12 ms·

How much they have in a savings account? Who has a savings account? I have $5 in my savings account because my credit union makes me. It has around a 0.025% int

How much they have in a savings account? Who has a savings account? I have $5 in my savings account because my credit union makes me. It has around a 0.025% interest rate so I would be stupid to put any more money into it.

jostmey 10y ago
Yeah, my interpretation is that people are not storing their wealth in dollars, which is a bad sign for the currency.
- sdegutis 10y ago
  It's not so much that dollars are the problem, it's that there are more lucrative ways to store money, ways which actually get returns. Savings accounts today are just a slightly more secure way of hiding money under the bed. Whereas if you invest it in basically anything else, you'll have a much better chance of it increasing, with often times very low risk of it decreasing. Modern savings account plans are the real problem here.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    What gives higher returns but near-zero risk?
    - striking 10y ago
      Bonds, at least? Mutual funds that make use of bonds? (This is a question, not an answer, by the way. I have no idea.)
      - jonknee 10y ago
        Bond rates are low too and have transaction costs. Very poor substitute for a savings account with an emergency fund. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bond... (.27% for 3 month treasuries, just .79% for 2 year)
      - umanwizard 10y ago
        Short-term, low-risk bonds (like T-bills) have super low interest rates also. Longer-term bonds are significantly higher risk than a savings account.
    - phonon 10y ago
      Treasury Series EE Bonds (~3.5% yield...)
      - umanwizard 10y ago
        These are vulnerable to changes in interest rates. If interest rates increase, their value drops.
        phonon 10y ago
        They are guaranteed to double after 20 years (hence 3.5% rate).
        ghaff 10y ago
        In current dollars.
        umanwizard 10y ago
        To explain a bit more what I mean by interest rate risk: Imagine I buy $1000 in EE bonds today. Then tomorrow, conditions change, and the government starts selling 20-year bonds with a 7% rate. My bonds are now worth much less than $1000 -- no one would buy them from me on the open market, except at a substantial discount, since they could just buy the higher-yield ones for $1000. These conditions that led to a higher interest rate are probably also leading to a higher inflation rate. So my $1000 is locked up for 20 years in an instrument where it's decreasing in real value.
        phonon 10y ago
        Yes, I know that. EE Bonds are not intended to be that liquid, they are meant to be held to maturity.
        umanwizard 10y ago
        Okay... so they're higher risk than a savings account.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      Index funds, through a reputable and low-overhead fund like Vanguard's; you'll never do worse than the market. They can absolutely go down, so don't put any money in them that you might need right away, but as a long-term investment, they'll always give you a rate of return approximating the overall economy.
      - umanwizard 10y ago
        You're basically saying the same thing as I am. I don't deny that there are better investment vehicles than a savings account. I'm just asking whether there is something of similarly low risk with a better interest rate. Stocks are definitely not lower-risk.
      - taurath 10y ago
        Stocks are not low risk. Stocks are not low risk. It bears repeating.
        1812Overture 10y ago
        Index funds aren't individual stocks. They're pretty low risk. If an index goes to 0, T-Bills, CDs, and cash won't be worth anything either, you'll need shotgun shells, generator fuel, and canned food.
        taurath 10y ago
        Index funds are stocks. The market contracts - frequently. Over long periods of time its gone up. See the chart below [0] - If you invested all your money in 1965, there is only a 8 year window at the end of the 90s where you would have averaged a 3% return per year. Much of the rest of the time you're looking at negative returns. [0]: https://static01.nyt.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2011/0102-metrics/triangle.png https://static01.nyt.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2011/0...
        1812Overture 10y ago
        If you invested at the worst time in the past century that would be bad. If you invested in T-bills or CDs you'd have gotten murdered by inflation in that period too. NYT piece you're referencing says the average annual return over 20 years is 4.1% net of taxes, fees, and inflation. Not too bad.
    - BorgHunter 10y ago
      Short-term federal debt funds like VFISX and VSGBX have very low risk and do better than most savings accounts. The risk is probably close enough to zero for most people, considering it's basically all interest rate risk on short-term U.S. federal government bonds.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    Most Americans aren't constantly moving dollars between investment accounts to eek out more interest (a terrible idea for many reasons!). In a world of negative interest rates, US savings accounts aren't so bad. The problem is most don't have adequate savings.
- gleenn 10y ago
  You're probably thinking to deeply about this. I think most people are "storing" their money in consumable assets that they are likely immediately consuming - aka broke. Thinking about what you have your money in is pretty high level for a lot of people I think.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    Actually it's more like a very significant amount of people have the majority of their net worth "stored" in their homes. https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20Highlights%202011.pdf https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20Highligh... (Direct link to spreadsheet here: http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth_Tables_2011.xlsx http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth_Tables_2011...) It's kind of difficult to fully read this 2011 survey since "percent holding" and "median value" is in two separate tabs, and it's hard to get a good sense of correlations. But the spreadsheet seems to show: - Almost 70% of people owned a savings account, with a median value of $2,450 overall. - 29% of people own a checking account, with a median value of $600 - 85% of people own a motor vehicle, with a median value of about $6,800 - 65% of people own a home, with a median equity value of $80,000 - 42% of people have a 401k, with a median value of $30,000 - 29% of people have an IRA account, with a median value of $32,000. By far, it appears that housing is the most valuable asset many people own; at least, in every category, the median for housing is higher (sometimes up to 6 times higher) than the median for a 401K account. Also, it seems that a far more percentage of people have houses compared to 401Ks, the next largest category with >$10K median assets. Now, is it a bad sign? The only things I can say: A) Houses are hardly a "liquid asset". B) Home ownership for many reasons is declining (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/04/28/u-s-homeownership-rate-falls-again-nearing-a-48-year-low/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/04/28/u-s-homeownership-...). The later point makes me wondering if future generations' preparation for retirement may be impacted. The former is not a bad thing if you do have liquid assets for emergencies etc, but I can imagine there is a significant percentage which do not. (A 401K really isn't a great "liquid asset" for instance, and some probably don't have much of that.)
    - ac29 10y ago
      That percentage for checking accounts is extremely low, and suggests that half of homeowners don't have checking account, and only a third of car owners do. I cant reconcile how that large of a discrepancy is possible. Surely some people inherited houses or cars, or paid literal cash, but it cant be that many. edit: This FDIC report [0] from earlier this month suggests only 7% of households are "unbanked", meaning they dont have access to a bank account (doesn't specify what type). That number makes way more sense. [0] https://fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/spsep0816.html https://fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/spsep0816.html
sdegutis 10y ago
According to my dad, savings accounts used to actually be worth using when he was a kid. The interest rate meant you would actually earn a (relatively) substantial amount of money if you put extra cash in there and left it for 10 or 20 years. But these days you'd only have gained a few dollars in the same amount of time. Savings accounts are pointless now.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  Even a decade ago, "high-yield savings accounts" were a thing, earning 5% interest. But that occurred during a time when the federal funds rates were quite high as well, and inflation had a comparable rate, making the interest rate illusionary. In practice, savings accounts are never likely to significantly outpace inflation.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Well, and for fairly long stretches of time over the past fifty years or so, money that you stuck under the mattress or otherwise in non-interest bearing accounts was taking a fairly substantial hit in value every year due to inflation. Currently, the return on just about any near-zero risk investment (CDs, Treasuries, bank savings accounts) is so near zero return that it's probably not even worth dealing with for any modest sum of money.
- herge 10y ago
  I suspect there was an element of access and liquidity, especially for small amounts. It was a lot easier back then to go to your local bank to ask your teller to put money into your savings account than buy bonds, stocks, etc. Nowadays with e-trade and the like, it's as easy to use much more sophisticated investment mechanisms than back then.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    That has zero to do with it. Interest rates around the globe are much lower than they were in the past (to the point of trillions in negative interest bonds where if you hold to term you're guaranteed to not get back your investment!). There is currently too much cash in the world without good places to put it, hence plunging yields. The short version: your bank doesn't pay much interest because they have no great higher yielding places to put your deposits to work. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/there-are-now-117-trillion-dollars-worth-of-bonds-with-negative-yields.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/there-are-now-117-trillion-do...
dudul 10y ago
What do you use to hold your emergency fund? I agree with you regarding the useless interest rate, but I can't think of a better way to have money immediately available in case of unexpected expense. Do you just use a checking account for that?
- amock 10y ago
  A CD ladder or I Bonds will earn more than most savings accounts and is still risk free and easily accessible after a short period.
- FLUX-YOU 10y ago
  Credit cards are fine for it. The logistics of getting money out of a savings account is slightly more annoying than a card if you are in an emergency.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Many Americans depend on their credit cards to cover unexpected expenses.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  Checking accounts, but you need a lot less in your "emergency fund" than you think you do. You don't need 6 months of salary in your emergency fund. In a true emergency, you can always get money from an index fund with at most a few days' notice (one business day). If you need more money than your checking account in less than a few days notice, and you know you can easily cover it by selling shares from an index fund, then charge it to a credit card. That doesn't mean you should ever carry a balance or pay interest; it just means you rely on the fixed period of time between charging something and paying the bill to give you time to sell stock.
  - taurath 10y ago
    If the market tanks again like it did 9 short years ago then pulling your money out will be immensely painful.
tantalor 10y ago
This website seems to consider any asset account besides checking as "savings account", including CD, IRA, 401(k), and stocks/bonds. See https://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/how-save-million-dollars/ https://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/how-save-mil...
- desdiv 10y ago
  The bottom of the page says: Methodology: This GOBankingRates.com survey posed the question, “How much money do you have saved in your savings account?” to 7,052 people among all 50 states and Washington, DC. Responses were collected through a Google Consumer Survey conducted from Aug. 1, 2016, to Aug. 9, 2016, and responses are representative of the U.S. online population. The survey has a 2.6 percent margin of error.
  - tantalor 10y ago
    Yeah I totally think that's ambiguous, and people are likely to answer that under the definition of savings account as "my low-interest bank account that isn't my checking account" but the authors of the study actually meant "any account you use for saving money besides your checking account, including retirement".
jackbravo 10y ago
If they asked me how much money I had in savings, I would guess they are referring to money I have either in a savings account, or with an investment firm or somehow saved for my retirement. And not specifically in a savings account.
- mikeash 10y ago
  According to the article, the question they asked is literally, "How much money do you have saved in your savings account?"
- sseveran 10y ago
  The results are not really too dissimilar from the Fed study sited by The Atlantic earlier this year. In my not so humble opinion the question asked as part of the Fed study is more robust but the conclusion is similar. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secre...
fspeech 10y ago
My bank insists on calling its high yield savings account a checking account. In the past banks tended to value savings accounts because the Fed requires less reserve on these. Nowadays reserves are more than abundant. Investors tend to value checking account deposits more because they think transaction accounts are more stable over time. So it is a naming game.
FilterSweep 10y ago
> I would be stupid to put any more money into it. As a millennial who will not be retiring (period) unless severely injured, where else would I put my savings? My checking account rate is 0%. Whole Term life insurance only can be "cashed in" after building 20+ years. I'm holding some long term positions in stocks (risk), but honestly, I cant find anywhere else I would put the bulk than a savings account.
- knicholes 10y ago
  Could buy homes to rent out.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  90% VTI 10% BND. So far, 6.3% return this year (based on arbitrary pay ins, no market timing used)
- grardb 10y ago
  Fellow millennial here. I'd recommend investing in stock indexes. Your money, on average, will grow at a faster rate than inflation. If you leave your money in a checking or savings account, you will lose money to inflation. If you're interested, I'd check out: - The Mr. Money Mustache blog (my personal favorite) - r/personalfinance - patio11 also wrote an article on investing recently: https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/investing-for-geeks?__s=esaiz3kazigwidftsigk https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/investing... A relevant MMM blog post (there are plenty others): http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/18/how-to-make-money-in-the-stock-market/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/18/how-to-make-money-... There are also a lot of other blogs if you're not into his philosophy or writing style. Edit: Just for clarity, I know that you said you invest in stocks currently, but I was mostly speaking to, "I cant find anywhere else I would put the bulk than a savings account." I don't have a savings account, and I treat my investments like savings. You shouldn't need a lot of money in your current savings account, but you should have a lot in investments. If you feel the need to have a lot in your savings account, I'm guessing it means you take money out of it often, in which case it might as well be in a checking account. Just my $0.02.
  - 10y ago
csomar 10y ago
Is that yearly/daily/monthly?

jostmey 10y ago

Yeah, my interpretation is that people are not storing their wealth in dollars, which is a bad sign for the currency.

sdegutis 10y ago
It's not so much that dollars are the problem, it's that there are more lucrative ways to store money, ways which actually get returns. Savings accounts today are just a slightly more secure way of hiding money under the bed. Whereas if you invest it in basically anything else, you'll have a much better chance of it increasing, with often times very low risk of it decreasing. Modern savings account plans are the real problem here.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  What gives higher returns but near-zero risk?
  - striking 10y ago
    Bonds, at least? Mutual funds that make use of bonds? (This is a question, not an answer, by the way. I have no idea.)
    - jonknee 10y ago
      Bond rates are low too and have transaction costs. Very poor substitute for a savings account with an emergency fund. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bond... (.27% for 3 month treasuries, just .79% for 2 year)
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      Short-term, low-risk bonds (like T-bills) have super low interest rates also. Longer-term bonds are significantly higher risk than a savings account.
  - phonon 10y ago
    Treasury Series EE Bonds (~3.5% yield...)
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      These are vulnerable to changes in interest rates. If interest rates increase, their value drops.
      - phonon 10y ago
        They are guaranteed to double after 20 years (hence 3.5% rate).
        ghaff 10y ago
        In current dollars.
        umanwizard 10y ago
        To explain a bit more what I mean by interest rate risk: Imagine I buy $1000 in EE bonds today. Then tomorrow, conditions change, and the government starts selling 20-year bonds with a 7% rate. My bonds are now worth much less than $1000 -- no one would buy them from me on the open market, except at a substantial discount, since they could just buy the higher-yield ones for $1000. These conditions that led to a higher interest rate are probably also leading to a higher inflation rate. So my $1000 is locked up for 20 years in an instrument where it's decreasing in real value.
        phonon 10y ago
        Yes, I know that. EE Bonds are not intended to be that liquid, they are meant to be held to maturity.
        umanwizard 10y ago
        Okay... so they're higher risk than a savings account.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    Index funds, through a reputable and low-overhead fund like Vanguard's; you'll never do worse than the market. They can absolutely go down, so don't put any money in them that you might need right away, but as a long-term investment, they'll always give you a rate of return approximating the overall economy.
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      You're basically saying the same thing as I am. I don't deny that there are better investment vehicles than a savings account. I'm just asking whether there is something of similarly low risk with a better interest rate. Stocks are definitely not lower-risk.
    - taurath 10y ago
      Stocks are not low risk. Stocks are not low risk. It bears repeating.
      - 1812Overture 10y ago
        Index funds aren't individual stocks. They're pretty low risk. If an index goes to 0, T-Bills, CDs, and cash won't be worth anything either, you'll need shotgun shells, generator fuel, and canned food.
        taurath 10y ago
        Index funds are stocks. The market contracts - frequently. Over long periods of time its gone up. See the chart below [0] - If you invested all your money in 1965, there is only a 8 year window at the end of the 90s where you would have averaged a 3% return per year. Much of the rest of the time you're looking at negative returns. [0]: https://static01.nyt.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2011/0102-metrics/triangle.png https://static01.nyt.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2011/0...
        1812Overture 10y ago
        If you invested at the worst time in the past century that would be bad. If you invested in T-bills or CDs you'd have gotten murdered by inflation in that period too. NYT piece you're referencing says the average annual return over 20 years is 4.1% net of taxes, fees, and inflation. Not too bad.
  - BorgHunter 10y ago
    Short-term federal debt funds like VFISX and VSGBX have very low risk and do better than most savings accounts. The risk is probably close enough to zero for most people, considering it's basically all interest rate risk on short-term U.S. federal government bonds.
- jonknee 10y ago
  Most Americans aren't constantly moving dollars between investment accounts to eek out more interest (a terrible idea for many reasons!). In a world of negative interest rates, US savings accounts aren't so bad. The problem is most don't have adequate savings.
gleenn 10y ago
You're probably thinking to deeply about this. I think most people are "storing" their money in consumable assets that they are likely immediately consuming - aka broke. Thinking about what you have your money in is pretty high level for a lot of people I think.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Actually it's more like a very significant amount of people have the majority of their net worth "stored" in their homes. https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20Highlights%202011.pdf https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20Highligh... (Direct link to spreadsheet here: http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth_Tables_2011.xlsx http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth_Tables_2011...) It's kind of difficult to fully read this 2011 survey since "percent holding" and "median value" is in two separate tabs, and it's hard to get a good sense of correlations. But the spreadsheet seems to show: - Almost 70% of people owned a savings account, with a median value of $2,450 overall. - 29% of people own a checking account, with a median value of $600 - 85% of people own a motor vehicle, with a median value of about $6,800 - 65% of people own a home, with a median equity value of $80,000 - 42% of people have a 401k, with a median value of $30,000 - 29% of people have an IRA account, with a median value of $32,000. By far, it appears that housing is the most valuable asset many people own; at least, in every category, the median for housing is higher (sometimes up to 6 times higher) than the median for a 401K account. Also, it seems that a far more percentage of people have houses compared to 401Ks, the next largest category with >$10K median assets. Now, is it a bad sign? The only things I can say: A) Houses are hardly a "liquid asset". B) Home ownership for many reasons is declining (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/04/28/u-s-homeownership-rate-falls-again-nearing-a-48-year-low/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/04/28/u-s-homeownership-...). The later point makes me wondering if future generations' preparation for retirement may be impacted. The former is not a bad thing if you do have liquid assets for emergencies etc, but I can imagine there is a significant percentage which do not. (A 401K really isn't a great "liquid asset" for instance, and some probably don't have much of that.)
  - ac29 10y ago
    That percentage for checking accounts is extremely low, and suggests that half of homeowners don't have checking account, and only a third of car owners do. I cant reconcile how that large of a discrepancy is possible. Surely some people inherited houses or cars, or paid literal cash, but it cant be that many. edit: This FDIC report [0] from earlier this month suggests only 7% of households are "unbanked", meaning they dont have access to a bank account (doesn't specify what type). That number makes way more sense. [0] https://fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/spsep0816.html https://fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/spsep0816.html

sdegutis 10y ago

According to my dad, savings accounts used to actually be worth using when he was a kid. The interest rate meant you would actually earn a (relatively) substantial amount of money if you put extra cash in there and left it for 10 or 20 years. But these days you'd only have gained a few dollars in the same amount of time. Savings accounts are pointless now.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
Even a decade ago, "high-yield savings accounts" were a thing, earning 5% interest. But that occurred during a time when the federal funds rates were quite high as well, and inflation had a comparable rate, making the interest rate illusionary. In practice, savings accounts are never likely to significantly outpace inflation.
ghaff 10y ago
Well, and for fairly long stretches of time over the past fifty years or so, money that you stuck under the mattress or otherwise in non-interest bearing accounts was taking a fairly substantial hit in value every year due to inflation. Currently, the return on just about any near-zero risk investment (CDs, Treasuries, bank savings accounts) is so near zero return that it's probably not even worth dealing with for any modest sum of money.
herge 10y ago
I suspect there was an element of access and liquidity, especially for small amounts. It was a lot easier back then to go to your local bank to ask your teller to put money into your savings account than buy bonds, stocks, etc. Nowadays with e-trade and the like, it's as easy to use much more sophisticated investment mechanisms than back then.
- jonknee 10y ago
  That has zero to do with it. Interest rates around the globe are much lower than they were in the past (to the point of trillions in negative interest bonds where if you hold to term you're guaranteed to not get back your investment!). There is currently too much cash in the world without good places to put it, hence plunging yields. The short version: your bank doesn't pay much interest because they have no great higher yielding places to put your deposits to work. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/there-are-now-117-trillion-dollars-worth-of-bonds-with-negative-yields.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/there-are-now-117-trillion-do...

dudul 10y ago

What do you use to hold your emergency fund? I agree with you regarding the useless interest rate, but I can't think of a better way to have money immediately available in case of unexpected expense. Do you just use a checking account for that?

amock 10y ago
A CD ladder or I Bonds will earn more than most savings accounts and is still risk free and easily accessible after a short period.
FLUX-YOU 10y ago
Credit cards are fine for it. The logistics of getting money out of a savings account is slightly more annoying than a card if you are in an emergency.
snowwrestler 10y ago
Many Americans depend on their credit cards to cover unexpected expenses.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
Checking accounts, but you need a lot less in your "emergency fund" than you think you do. You don't need 6 months of salary in your emergency fund. In a true emergency, you can always get money from an index fund with at most a few days' notice (one business day). If you need more money than your checking account in less than a few days notice, and you know you can easily cover it by selling shares from an index fund, then charge it to a credit card. That doesn't mean you should ever carry a balance or pay interest; it just means you rely on the fixed period of time between charging something and paying the bill to give you time to sell stock.
- taurath 10y ago
  If the market tanks again like it did 9 short years ago then pulling your money out will be immensely painful.

tantalor 10y ago

This website seems to consider any asset account besides checking as "savings account", including CD, IRA, 401(k), and stocks/bonds. See https://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/how-save-million-dollars/ https://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/how-save-mil...

desdiv 10y ago
The bottom of the page says: Methodology: This GOBankingRates.com survey posed the question, “How much money do you have saved in your savings account?” to 7,052 people among all 50 states and Washington, DC. Responses were collected through a Google Consumer Survey conducted from Aug. 1, 2016, to Aug. 9, 2016, and responses are representative of the U.S. online population. The survey has a 2.6 percent margin of error.
- tantalor 10y ago
  Yeah I totally think that's ambiguous, and people are likely to answer that under the definition of savings account as "my low-interest bank account that isn't my checking account" but the authors of the study actually meant "any account you use for saving money besides your checking account, including retirement".

jackbravo 10y ago

If they asked me how much money I had in savings, I would guess they are referring to money I have either in a savings account, or with an investment firm or somehow saved for my retirement. And not specifically in a savings account.

mikeash 10y ago
According to the article, the question they asked is literally, "How much money do you have saved in your savings account?"
sseveran 10y ago
The results are not really too dissimilar from the Fed study sited by The Atlantic earlier this year. In my not so humble opinion the question asked as part of the Fed study is more robust but the conclusion is similar. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secre...

fspeech 10y ago

My bank insists on calling its high yield savings account a checking account. In the past banks tended to value savings accounts because the Fed requires less reserve on these. Nowadays reserves are more than abundant. Investors tend to value checking account deposits more because they think transaction accounts are more stable over time. So it is a naming game.

FilterSweep 10y ago

> I would be stupid to put any more money into it. As a millennial who will not be retiring (period) unless severely injured, where else would I put my savings? My checking account rate is 0%. Whole Term life insurance only can be "cashed in" after building 20+ years. I'm holding some long term positions in stocks (risk), but honestly, I cant find anywhere else I would put the bulk than a savings account.

knicholes 10y ago
Could buy homes to rent out.
JBReefer 10y ago
90% VTI 10% BND. So far, 6.3% return this year (based on arbitrary pay ins, no market timing used)
grardb 10y ago
Fellow millennial here. I'd recommend investing in stock indexes. Your money, on average, will grow at a faster rate than inflation. If you leave your money in a checking or savings account, you will lose money to inflation. If you're interested, I'd check out: - The Mr. Money Mustache blog (my personal favorite) - r/personalfinance - patio11 also wrote an article on investing recently: https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/investing-for-geeks?__s=esaiz3kazigwidftsigk https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/investing... A relevant MMM blog post (there are plenty others): http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/18/how-to-make-money-in-the-stock-market/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/18/how-to-make-money-... There are also a lot of other blogs if you're not into his philosophy or writing style. Edit: Just for clarity, I know that you said you invest in stocks currently, but I was mostly speaking to, "I cant find anywhere else I would put the bulk than a savings account." I don't have a savings account, and I treat my investments like savings. You shouldn't need a lot of money in your current savings account, but you should have a lot in investments. If you feel the need to have a lot in your savings account, I'm guessing it means you take money out of it often, in which case it might as well be in a checking account. Just my $0.02.
- 10y ago

csomar 10y ago

Is that yearly/daily/monthly?