rkbabang

Not a chance. I never try to calculate my returns myself. I just go by what Fidelity tells me every year. This is their disclaimer on their rate of return calculation: I'm sure someone saying that their return is over 100% would still show great returns even if a different method was used.

Someone else mentioned this in the how old are you thread. It is an interesting question, so I thought I'd create the poll. I'm not even going to try to predict the outcome of this one....OK I'll take a guess: 25% yes, 75% no.

I'm 41 and married with two kids. My portfolio isn't small, but it isn't Ericopoly-sized yet either.

Sounds like another new poll is needed.

Seems that the average age is significantly lower than your guess. Don't think it's that surprising since this is an internet forum after all. Yes, that seems to be the case. If the poll's to be believed we have at least one centenarian on here. I wonder if that is really the case or if maybe this is the same person who voted "Other" on the gender poll.

Since this seems to be the week for polls. Here's another one. My bet is 40s end up with the most votes, but I really have no idea.

Oh yes, the finger chart.

Congratulations! That must feel pretty good.

Haha, guilty...But I must say this board is spectacular. I think the newbies get so excited that something like this exists after they emerge from the purgatory of yahoo message boards and motley fool and seeking alpha comments and have an urge to participate. I know I do. The debates are almost always very civil and both sides generally are trying to seek the truth, rather than just scream at each other and make ad hominem attacks. It's truly something special. Even the ever exclusive VIC comment streams can be worse than here. So who wants to debate the value of Jim Chanos and alpha generating shortsellers? LOL *Smiles* I agree somewhat I think thepupil is right that there is quite a bit of excitement when someone first finds this board and realizes the wealth of information on it. I certainly acted the same way when I first started out. The again, I've been here three years and only have about 500 posts. I'm moderately impressed with my self-restraint given that I'm a former windbag lawyer. I've been a member since 2008 and only have 900 (but I don't remember when the switch to this new board was that 900 is probably only since then). I wouldn't want to discourage people from posting though. What makes this board so valuable is all the info posted by some incredibly smart and talented people. As Warren says "It's better to hang out with people better than you." lol.

That is another big problem with the government schools. The rate of growth for administrators (whatever the hell they all do) has been much much higher than the rate of growth for new teaching jobs. It won't be long before we have more administrators than teachers in the schools. You'd think with all the new technology administration of the schools would require less people now than it did 50 years ago, not three or four times more people, but that is just what you get when government runs things.

My secrets are that 1) I don't manage other people's money, just my own. I think that right there gives me an advantage over you professionals (no withdrawals) and reduces stress. 2) I go big when I have a good idea. In the past I have usually had 2-5 good ideas at a time. This year it was mostly just BAC with a lot of leverage. 3) I coat tail other investors at least to initially find my ideas. When I find one I love, I invest big. I made a lot following Biglari into Western sizzlin, Friendlys, Steak & Shake. I did well with NFLX and CMG a few years ago (sold both too early), as well as ISRG. I made out very well with the MIDD/OVEN merger a few years back. And now BAC. I have no idea where my next idea will come from, but I'll know it when I find it. It seems to be working so far. What program/site do you use to get those return calculations? That is just a screen shot of the "Performance" tab when logged into my Fidelity account. I have all my accounts with Fidelity except my 401K. And my 401K is just in mutual funds anyway so I don't count that as being my performance, but even that is up near 20% this year.

My secrets are that 1) I don't manage other people's money, just my own. I think that right there gives me an advantage over you professionals (no withdrawals) and reduces stress. 2) I go big when I have a good idea. In the past I have usually had 2-5 good ideas at a time. This year it was mostly just BAC with a lot of leverage. 3) I coat tail other investors at least to initially find my ideas. When I find one I love, I invest big. I made a lot following Biglari into Western sizzlin, Friendlys, Steak & Shake. I did well with NFLX and CMG a few years ago (sold both too early), as well as ISRG. I made out very well with the MIDD/OVEN merger a few years back. And now BAC. I have no idea where my next idea will come from, but I'll know it when I find it. It seems to be working so far.

There is a lot of talk in this thread about $100K+ salaries, even some who think teachers should make more than that. I realize that many people here make more than that and don't think of themselves as rich, but if you look at the reality of the situation only 7% of wage earners in the US make $100K+/year. If you make that much, then you are in the 93 percentile or higher. My father was a heavy equipment operator and worked his butt off for 40+ years and never made even close to $100K in a year (he just retired this year). He never got his summers off either. I think he'd have a legitimate objection to make if the 3rd grade teacher in town getting paid with his property taxes sitting behind a desk indoors for 6 hours/day, getting her summers off, as well as xmas break, Feb vacation, April vacation, etc, made $100K/yr. In fact the majority of people in the US earn less than $50K/yr. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Personal_Household_Income_U.png Just trying to put things in perspective.

According to Fidelity my YTD rate of return is +94.22% as of 11/30/2013. It will give me total 2013 returns about 10 days or so into next month. Its been a very good year so far. <knocking on wood> EDIT: Sorry I read that wrong. YTD is +83.10%, 1-Year is +94.22%.

I agree I've got 7 chandeliers in my house that take from 4 to 8 bulbs each. The LED bulbs aren't quite there yet. The heat sink looks awful and the light isn't right. I've stocked up on these, I have a bunch at home: (EDIT: note that these are 130V bulbs so you will only use about 35W @ 120V). https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/5191/DEC-101000.html?tid=car. In fact I might order another 100 just to be sure. Hopefully by the time I run out there will be an option that looks decent. Or I'll go with the 25W halogen if they aren't banned yet by then.

Latest LED bulb from Phillips to go on sale in Jan. 800 lumen (60W equivalent), no heat sink, 25000 hour life, maybe for under $10 (they haven't released the price yet). http://www.geek.com/news/philips-slimstyle-led-bulb-drops-the-heat-sink-looks-like-its-from-the-future-1579806/

And LEDs aren't the end of innovations in lighting technology. There are also these on the horizon. Laser diode lighting. Already being used in headlights for automobiles, and when costs come down will be used for general lighting purposes. They last longer than LEDs as well as being even more efficient. http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/bmw-laser-headlights-slice-through-the-dark "For general lighting, what makes the lasers attractive is that they can be packed much more densely on a chip than LEDs can. Laser-based lights would not only be more energy efficient on a dollars-per-lumen basis but also more flexible, able to work as spotlights or floodlights at the flick of a switch."

LEDs are semiconductor devices, the cooler they get the better they run and longer they will last. When designing a light bulb the team's objective is to get the heat the LED produces out as fast as possible. Since heat goes from inside to the outside very fast the outside gets hot. Don't worry, LEDs bulbs will never become as hot as incandescent bulbs tough. BeerBaron Thanks BB I agree with SJ as far as my right to be wasteful if I chose. Nothing annoyed me more when our Gov. gave insurance discounts for certain fuel efficient vehicles. The rates should only be different if they are in less accidents or cheaper to repair. And the Hummer getting 8 mpg is actually subsidizing road repair and maintenance for the SmartCar, with gas being 40+% tax. I hear you, but when you look at everything government does, from war, to taxes, to printing money, to corruption, to subsidies, to regulations and protectionism, it is pretty hard to get too excited about light bulbs. Although this pissed me off a lot more in 2007 when the only alternative was CFLs. I simply can't stand florescent lighting and I won't use is in my home. If LEDs didn't exist I'd be filling my garage with cases of 60watt incandescents right now. Luckily the LEDs are really nice. The 2700K Phillips bulbs give a light that looks just like incandescent lighting. But I agree with you, I shouldn't be forced to save energy. You either pay more for the bulbs or more for the energy you use, it should be your choice.

I think Churchill sums it up best: Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I disagree. Even many dictatorships have outperformed democracy. At least democracy as we define it nowadays with an equal voting right for everyone. I think that's one of the most naive and stupid things ever envisioned by humans. Indeed. Government is the legitimization of aggressive violence. A benevolent dictator can certainly be much better than democracy, in fact with democracy you are almost guaranteeing that it will be a hot mess. Of course, of all the governments and systems tried by man the only thing humans have yet to attempt is to stop trying to legitimize offensive violence. Yes I know, you think violence is necessary to build roads, put out fires, and educate children. I disagree.

The X-files showed us that the only way to get piece on Earth is for all people to die. Please don't wish for that! ;) That wouldn't quite do it either. Lions would still kill antelope and sharks would still kill seals, lobsters would still eat their young, etc.

:( Note the tone of the article (China is starting shit in international waters), but also notice that China's ships and planes aren't anywhere near the United States, yet US is over there in force. Keep this in mind if it ever gets to the point where the equivalent of "we had no choice" or "they started it" is claimed by US politicians.

After Obama goes on TV and explains why America has no choice but to go to war and pulls on all the patriotism strings that where installed in every American's brain during their 13+ years of government indoctrination. 60+ percent of Americans (including many here on this list) will agree. Once again there will be American flag stickers on every pickup truck and the military will have a field day recruiting all the lower class kids right out of high school. Talk of bringing back the draft will turn serious. While no one is paying attention to anything but the war government at home will increase in size and scope in all kinds of ways.... Even many years later after the unmitigated disaster is years in the past, the veterans will be honored as some type of heroes for their "service". It's the same old story. The same old song and dance. We will be fooled again. --Eric Yeah but there has to be incentive. Middle class has gotten very rich and much better informed over the past 90 years. I cannot see an incentive in the immenent future for attacking a large country. It would completly destroy the economy, and there are enough liberals to block this. I can see how the US can attack some shitty small country, but not another first world economy. There were huge incentives before world war 1 and 2. You dont have that now. Maybe if the US falls of the cliff tho, but then it seems more that China has incentives to attack the US. But then you have to explain to your people why its good to get half your country nuked. And im not sure if it can get bad enough in the US to make it worthwhile for china. Did you know 2500 nukes were exploded between world war 2 and now? Both countries have super advanced stealth bombers, and it would be a question of time before one got through and manages to nuke like 8 huge cities in a row. You didnt have that in world war 2 (except for japan, and see what happened there). This would also make land on land battles vs two huge countries impossible. And once you win the war you would have a giant problem supressing all the guerilla attacks and rebuilding your economy. So there would have to be a waaaay larger incentive to start a war now then 60-80 years ago. All true of course. I'm just always skeptical of "it can't happen here", "it can't happen again", "things are different now" type arguments. Technology changes, weapons change, but for the most part, people don't change. I bet the average American thinks we can wipe the floor with China and wouldn't need much convincing if national pride was at stake. I hope you're right.

After Obama goes on TV and explains why America has no choice but to go to war and pulls on all the patriotism strings that where installed in every American's brain during their 13+ years of government indoctrination. 60+ percent of Americans (including many here on this list) will agree. Once again there will be American flag stickers on every pickup truck and the military will have a field day recruiting all the lower class kids right out of high school. Talk of bringing back the draft will turn serious. While no one is paying attention to anything but the war government at home will increase in size and scope in all kinds of ways.... Even many years later after the unmitigated disaster is years in the past, the veterans will be honored as some type of heroes for their "service". It's the same old story. The same old song and dance. We will be fooled again. --Eric

Thanks, I'm adding that to my to-read list.

I believe all of the above (with the exception of possible extinction) were widely believed before both of the major world wars in the last century. Agreed. Don't overestimate the decisions of humans in large groups. I agree. The other popular opinion immediately prior to the first world war was that there was too much wealth, trade, and economic dependencies between the various countries of Europe to go to war. That the governments would never risk killing the goose that had been laying the golden eggs. This was all true of course, but they decided to kill the goose anyway.* Never underestimate the desire of the political classes to actually get to use all of these toys that they've spent all these years building. *EDIT: Maybe they didn't actually kill the goose, but they did give him a damn good beating, as well as destroying almost every egg it had laid up to that point.