Slashdot Mirror


Jack Bogle, the Man Who Revolutionized Investing, Dies At 89 (marketwatch.com)

Thelasko shares a report from MarketWatch: You can thank Thomas Edison for the light bulb casting light in your home, Henry Ford for your affordable, mass-produced car, and Apple's Steve Jobs for the astonishing computer in your pocket. And Jack Bogle, who died Wednesday [at the age of 89]. The low-cost mutual funds he helped pioneer at Vanguard aren't as sexy or dramatic as other inventions. And you can't really touch or see them. But their effect on everyday lives has been enormous. Bogle's low-cost index funds, and the imitators they have inspired, may have saved ordinary Main Street Americans a staggering $250 billion, or more, in mutual fund fees over the last forty years. According to the Investment Company Institute (ICI), there are now about 450 index mutual funds with around $3.4 trillion in assets. There are also 1,800 exchange-traded funds, also with around $3.4 trillion in assets.

123 comments

  1. Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He didn't invent shit. Pocket computers existed years before the iphone.

    1. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that time we got charged high fees on mutual funds? Its okay to giggle about it. It was a long time ago

    2. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Neither did Edison invent the light bulb. Henry Ford can probably get a lot of credit for the modern assembly line. But, yeah, Jobs didnâ(TM)t invent anything.

    3. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Neither did Edison invent the light bulb.

      Even if he did, I've never seen a carbon filament bulb in my life, so whatever is casting light in my home can't be it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I used to work at a smelter which still had original Edison carbon filament bulbs, and they still do. Quality is far better than flawed products

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Jobs's engineers designed, improved and invented things, but Steve was just a designer, made things look pretty.

    6. Re:Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Jack Bogle didn't invent mutual funds either. Apparently he did come up with some good ideas, though. That more-or-less matches Jobs, I guess.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your wizard casting light?

    8. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It isn't really quality, it is just a strong trade off between efficiency and lifetime for filaments. Put a 220 V bulb on 120 V power, and it would last forever, although it will emit a lot less visible light per watt and give off a lot more heat per watt.

      You don't even have to be that extreme, as the lifetime scaling is often like 5-8th power of variables, so small changes to the filament will make them last. You can still get rough service bulbs that last way longer, but expect to spend more on electricity than you would on the replacement light bulbs. Back when the light bulbs were more labor intensive and expensive to make, and electricity was cheap, it made sense to make them last a long time and use a lot of electricity. When electricity got expensive and manufacturing got cheaper, it ends up being cheaper to use less electricity and more bulbs. Unless your bulb is in a hard to reach location then you could get longer lifetime bulbs, but instead people buy the cheapest thing they get and blame some conspiracy for their bulb going out too fast (well, there was the Phoebus cartel, but that was half a century ago).

    9. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by iggymanz · · Score: 1, Informative

      LOLZ yeah 240V bulbs in 120V supply:

      Halve the voltage, get one quarter the power, and less than 10% the light output because of how filament resistance goes with temp.

      you get a glowing night light.

    10. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does Jack Bogle only have a net worth of 80 million? Compare this to Bill Gates 80 billion...

    11. Re:Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by quenda · · Score: 1

      but Steve was just a designer, made things look pretty.

      No, Jony Ive was the designer. Jobs was the manager and salesman.

    12. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How does Jack Bogle only have a net worth of 80 million? Compare this to Bill Gates 80 billion...

      Basically, Gates put all his eggs in one basket, and was right. Bogle spread his risk around, but lower risk means lower return.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      The (only) point being made was that it will last a very long time.

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Halve the voltage, , and less than 10% the light output because of how filament resistance goes with temp.

      Isn't it mostly a matter of radiation balance? One quarter the power should mean 71% of the thermodynamic temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The radiation is of course those 25%, the question is how the spectrum shifts. I'm not sure how much it's depending on the initial condition, which hasn't been specified in this case.

      get one quarter the power

      how filament resistance goes with temp

      Sounds like a contradiction; the former seems to assume constant resistance for an ohmic load at half voltage, while the latter seems to claim the opposite.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What's their conversion efficiency?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He didn't invent shit. Pocket computers existed years before the iphone.

      And Edison didn't invent the light bulb, and Ford didn't invent the automobile.

      They all three were instrumental in making each of their respective products popular and help them enter into the mainstream.

    17. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No, there is a thing about the light needing to be visible. I didn't comment on the energy making the thing a nifty space heater.

    18. Re:Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      doesn't matter, those are all wastes of carbon to me

    19. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I *did* mention that, if you read carefully. Did you calculate it to be 10%?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Re: Insert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a shame that treasonous bastard trump won't hang himself and die. Closed down the government because he knows he is president of nothing. Slowly destroying g the greatest nation on earth. Make America great again by colluding with the enemy. Destroying patriotic American families lives.

  3. RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doctor Jobs was taken from us much too soon. Such a great loss to the world.

  4. Thanks Jack. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    All my investments are in index funds. Much of it in Vanguard.

    But, still wondering, at what point the Index funds could be gamed?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh donâ(TM)t get the internet started

    2. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cheese stands alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      FTFY

    3. Re:Thanks Jack. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      One of the problems with the Dark Market is that so much money goes into hedge funds which try to exploit data transmission delays, and game the system, since index funds tend to order in large blocks, so they basically steal the arbitrage between the block orders, making the index purchases and sales just a bit more expensive for the index fund investors.

      So you have a point. That said, if you don't trade out of fear, you'll usually be fine, since the bulk of your holdings aren't trading almost all of the time, and thus are not exposed.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Thanks Jack. by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

      But, still wondering, at what point the Index funds could be gamed?

      When every retirement account is invested in index funds that mimics the broader market, the next stock market crash will be a shared experience by everyone.

    5. Re:Thanks Jack. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      But, still wondering, at what point the Index funds could be gamed?

      When index funds were first implemented, they were too small to game. But as they became bigger, some investors figured out how to game them.

      Here's how they did it: Buy (or go long on) the 501st stock in the S&P list, while simultaneously selling (or shorting) the 500th. Do this only when they are close enough in value to switch places because of your activity. So the stock you shorted is removed from the S&P 500, compelling the index funds to dump it, driving the price even lower, while the stock you longed is added to the S&P 500, compelling index funds to buy it, driving the price up.

      This no longer works because 1) They have tightened up the criteria for getting added or removed. 2) Everybody knows about it so the expectations of being added/removed are already incorporated into the price of candidate stocks.

    6. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was the last one, and the one before that, and the one before that, and....

    7. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks Bill, I was going to post the same thing when I saw the question. Just to clarify...
      The #501 stock is not in the S&P index, but they announced it will be added in a few weeks.
      The #500 stock is in the S&P index, but will be removed from the index on the same day.
      Since the index funds have to match, ALL money in the index funds will sell the #500 at whatever price it is and will buy the #501 at whatever price it is, since you have no fund managers and a computer does it.

      Let me add a second game, not quite the same, called the DOW dogs.
      You look at P/E ratio of every stock in the DOW (all are blue chip and never likely to go bankrupt before being removed from DOW). Buy the bottom 2 P/E stock numbers in large amounts. It is likely those 2 will get their P/E ratios back in line with the rest of the DOW before too long getting you money.

    8. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you need are 28 revenue streams from your side businesses, like poetry, silver coins, videos, etc...

      Right?

    9. Re:Thanks Jack. by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

      Never heard of that. I personally prefer to own dividend-paying stocks for the long run.

    10. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      R U Retarded?

    11. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have declared bankruptcy and have basically no retirement savings at 50. What makes you feel qualified to give others opinions on finances? Do you give advice on starting a family or losing weight?

    12. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Slashdot has a lot of assholes.

    13. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the only "run" you'll ever do...

    14. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when you accused 72-year-old CaptainDork of being a 36-year-old woman from NYC? Sad. Fucking sad.

    15. Re: Thanks Jack. by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

      1) I have never declared bankruptcy.
      2) My retirement savings are fine.
      3) I'm not 50.
      4) ...
      5) Fuck off.

    16. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epsom salt and warm water will do it every time.

    17. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) No family
      4.3) Still fat
      4.6) Funko Pops under futon
      4.9) Videos no one watches.
      5) You first.

    18. Re: Thanks Jack. by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 0

      Seriously, fuck off.

    19. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very Reimerian reply for someone who totally, absolutely, definitely, for sure isn't creimer.

    20. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still trying to justify your pittiful trolling on Slashdot? Sad. Fucking sad.

    21. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are the jowls flapping these days, Chris?

    22. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chris ain't here, man

    23. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I R Reimtarded!
      R U Reimtard? *

      * known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm

    24. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: "... at what point the Index funds could be gamed?"

      I'm not sure what you are driving at here. But if you have to ask, the answer is probably Yes, and It Has Already Happened. Investing is an open market, nearly anything that can happen, will happen, and likely already has happened.

      Will a non-fund steal an Index fund's investment ideas and mirror their portfolio? Yes, certainly. Either in whole or in part.
      Do the Index funds drive the market, and in some sense drive down portfolio performance collectively? Absolutely.
      Would an Index fund actually not be an index fund, and charge higher than index fund fees? The former would be against regulations and would get stepped on big time. The latter probably happens, but it's a grey area because there is no formal definition of what level constitutes "index fund level fees."

      In investing, it's a good rule of thumb to expect that anything can be gamed. That said, whether you can game successfully is a whole other issue. Lots of people think they are successfully gaming something and either fail eventually, or fail all along but it takes time for their failures to catch up to them.

      It's a decent strategy to disregard gaming entirely, for your own portfolio decisions. That said, there are an infinite number of portfolio strategies, so choose wisely.

    25. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your amazing insight that when stock markets go down index funds go down is the exact same shit you've posted under your previous usernames, Chris.

    26. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I'm not Chris. I'm just pretending to be Chris because I know how easy it is to get you all hot and bothered. For example, I used to have an account called Anonymous Cashews. You might have remembered that one. I created an account called The Original CDR and commented on a CaptainDork submission while you were accusing him of being a 36-year-old woman from NYC (me, bitches!). You have been following me ever since. Although you had dozens of fake accounts deleted and numerous posts deleted by management, you're still chasing after Chris. Sad. Fucking sad.

    27. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a fraction of index funds do that.
      You need to read a boring old book about this stuff. Not a bunch of "SECRETS THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!"
      Or go talk to a financial advisor after first googling "how to pick an honest financial advisor" and have him educate you. Or take a class at your community college.

    28. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a fraction of index funds do that.

      Maybe you need to stop talking out of your ass?

      More than $31 billion flowed into exchange-traded funds over the month, according to FactSet data, bringing total global assets to almost $4.2 trillion. However, while there are nearly 1,800 U.S.-listed ETFs currently trading, nearly all the action is concentrated within a vanishingly small part of the ETF marketplace. To be exact, 51.3% of August’s inflows went to just 10 funds.

      https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-10-etfs-sucked-up-half-of-all-inflows-in-august-2017-09-11

    29. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're pretending to be chris but you've never heard of his "long tail revenue streams" retirement plan^^
      Tell us more about how you're now both a 36 year old 'girl' with a deep love for c64 computers.. and a "commander". I'm sorry I'm being so sexist assuming that a 36 year old 'girl' can't both love the c64 and be a "commander"

      Anyhow chris you should dig up your silver coins to get ready to sell them off. Trump is determined to crash the economy so last I checked those things were looking like they might be worth money again for a bit.

      ^^(from a book written long ago by a man who is btw still working a regular day job to this day)

    30. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I guess you told me! Let's think about what you just said.
      >nearly all the action is concentrated within a vanishingly small part of the ETF marketplace. To be exact, 51.3% of August’s inflows went to just 10 funds.
      This means that most people are putting their money in 10 funds
      >However, while there are nearly 1,800 U.S.-listed ETFs currently trading,
      This means there are at least 1,500 other ETFs available for you to invest in and dodge whatever market crash you think will take down the most popular funds.
      If you wanted to prove me wrong you should have been pedantic over the difference between an ETF and an index fund but I knew you'd miss it because the diversity of funds is obvious to anyone who signs in to check on any decent 401k. Something you've said you do; Yet somehow you don't know this? Does this mean you're lying or does it mean you didn't notice? What does it mean Christopher? I mean unless you do business with horrible companies the diversity of funds available should be a bit overwhelming even.
      It's easy to learn about this stuff. You should take a class or sign up for a good financial advisor.
      Also you should get a better job. Compared to most of the country or most of the world, being one of the lowest paid tech workers in silicon valley means you could be one bootcamp, or even one thick book away from unlocking 100k jobs. I really can't think of any investment that would pay off like improving the remainder of your career.

      It won't be long now though. That window also, soon will be closed. I think if you took my advice when we first met and paid taxes on all your extra money and then shoved it in your mattress you'd have 60k. Now if you put that money in your HSA and your 401k and even a 529 college plan you could probably get your employer to let you off early on fridays, pay tuition reimbursement and then you could pay your rent out of tax free money.

      I mean it would be easy to do that in silicon valley. If you had a good job.
      Please tell me how wrong I am Chris. Last year I made thousands of dollars and improved my mental health considerably just by following the advice that I give you.
        You are an exaggerated cartoon wumpus version of a normal person. I was a little sad to think you might have disappeared from my life, without your bad example I would have been lost. You know my boss was telling me he has made it a personal goal to get me making much more money by the end of 2019? Like almost double and I already make a lot more than you.
      Things are looking up for my wife as well. She may end up making more than both of us.

      Thank you so much for all you've done for me chris! Let's have another beautiful year together 3

    31. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was Chris, where are my YouTube and Twitter links?

    32. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last year I made thousands of dollars and improved my mental health considerably just by following the advice that I give you.

      That you believe you are replying to Chris indicates that your mental health is slipping badly. Sad. Fucking sad.

    33. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't Chris, how come you mention YouTube and Twitter?

    34. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Slashdot is a public forum and EVERYONE can read the comments.

    35. Re: Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In typical reimer fashion, you reply with something perfectly true yet completely irrelevant. Well done!

    36. Re:Thanks Jack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you believe you are replying to Chris indicates that your mental health is slipping badly.

      I'm just pretending to be Chris because I know how easy it is to get you all hot and bothered.

      So I'm losing my mind if you imitate Chris and that makes me think that you are Chris?
      So that means that when I come here to give you encouragement and advice; You respond by trying to hurt my mental health?
      Did you get your coins out of storage? You should start watching the price. Might be a good time to dump them soon.
      You should promise you do at least one small thing for your career and one small thing to improve your finances every day. They can be extremely small things.

  5. Real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Corrupt Capitalist praised for commoditization of poor folks life savings.

    Why kill the cow when you have it milk itself and beg you to take the cheese?

    1. Re: Real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am guessing you make less than 10 bucks an hour flipping burgers or picking up garbage. I mean it is all you are good at but at what point did you become such a whiny bitch about your life choices.

    2. Re:Real story by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 1

      Exactly how was he responsible for that? He offered a simpler product, at lower cost, to people that were losing other investment and retirement options for reasons he had no control over (the death of pensions). Nobody was forced to use his products. I agree the state of the American retirement system has gone downhill, but you can hardly blame him for making the slower shallower.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    3. Re: Real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude...you just described every communist on the planet. They never made it in life, so they want everybody else to be equally miserable.

  6. WHO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who?

    1. Re: WHO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard this phrase stated with respect to Bogle. I was so happy to get a glimpse of his original paper. Very hard to find. Rumors stated it was incorrect and he had published it on a vanity press. I knew that was crazy talk. Sheer bliss to read the abstract. One can only hope to produce remotely comparable quality work in ones life

  7. real interesting subject by caviare · · Score: 2

    If you are one of those fund managers who makes massive fees, you won't be thanking him. Curiously these index funds exploit the efficiency of the market created by traders and actively traded funds and reduce it by creating vast category of new investors that don't contribute to the valuation effort.

    My hypothesis is that a secondary effect of them is to improve the performance of those who are prepared to research. The tertiary effect is that people drift back to actively managed funds. The net effect is that the market achieves balance, not only between those who buy and sell, but also between those who spend time and money trying to value the market and those who can't be arsed.

    1. Re:real interesting subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those new investors who plow money into index funds are contributing to the valuations. When you buy an index, you are buying a small amount of every one one of its constituent stocks. This gives even crappy stocks that are part of an index a lift.

      Therefore, I don't know about your hypothesis. If even crappy stocks get a boost from index funds, there is less of a performance discrepancy between good and bad stocks, making it harder to pick the winners. Then again, you might argue that the volume of stocks purchases generated by index funds buying the shares is nearly negligible compared to the daily trading volume.

      Anyway, for me the benefits of the index funds are diversity. Owning a single stock can be painful.

      Best wishes!

    2. Re:real interesting subject by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except the actively managed fund "experts" aren't actually any better at predicting the market. After fees, actively managed funds underperform low fee index funds with similar investment goals two-thirds of the time. And no, that doesn't mean one-third of actively managed funds are better than index funds; the overperforming funds change each year, and over 10 year periods, and the index funds win over 90% of the time.

      So your premise is that index funds are free riders benefiting from the research of more informed investors, yet if that were the case, they should, by definition, underperform the actively managed funds since the index funds should in theory be buying lower and selling higher (since the index funds are always riding coattails, as it were, buying after others buy, and selling after they sell). And all that money in index funds should, by your theory, be making informed investment choices even more lucrative. Yet that's not how it goes in practice. In practice, even as the fees on actively managed funds have gone down, they've continued to underperform the index funds. The only way your theory jives with reality is if the majority of the so-called "informed" investors, including professional fund managers, have no real idea what they're doing (Note: Not going to dispute that possibility).

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    3. Re:real interesting subject by caviare · · Score: 2

      That actively managed funds underperform the index fund after fees is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that they may overperform them before fees. My hypothesis is that the active fund managers and not their investors get the benefit of their research. As you say the fees on actively managed funds have decreased, however I do not think they can ever be as low as those on indexed funds. Not in the long term anyway, otherwise the manager is working for nothing.

      I doubt you are claiming that if everyone invested in the index or randomly, there wouldn't be any opportunities for those who research.

      My claim is that before the rise of index funds investors were paying way too much for the research of active fund managers, the effect of the index funds has been to reduce what active fund managers can charge for it, and if you are right, it may be that their investors are still paying too much.

      I don't think it's controversial that index funds are taking a free ride on traders and active fund managers. After all the price is determined by the competition between these people to make a buck at each others expense. As a investor in index funds myself, my attitude is ha ha ha, you people do all this work. As a result of your hubris I get the benefit of the valuation that occurs as a result of the competition.

    4. Re:real interesting subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your premise is that index funds are free riders benefiting from the research of more informed investors, yet if that were the case, they should, by definition, underperform the actively managed funds since the index funds should in theory be buying lower and selling higher (since the index funds are always riding coattails, as it were, buying after others buy, and selling after they sell).

      No, the OP is noting that investments in an index fund do not help the market price individual stocks.

  8. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for tha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the warmth coming from?

  9. Re: Insert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump grabbed your mom by the pussy then boasted how loose she was.

  10. 10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index fu by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    Boring, low-cost mutual funds like the Vanguard funds are how about 10 million Americans have become millionaires. Mustn't they've held Vanguard or similar funds inside their 401K or other retirement plan. That's most millionaires.

    Other interesting facts about millionaires:

    33% of millionaires never made $100,000 in any year.
    Most made less than $150K.

    Millionaires are no more likely than the average American to have received any inheritance. (21% f people, and 21% of millionaires, inherit any money).

    Less than 1% of millionaires made most of their money in one year, from a particular event. 99% consistently invested over the long term.

    Most commonly held jobs of millionaires:
    Engineer
    Accountant
    Teacher

    88% of millionaires have a bachelor's degree, 52% have a graduate degree. About half are first time graduates - their parents didn't have a degree.
    Of those will have a degree, most went to state schools rather than private schools, and 68% worked their way through school rather than taking out loans.

  11. Re: Insert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Keep chirping about trump, aspie

  12. LOLZ that summary by iggymanz · · Score: 0

    wow the person that wrote that summary probably thinks Musk is an inventor too.

  13. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Where I'm from, a millionaire is someone who owns a two bedroom condo.

    Two bedroom condos is Silicon Valley

  14. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by gwills · · Score: 1

    I have to agree. Looking at income mobility data and the industries and circumstances that are producing NEW millionaires makes the point crystal clear. For example, you don't need to benefit from an inheritance to realizes benefits from having a rich (or even richer-than-average) family. Also, the distribution of those who tend to accumulate wealth is massively skewed. So while you MAY be one of the lucky ones to not have their entire portfolio dissolve when the next financial crises occurs, your path to being rich is still poor, by the standards of the truly wealthy.

  15. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by ewibble · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but being a millionaire means very little now, you own your own home and little more. Yeah there are plenty of people who don't but you are by no means rich.

    Also although actively managed funds are a rip off they charge you for their "expert" knowledge but generally under perform the market, and charge you a percentage of what you invested. To be fair they should charge a percentage of what they earn't over the market average (how you would expect monkeys to perform), and if they are below give you the same percentage back.

    Still the cost of passive funds is to high what exactly do they need to do apart from setup the index and get a computer to buy the stock, it should be cents to invest with no ongoing fee. But fund managers/bankers make real fortunes just moving peoples money around and they like it that way.

  16. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The data indicates that having typical middle-class parents raise you, driving to Starbucks in a car loan does tend correlate with the kids doing the same thing. So there is a correlation there - up to typical middle class status.

    Those who do a lot better, millionaires and multi-millionaires, do *not* tend have rich parents, in fact the opposite is true. Multi-millionaires tend strongly to be people who budget and save, and that correlates with *lower* than average income of their parents when they grew up. Those who grow up with upper middle class parents tend to hand out money freely to Starbucks and Apple, and end up in debt or with little wealth. 80% of millionaires came from families that are middle class or lower.

    Let's look at the mega-rich you mentioned. The Forbes 400 is perhaps the best known and best research list of the wealthiest Americans. Of the super-rich (Forbes 400), more had poor parents than had parents that were super rich. Most of these mega-rich built on what their parents or other family members had done. Fred was a millionaire, his son Donald is a billionaire (and a fuckwad).

    One thing the mega rich tend to have in common in that they most often don't have hobbies they are passionate about, close friends, or much else other than money; they have focused on building their business empire and sacrificed other things. That's why I don't want to try to be mega rich. I'm good with $2 million, which doesn't require giving up time with my family - I just drink coffee at home with family rather than at Starbucks.

  17. Most US millionaires got there on the backs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Most US millionaires got there on the backs of slaves - either in the historic or modern sense.

    Well done you bastards, you won ......

  18. Re: 10 million millionaires in the US in 401k inde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Son, you marry up! Find a rich gal, can be fat and ugly, don't matter, and put a ring on that finger. Then separate and take half.

    I learned this from other women. No reason a dude can't pull the same stunt

  19. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Most millionaires were created by inflation. The process by which the banksters steal money from the elderly, basically depreciating their assets, whilst the bankster manipulate funds to promote inflation and generate income based upon that inflation.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  20. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    For the last 100 years investing an (inflation-adjusted) $5000 per year into the S&P 500 yields between ~$768,000 and $2.2 million (in inflation-adjusted dollars) after 40 years, on average. So tell me how putting a few thousand per year into the stock market won't make me rich?

  21. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by ranton · · Score: 1

    Mostly this just illustrates the shifting definition of being a millionaire. The still most common definition is someone with a million dollars in assets, but as you have pointed out that is no longer a significant amount of money. It represents about $30-40k per year in retirement income (increasing with inflation). But the term is more frequently being used to describe someone who consistently makes $1 million per year in income. This requires either a very high paying job or over $25 million in assets. It probably won't be long until the latter definition is more common, because it more accurately reflects what people have in mind when using the term millionaire.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  22. Net worth is the definition for the figures by raymorris · · Score: 1

    To my mind, borrowing a million dollars doesn't make you a millionaire, it just makes you in debt. So the definition uses for the figures above is *net worth*. That is, what you own minus what you owe. The figures I provided are people with a net worth of *at least* a million dollars. The average is about $2.5-$3 million, I don't recall exactly.

    For most millionaires that simply comes down to what's in their 401K or IRA. They've paid off their mortgage and bought their car three years ago with cash, typically.

  23. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Call it what you will, this is the process used by over 80% of people who have at least a million dollars:

    Typical salary $59,000.
    Invest 15%* in boring ass index mutual funds for 25 years and you've got a million dollars.

    Very simple, very boring, very effective.

    * Employer match averages 5% with the worker investing 10%.

  24. $50-60,000/year, no mortgage, little taxes by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > It represents about $30-40k per year in retirement income (increasing with inflation).

    Long term average market return is about 10% minus average inflation is 3.2%. Annual return without depleting your nest egg = $68,000.

    It turns out that returns tend to be higher in years that inflation is higher and lower during periods of low inflation, so the real return (net of inflation) is more stable than you might think.

    Put part of your money in safer, less volatile investments like bonds (not bond funds) and money market funds and you can easily figure on $50,000.

    When average life span was 72, somebody 60 years old had a pretty short investment horizon, so they'd have more than half their money in bonds. These days, even a 70 year old plans for 15 years out, so more stocks makes sense. If you invested for 20-30 years while working, you've got a million so significant drop one year would just mean you spend $30,000 of the principal that year and your kids only get $970,000 when you die. Oh well.

    1. Re: $50-60,000/year, no mortgage, little taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take money out of retirement fund assuming the long term average return rate then you'd be a fool who may have to eat ramen if rates over the shorter term (e. g. Fifteen years in retirement, not the thirty years of long term) don't match the optimistic figure. With prudence the return is $40k as noted, not $68k.

    2. Re: $50-60,000/year, no mortgage, little taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long term average market return =10%....

      Hahahahaha get the fuck off this site. If I invested in vanguard 500 vfinx 20 years ago my money would have less than doubled...maybe 2.9%.

      Stick market has has a huge run last 10 years but letâ(TM)s not call that a typical long term result.

    3. Re:$50-60,000/year, no mortgage, little taxes by nealric · · Score: 1

      The average life span of a 60 year old was never 72. The increase in life expectancy over the last 100 years or so has largely been the product of declining infant mortality and the elimination of many childhood diseases through vaccination (Measles, Polio, etc.). Heck, you can read texts from ancient Greece that talk about 80 years as a normal life span.

    4. Re: $50-60,000/year, no mortgage, little taxes by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Rates fluctuate over relatively short economic cycles (2-5 years). Those don't matter at all while you're saving (because you buy more shares of stock when the market is down so you gain more when it goes back up). To protect yourself after you retire you need to keep about 20% in a money market or T-Bills (essentially as cash). If the market goes down you tap into that cash supply, when it goes back up you add funds back to you cash supply. The market always goes back up, even after the Great Depression or the more recent Great Recession you only needed to avoid selling your investments for a few years.

    5. Re:$50-60,000/year, no mortgage, little taxes by dasunt · · Score: 1

      When average life span was 72, somebody 60 years old had a pretty short investment horizon, so they'd have more than half their money in bonds. These days, even a 70 year old plans for 15 years out, so more stocks makes sense. If you invested for 20-30 years while working, you've got a million so significant drop one year would just mean you spend $30,000 of the principal that year and your kids only get $970,000 when you die. Oh well.

      At a 4% withdrawal rate, even 100% stocks looks pretty safe. If we use historical simulations, and keep things inflation-adjusted, about only 1 out of 20 times would you run out of money in 30 years.

    6. Re: $50-60,000/year, no mortgage, little taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only accurate to say that after past recessions the market has tended to go back up, not that it will, and that can also depend on locality. For example, in the UK the stock market value has not really gone up much in nominal terms ems over a ten year period, and is down in real terms. Maybe in the long run it will return to average growth, but as Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead, but much sooner if you are retired.

      Even if the market recovers if you look at the analysis of needs versus portfolio size, you can still easily run out of money, which is why annuities are popular as they remove that risk. However, annuity rates are also lower than usual at the moment. So even with a million dollars choosing to be the wrong age may be a poor financial decision if it means you are retiring during a financial crash.

  25. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think working as a engineer and stashing a pitiful few thousand a year into the stock market is going to make you rich, you're so lost.

    Maybe not rich rich, but well-off enough to retire in just a few years.

    http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/

  26. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most millionaires were created by the housing bubble.

  27. Most active trade fund are like bureaucrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no reasons to actively trade (AKA speculate on rise and falls) on a stock.
    It is a known "secret" that profits of many active-traded funds around the worlds has nothing to do with how well they manage the funds, but the trade commissions sieve to their affiliate brokers / financial entities. Such funds simply "invent" tools to make all those unnecessary trade sound logical.

    Freakonomics has run a session explain why Vanguard unlike those "active funds" : http://freakonomics.com/podcast/stupidest-money/

    But few will bother.

  28. Try dividing by $50,000. Obviously saving is good by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Somebody who has saved up over a million dollars is probably not someone who is going to spend every penny of their investment income as soon as they hit retirement. Having an income of $60,000 doesn't mean you spend $60,000 every year (that's a habit broke people have - spend all of their income or a little more, like I've done before).

    So yeah, you probably wouldn't want to spend $60,000 - that doesn't mean your income isn't $60,000. It just means you decided not to spend 100% of your income.

    But just for fun, pretend you had zero rate of return for twenty years of retirement, which has never happened in the US, and you decided to spend $50,000 every year even with zero income. You've STILL got money to do that for twenty years. You'd end up not leaving anything to your kids, if in fact your retirement was a 20-year recession.

    I wouldn't PLAN to spend my principal most years, but if you've got $1,000,000 at age 55 and $900,000 at age 65, you're still quite okay. You certainly CAN stabilize your income and allow your principal to go up and down a bit with the market.

  29. Ho hum by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Edison stole his invention, exploiting America's refusal to recognize intellectual property rights in other countries. So did many U.S. "inventors".

    Ford was not the first to make cars, or even to make affordable cars. Ford was merely the best at getting his name touted.

    Steve Jobs?? Bwahahaha! The least competent narcissist on the planet? He invented nothing. Nor did Apple come up with portable or handheld computers. Apple were late in the game and overpriced.

    Don't revise history, just to pump up the obituary of someone. It makes a mockery of whatever they actually achieved.

    Applaud REAL achievements.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford industrialized the assembly line. That is why he is known.
       
      By the time Edison was doing his thing, the US was recognizing property rights. I don't dispute that he stole many of his inventions, however.

    2. Re: Ho hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Movies got started in the USA as the inventors of the formats and technology being used got so fed up of Edison personally claiming their inventions as his own that they left. To what extent Edison actually personally worked on the light bulb is unclear. It was an idea whose time had come given that Swann and a German inventor I don't remember the name of devised versions at the same time.

  30. Steve Jobs invented smartphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep it up Murica! LOL!!!!!!

  31. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    and then it's time to die. A million bucks probably not even enough to die with dignity after healthcare expenses

  32. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    there is a no fee index fund, and I guess you could create your own with one of the no-fee startups

  33. Bogle was a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have made thousands investing in bitcoin and gold bullion and he was opposed to that. The man was a idiot.

    1. Re:Bogle was a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bogle was a well known liberal sympathiser thats what explains how terrible he was at investing in amazing technologys like bitcoin. You have to be a certain level of book smart to understand economics at a deep enough level to know why bitcoin makes so much sense (hint: you dont want your wealth tied up in fiat currencies!). Guys like bogle just dont have the mental chops to get by in the real world.

    2. Re: Bogle was a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin is even less backed by real value than fiat currencies

  34. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who grow up with upper middle class parents tend to hand out money freely to Starbucks and Apple, and end up in debt or with little wealth

    Hey, if someone didn't spend all their money then how would you become a millionaire?

  35. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A million bucks probably not even enough to die with dignity after healthcare expenses

    Withdrawals from IRA + Social Security + Medicare = very comfortable lifestyle for 25+ years of retirement

  36. Re: 10 million millionaires in the US in 401k inde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 1973 the Trumps were engaged in legal action due to their habit of discriminating against tenants on the basis of race. An article written about that case noted that they owned, at that time, 14,000 housing units in New York and New Jersey (there were surely other assets, that was just what was mentioned). At todayâ(TM)s prices, there would be no way those would be worth less than $3.5 billion, probably higher. And thatâ(TM)s assuming no gains on them as an investment over that 46 years. With Just basic management, buying new units using the paid off ones as collateral that 14,000 units could have been turned into at least 60,000 units, valued at something like $15 billion to $30 billion. Instead, Donald Trump, who absorbed, was gifted, and inherited the bulk of his fathers assets, is only worth about $3.6 billion. Even that is dubious, since the extent of his debts isnâ(TM)t known, and he lies on his financial disclosures.

    Anyway, my point is that he did not get millions from his dad and turn it into billions. He got an empire that should have been worth tens of billions from his dad and turned it into a fraction of what it should have been.

  37. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Fred was a millionaire, his son Donald is a billionaire

    Fred was a billionaire in today's dollars. If you look at how long it took the son to become an actualy billionaire (i.e. not lying to the Forbes 400) people, it took a while *and* daddy's money passed on to him. There is a good chance that Fred was worth more, inflation adjusted, than the son ever was.

  38. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apple's Steve Jobs for the astonishing computer in your pocket"

    No, he was not the first to do it and has only made it more expensive and harder to repair.

  39. Not that it matters, but that's a lot of mortages by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That particular example doesn't matter, I don't have a horse in that race.

    I will note that you can't estimate the value of the company based on how many apartments they had - you have to subtract the mortgages on those apartment buildings. If the company buys a building for $20 million (because the competing bidder only offered $17 million), using a mortgage of $17 million, the value of the company is somewhere between $0 and $3 million. $20M asset - $17M loan against it = $3M value.

      Also note that Donald Trump was the president of the company in 1973, so it wouldn't be accurate to choose that as the "before Donald" valuation.

    But again that's because the point. The point is, of the ultra rich:
    More ultra-rich had broke parents than had ultra-rich parents.
    Most ultra-rich people started with a business their family had and grew it.

    Which again is kinda beside the main point, because I don't think many of us want to be obsessive about money, which seems to be key to becoming ultra-rich. We want to be comfortable, money-smart without being totally money focused.

  40. Re: Insert by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Trump is the first common-sense patriotic President since Reagan. He's setting up conditions that allow the country to recover, and that's driving traitors like you crazy.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  41. Re:10 million millionaires in the US in 401k index by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    99% of long term investors dont [sic] become millionaires

    You pulled that number out of your rear. About 4% of Americans are millionaires, and many of those who aren't now, will be as they grow older. In all likelihood, more millionaires are long-term investors than not.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  42. Jokes on u i was only prtendin 2 b stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://sonichu.com/cwcki/Rollin'_and_Trollin'
    https://youtu.be/MD4AulkzdJE

    Dang chris u fooled us.

  43. Re: Why the fuck would I thank steve jobs for tha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ford wasn't even the first to use an assembly line to manufacture cars.