5 ms·
My takeaway from the article was actually matching exactly what you're saying. You understand that investment in the long term should be profitable, but can be
by gingerlime 6y ago
My takeaway from the article was actually matching exactly what you're saying. You understand that investment in the long term should be profitable, but can be negative in the shorter term. And that's exactly why when you're younger you don't need to worry too much about bumps along the way, because you have a longer horizon. When you're older, your horizon is shorter and you have to adjust accordingly.
- sokoloff 6y agoUnless you have more invested than you’ll plausibly need to withdraw, in which case your investment horizon can be longer than your lifetime. (My investing horizon is ideally more based on my future grandchildren’s lifespan than my own.)
- gingerlime 6y agovery true. I was considering a narrower case. I think the key here is your own horizon (however near or far you see it)
- chii 6y agoIf your investment horizon is longer then your life time, then it means it's dynastic wealth, and is passed to your children/kin.
- peterwoerner 6y agoYou can also be thinking about trying to set your grandchildren up with a small inheritance (e.g. down payment on a moderate home). I wouldn't consider that dynastic wealth (they will still need to work) but it goes a long long way to making your grandchildren's life much, much easier.
- sokoloff 6y agoExactly. My parents gave me $10K towards my first house down payment and I plan to do similarly for my kids. I’m nowhere near on track to need to talk to a estate trust advisor, but I’m planning to have saved up more than 25x my annual income requirement in retirement; as a result, I’m very likely to die with a positive balance in my accounts. Don’t worry too much: My kids will 100% have to work if they don’t want a sucky life.