the FDIC limit is 250k. So you cold have 1 mil in 4 separate FDIC insured accounts.
And what prevents you from doing this manually, like Blade just did?
 
Who wants to start a thread on asset allocation and methology of funding your portfolio? I think it would be a good discussion on SDN as we have some seasoned individuals here.
 
And what prevents you from doing this manually, like Blade just did?

Nothing prevents you from doing it manually, unless time is an issue. Finding four of these high yield savings accounts is theoretically harder than one. Just a thought.

I use capitol one 360 (formerly ING direct) and their high yield savings rate is at 0.75 right now. It is a variable rate and has been steadily going down over the past 6 years.
 
Hard to find high-yielding savings accounts? Bankrate.com is your friend. Look under "bank rates".
 
Who wants to start a thread on asset allocation and methology of funding your portfolio? I think it would be a good discussion on SDN as we have some seasoned individuals here.

3 fund Vanguard portfolio for this CA-1.

Though that mostly applies to my wife's 401k, which at her old job (before we moved for match) she was getting 2:1 on 5%!
 
how about stocks with a stable monthly dividend?
“Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it ... he who doesn't ... pays it.” Albert Einstein
 
how about stocks with a stable monthly dividend?

Stable dividend paying stocks can be a huge winner long term. They don't pay monthly dividends, though. Usually quarterly, sometimes only once or twice a year. As Benjamin Graham once noted, the entire point of owning a stock is the return of dividends or the future promise of it.
 
Stable dividend paying stocks can be a huge winner long term.
... in a retirement account, preferably Roth. Same thing in a taxable account is a tragedy, long-term. That's why Buffett doesn't pay dividends.
 
... in a retirement account, preferably Roth. Same thing in a taxable account is a tragedy, long-term. That's why Buffett doesn't pay dividends.

I disagree. I believe a Roth IRA should be used for a more aggressive investment strategy in growth stocks that will yield the greatest returns tax free. Dividend stocks belong in taxable (or tax-deferred) accounts for two reasons: the accounts themselves are typically much larger in value than Roth accounts, and the dividends will only be taxed at 15% while profits from growth stocks will have a much higher tax burden.

And FYI, Warren Buffet doesn't pay dividends because he believes a company's profits bring the greatest value to its shareholders when spent in the form of investments, acquisitions, and share buybacks. He doesn't care about our taxes.
 
In a dividend reinvestment model, you would lose 15% of the dividends yearly, instead of just losing 15-25% or whatever your tax rate will be in retirement once.

Suppose I have a $100 stock which pays $4 dividends yearly, and I reinvest the dividends once a year:

1. In a taxable retirement account, in 30 years, it will make $224 in profits, which will be taxed let's say at 20%, and the net profit will be $179.

2. In a taxable account, you will lose 15% of the dividends as tax every year (that's money that would grow for another 1-29 years), ending up with a total of $172 in net profit.

Now if you multiply these numbers by 1,000, the difference is $7,000. If you now work in a state with income tax and, at retirement, you move to one with no income tax, the difference would be catastrophic. If you add an extra loss of just 5% yearly, as state income tax, to the second situation (taxable account), you would end up with a profit of only $157 after 30 years. In the first situation, you would avoid paying a state income tax, just by moving to a "retirement state", so the profits would be unchanged.

3. In the case of a Roth, you start with $100 from your paycheck and pay 28% federal tax now, making it really a $72 investment. After 30 years at 4%, you end up with only $233, including your initial investment, i.e. $133 in net profits. Ouch, and we haven't even counted the state tax!

The greatest friend of the investor is (compounding over) time. The greatest enemy are taxes.

P.S. There might be mistakes in my calculations. Please take them with a big grain of salt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It has been shown time and time again that dividend paying stocks grow more long term than non dividend paying stocks. It has also been shown that companies that reinvest profits instead of paying dividends return less value to their shareholders than if they had paid out the dividends in the first place. Since dividends are taxed as capital gains, you end up with better long term stocks to own.

Stating the calculated loss from taxes on 4% dividend annually ignores the growth in the price of the stock being even beyond what a non dividend stock would return.
 
Top