insane that people think paying off a ~3.75% mortgage will be a better financial choice then investing in say, SP 500 index, over the next 30 years.

insane

Well, you know, they don't find any value in having an advisor telling them about the 30 years worth of tax deductions.

Because it's all about beating the S&P.

Believe it or not, UGMAa/UTMAs/Gifting isn't something that's magically known only to advisors. Trusts, insurance, inheritances, 529s, aren't some sort of mysterious thing that you need someone to explain to you like you're an idiot.

At least, to some.

I don't think you realize how much power there is in "beating the the S&P".

I really don't think you know wtf you're talking about.

Do you guys suggest keeping a poker roll in cash (in the bank obv not actual cash), or keep part of it in something not as liquid ? I keep a 100bi roll or so just to be safe, but it's very unlikely I'll have a 40bi+ downswing in 1 month. The problem is that interest rates in the UK and Switzerland are so low right now it feels stupid to get like 0-1% when usually my money is just sitting there, not needed to be touched.

Are you saying there is or is not a lot of power in beating the S&P?

Investing is a very competitive arena and making money with money is a very specialized skill. Warren Buffet didn't just pick stocks, early on he took controlling positions and influenced management in the right direction, later he was able to craft deals not available to the average investor and his buy and hold of major positions took extreme confidence of his abilities in the face of negative evidence as well as the liquidity and fortitude to buy more when prices were right. Buying his stock today won't guarantee outperformance at all, the price of Berkshire reflects all known information about the prospects of his holdings and his ability to manage money, there is no free lunch in investing, to achieve higher returns than cash equivalents you must take more risk. The individual must first decide how much risk they need to take to achieve their goals and if they are comfortable with that amount of risk.

That said the best advice, as was mentioned, is to study and observe areas that interest you and have the liquidity to buy in to an opportunity when sellers value liquidity too much. Throughout the years I have seen more success in income real estate than any other area; both our tax code and inflation work in the favor of owners of income property. I believe you can get more cash flow for your dollar in multi-unit properties than in a single house so you may have to pool money with other like-minded investors. Just like in poker you want an adequate bank roll to cover variance, like capital expenses and vacancies. Debt should therefore be modest and you should have an adequete cash reserve. I can only draw on my own limited personal experience but I know way more people who accumulated enough for a comfortable retirement off income real estate then stocks.

Wil,

I understand you actually like investing and learning more about it. The common person does not. They realize that planning for their retirement is something they only get to do once. That is why advisors exist. To provide guidance and advice and help create some peace of mind for people who really do not understand or care to understand finance because they would prefer to use their time elsewhere.

As for an actively managed fund that has outperformed the index, lets try Contrafund. A fund with substantial assets that still has been able to trounce the index over a 10 year period. There are many other funds out there that have done the same.

http://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mut...risk/316071109

I'm saying a few % points here and there over the course of a 30 year period can be ridiculous.

Fine. I can live with that answer. I just wanted to say that some of these funds simply aren't available depending on the 401k choices that your company offers. Finally, while something like the Contrafund may indeed have gone on a nice run for a 10 year period, that doesn't mean the next 10 will do well.

i agree, most 401k choices are pretty bad. IMO the options for most companies 401k plans should be indexes in a variety of categories and life cycle and lifestyle funds.

I think a lot of the balanced funds out there do a great job of capturing the markets gains while eliminating a lot of the volatility though

You are very ignorant on this subject.

You're talking about FUND MANAGERS not advisors. Advisors ADVISE you to use the fund manager who then tries to outperform.

Jesus christ advisors are not investors who are trying to beat the S&P.

So ignorant.

I'm unsure.. if you're serious, or just stupid.

Grunching abit but 60/40 equity indexing/bond fund is the way to go here.

You are sitting pretty. Your pension will be worth about $3 Million if you ride out your no doubt crappy job til 55. What I would suggest is saving $ as indicated above rather than risking capital on some business, then opt for early retirement at 50 when you will get partial pension + can rely on whatever you have saved up to make the difference. Retiring at 50 opens up a tonne of options for you at that point. I see alot of downside with any other option

This advice is so boring yet so RIGHT. I have done this since my teens and in my mid thirties now and have a sizeable portfolio which kicks off consistent income every month for me. It just snowballs if you are consistent.

I hope to be in a similar position in the future.

Thought i'd add this if OP is still debating what to do...