My odor is absolutely authentic. It’s basic apocrinology.
Simply don’t smell me and don’t comment on my smell if you don’t like it.

Shit, you’re right! Correct number is about £5 million. Apparently missed final step and copied the percent (10.9⁵⁴ ≈ 28e3). My bad.

But yeah even if he bought the house in 1979 at 20% equity and house appreciated that much, effective APY over 45 years would be 1.2%. To check: (2%*(6e5/17e3))^-45

Anyway it’s just an illustration I’ve given to friends, especially fellow millennials who often mention how their parents’ or grandparents’ house multiplied in value as their motivation for pursuing a house instead of savings.

It’s to show that there’s a better way to save than home equity, because few of us were taught that stuff and it’s not as daunting as it seems. Long-short usually you want as little money tied up in home equity as possible, so when the typical down payments have risen to hundreds of thousands of pounds, it’s quite difficult to justify over renting and putting more into pension.

Age of old-woman-man in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And it’s just a term. Figuring out how to save a little and how to grow it is more about creating a safety net, to know I won’t be unhoused again, won’t need to sell plasma for bread or work for assholes. I don’t intend to actually retire, even if that’s an option.

It’s cute that you think [positive] … Frankly, I expect [negative] … and nothing will be done about it.

You may have intended a sardonic or exasperated tone, rather than defeatism, in which case I was too harsh.

Even so, we must be cognizant of how easy it is to inadvertently amplify cynicism and despair. Some have little fight left and might just stay home when they are needed most.

Do you have a source for that £17k becoming over £28M?

This one looks simple enough, but I assume most use the same historical price index. I just used the annualized dividend-reinvested returns between the two dates: 10.913%

Incidentally, you can use that % to get a feel for how interest compounds. On a calculator, input 17 x 1.10913 then press = for each year since 1970 (usually just repeats last step). At first it will appear nearly constant, but note how the annual returns accelerate over time, especially as you approach recent years.

I currently have a pension pot worth about £70k and it’s only forecast to be worth about £500k in thirty years time (when I would retire), and that is including my ongoing contributions.

You may want to check what funds they put you in by default. Often the default allocation is a “target-date” fund, which is an actively-managed (insidiously expensive) fund that begins with a modest volatility asset distribution and periodically redistributes for lower volatility as the target date approaches.

IME these funds invariably suck, mostly due to exorbitant fees but also because they are actively managed. It’s rare for any actively managed fund to consistently beat the market overall or as represented by benchmark indexes. (That may seem counterintuitive but the reason is “market efficiency.”) The only reason for active managed funds IMO is if you need moderate chance of gain paired with minimal chance of loss, which only applies closer to distribution.

If there’s another way to invest that to make myself a multimillionaire in retirement, it’d be a no brainer.

With a 30 year timeline, volatility is your friend for quite some time. The simplest way to capture whole-market volatility is to just buy ETF shares tracking either Total Market Index or a benchmark index like S&P500. Most of these ETFs have very low fees. This “naive method” is very difficult to beat. Just make sure dividends are reinvested (usually a checkbox) so you don’t come back later to a pile of cash that hasn’t been working for you.

Then comes the most important step: nothing. Don’t mess with it. Buy and hold. Set and forget. Fucking with it (trying to time the market, panic selling, etc) is basically the only mistake you can make. Avoid that and you can rely on statistical probability.

I used the below link and assumed an investment of 17k in 1970 (that’s assuming you have the cash to buy out right, rather than starting to pay a mortgage) and it only came up in the low six figures.

It looks like their figure is inflation-adjusted and assumes dividends are not reinvested. The former can be useful if you want to know comparable value. The latter isn’t, because you should always reinvest dividends. (Also it affects the S&P500 especially since that’s a large cap value index where much of the returns are actual dividends instead of just growth of the stock price.)

Yeah I was being somewhat cheeky. But it is true in one sense, because we’ve entered a new chapter and everything has changed.

Now it is clear that the only thing that will mobilize the American working class to overthrow a fascist regime (and the 0.1% class they serve) is a rock-solid, revolutionary promise of extensive socialist economic reform, broad democratic electoral reform, and an explosion of public works that would make FDR blush.

There is no going back. Status quo politics died on November 5th, 2024. That era is gone. No more “moderate“ republicans. No more “Liberal” democrats. GOP now can only elect trump cronies. Dems now will struggle to elect anyone but progressives.

As to who leads the charge, I think it will be AOC, because Bernie is setting up an alley-oop and she is the only one among them with the energy and chutzpah to slam dunk a national bash-the-fash campaign.

Suffering winds the spring of reform.

If at first you don’t fricassee, fry, fry a hen.

My dad bought his first house in the seventies for £17k, he just sold his most recent house for £600k. Please tell me about the investments I can make that will equal that return.

Well let’s say he bought £17k of a garden variety S&P500 ETF in 1970. (Just one of the most common benchmark index funds, a simple way to capture market volatility.) That account would be worth £4,913,700 (28,820.92%) today. If that sounds crazy, you’re not alone. Compounding interest is exponential growth.

I also don’t know where you live, but in the UK, typical rent is going to be far more expensive than the monthly repayment on a mortgage.

The main things I try to keep in mind are (1) the cost of tied up capital exceeds the monthly price differential in nearly every case because of the compounding mentioned above, and (2) even if it didn’t, the true monthly price differential of a mortgage payment is often smaller in practice due to the numerous potential “hidden” costs of home ownership.

Again I’m not saying people shouldn’t or that it’s irresponsible or something. Deep down I want to own my home too! It’s just that every time I’ve plugged it all into a spreadsheet it isn’t even close to worth the long term cost.

Edit: corrected calculation error

Bolshevising the nation

But that requires one generation teaching defeat to the next. Kind of like you’re doing now.

Like to see him try in this city. New Yorkers are always spoiling for that kind of fight, and their beef with trump goes a long way back.

Stow that shit. If you’ve given up, fine. But don’t take others with you.

That isn’t what I’ve heard but there’s a strong argument to be made for that choice.

Generally a house is not a proper vehicle for retirement savings, and its value will usually appreciate well below market benchmarks, if at all. (The only exception is if you plan on monetizing it somehow, like buying a multifamily house and renting to others, etc.)

Given housing price inflation, homebuyers must lock up an increasingly significant amount of capital in home equity, starting with the down payment.

This means that, in the vast majority of cases, buying a house has significant long term opportunity costs, considering what that capital would be worth when properly invested. So unless you have already maximized a bunch of other superior savings vehicles and still have enough annual surplus to convert to a down payment, it’s going to downsize and/or delay your retirement.

Owning a home can give you a lifestyle and long term control you don’t have renting but, given how compounding interest works, that control will come at an extremely high price.

If people and corporations were not allowed to treat residential housing as an investment, this problem would diminish over time, but here we are. In America, a house is never just a house. It’s an idea.

I often see it between common names, which makes me think they might just be trying to differentiate.

That’s a good point. There is a type of delivery in the US that’s all-inclusive, where more than one delivery person show up and it’s assumed they bring it in and install it.

Standard delivery though is often some form of freight where final delivery is handled by a local carrier/vendor. Usually they arrive with a commercial delivery truck rather than a van or pantechnicon.

Unloading from the trailer to a loading dock is the easiest. Curb delivery is possible if the trailer is outfitted with a lift or a slide out ramp. But any further and the delivery can become a lot more involved, enough to throw off their delivery schedule.

Drivers often still offer to do it unofficially as a side-hustle, but if I don’t have cash on hand I won’t ask them to do it just as a favor.

Oh yeah, “conflict of interest” is definitely the line they won’t cross.

Pretty sure “recent Trump-fluffing [covered by Fox News]” is all that’s left. So, is he a good fluffer?

Curb/dock drop: no.

Into home: yes, but at that point you’re “tipping” for an additional service usually purchased separately (eg, moving service, appliance installation)

deleted by creator

deleted by creator