12 ms·
> It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's hardly a panacea with perfect incentives. Sure, but I'd argue it's the best thing available to most retail investor
by auxym 9y ago
> It's not necessarily a bad idea, but it's hardly a panacea with perfect incentives.
Sure, but I'd argue it's the best thing available to most retail investors.
What's the alternative? Asking my mom to day trade and pick stocks to fund her retirement? Or investing in actively managed funds that charge 1-2 % fees, yet don't really outperform the market over the long term?
Index funds make it easy to get your money in the market and diversify, while keeping costs super low.
- achamayou 9y agoThey're definitely not bad, but government bonds or corporate bonds are also decent long term investments, and real estate generally also is, since it's connected to inflation and cost of living.
- __blockcipher__ 9y agoKind of a silly thing to say. Stocks are the backbone of a retirement portfolio. With only bonds plus a dash of REITs, you’d need like 300% more momey to retire than if you were heavily weighted to equities
- achamayou 9y agoStraw man. I don't know why you think it's silly to diversify into less volatile asset classes for retirement purposes. Returns aren't everything, risk matters.
- solipsism 9y agoThe giant straw man in this discussion is your original statement: it's hardly a panacea with perfect incentives Who said it was? People responded to you, giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you actually were making some kind of point. But you're not saying they're bad... you're not saying they shouldn't be part of a retirement portfolio... Apparently you're literally just saying "they're not a panacea"? I think everyone is in agreement here then, nothing to see here.
- useranme 9y agoI know it's not there yet but how far from "best thing available" is crypto?