Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:11 PM
Palo Verde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,547

How to live long-term on a million dollars


Your twice-removed great-aunt Flo, who you never even knew about, just died and left you exactly one million dollars. It is your goal to live on this money for the next 50 years without having a job. What would you do to be able to live off of it? Invest and interest only? Live very frugally and just spend down the principal? But real estate, hold and sell in a few years?
  #2  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:23 PM
Rand Rover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,307
The big issues are: (i) how likely you want to be able to live solely off of that million dollars and (ii) just exactly how low on the hog you want to be required to live.

On one end of the spectrum (i.e., lower likelihood and higher on the hog), you buy real estate with a large chunk of the principal (and some debt as well, depending where on this part of the spectum you want to be). Well, I guess you can even further on this end by day-trading or investing in even riskier stuff. One difficult (in a manner of speaking) aspect of strategies on this side of the sprectrum is that you may end up with cash or valuable assets at the end of the 50 years--if your goal is to spend it all, then not dying broke will have meant that you could have consumed more.

On the other end of the spectrum, just enjoy your $20,000 a year of principal.
  #3  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:44 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 41,634
Invest half of it in AAA muni bonds, staggered to allow different maturity dates. You could risk a portion on lower rated bonds in order to garner higher interest, but it really depends on your tolerance for loss.
  #4  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:52 PM
samclem is offline
Graphite is a great
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 26,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palo Verde View Post
Your twice-removed great-aunt Flo, who you never even knew about, just died and left you exactly one million dollars. It is your goal to live on this money for the next 50 years without having a job. What would you do to be able to live off of it? Invest and interest only? Live very frugally and just spend down the principal? But real estate, hold and sell in a few years?
How well do you want to live. Do you want to merely exist?
  #5  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:53 PM
billfish678 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,681
Assuming you get this money relatively early in life I think the thing to do is invest the money in the highest but pretty darn safe and sure investment you can find, which is probably going to be in the 5 percent range give or take.

Then, live off the smallest fraction of that return you can stand to. Move to the middle of nowhere. Learn to enjoy the cheap joys of life like fishing down by the creek, hiking, and the nice night country air. Take up astronomy and hiking. Grow your own vegetables. Drive an old used car (given you don't have a job that should be workable).

Think of living as cheaply as you reasonably can and still enjoy life as your new job.

After a few decades of that your investment should have grown enough to provide a much larger annual income that you can now spend with a decent safety buffer.

Last edited by billfish678; 08-26-2012 at 06:54 PM.
  #6  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:57 PM
Rand Rover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,307
Billfish, what is this investment you speak of--the one that has a pretty darn sure 5% income stream and capital appreciation?
  #7  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:59 PM
billfish678 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
Billfish, what is this investment you speak of--the one that has a pretty darn sure 5% income stream and capital appreciation?
Pick another number then. Two fucking percent and live on 10 k a year then.
  #8  
Old 08-26-2012, 07:03 PM
Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,700
Let's assume you're 30 and you want to live to be 80. That's 50 years. I suggest you pack up and move to Laos or Thailand. In fact, just pick a country from Estonia on down. I hear Malta's nice. You'd live an average (OK, median) lifestyle for just your principal, and your interest is icing on the cake.

Last edited by Chessic Sense; 08-26-2012 at 07:04 PM.
  #9  
Old 08-26-2012, 07:06 PM
Rand Rover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by billfish678 View Post
Pick another number then. Two fucking percent and live on 10 k a year then.
Ok. But an investment that delivers a pretty darn safe and sure 2 percent will not deliver any capital appreciation.
  #10  
Old 08-26-2012, 07:16 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,189
You could invest in say, Proctor & Gamble your entire $1m and that'd bring you around $33.5k/year in dividend income. That's without any capital appreciation and without any selling of those shares.

Now you wouldn't actually put your money all in P&G stock as that'd be insane. But P&G is just an example of a "Dividend Aristocrat." Dividend Aristocrats are large blue chip companies that have paid a dividend and increased it annually for 25 consecutive years or more. S&P maintains a list of them, and if you invested basically an equal portion of your money into each you'd have a very safe investment (as these are all blue chip stocks) that provide income without even having to touch the principal.

Now we're just talking about living off the dividends of these stocks, over the last 5 years (a very, very bad period for equities) the Dividend Aristocrats returned 3.6% annualized, so you would have gotten some capital appreciation as well. Over the long term these stocks have historically averaged over 10% annualized returns over long periods of time.

So that being said, you could buy such a basket of stocks and hold it for ten years living off the $33.5-35k or so a year. After twenty years you'd have at least $2.5m or so that you could just invest in a fixed income annuity for the second half of the 50 years. Buy a fixed annuity at around 3% (still available especially at the amount of money you're talking and signing up for 25 years) and that's $11.8k/mo for the rest of the period so quite the raise over the $35k a year you had been living on.
  #11  
Old 08-26-2012, 07:19 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
Ok. But an investment that delivers a pretty darn safe and sure 2 percent will not deliver any capital appreciation.
In January of 1990 you could buy Proctor & Gamble stock for $4.86 a share. By January of 2010, $1,000 purchased in 1990 would be worth $11,434. So $1m invested back then would have been worth $11.4m (this assumes full dividend reinvestment.)

PG's dividend yield was a little under 2% for part of the mid-90s, but in 1990 it was almost 4% and has generally been over 2% most of the 20 years ending in Jan. 2010.

So that is fairly large capital appreciation with an income component.
  #12  
Old 08-26-2012, 07:54 PM
samclem is offline
Graphite is a great
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 26,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
In January of 1990 you could buy Proctor & Gamble stock for $4.86 a share. By January of 2010, $1,000 purchased in 1990 would be worth $11,434. So $1m invested back then would have been worth $11.4m (this assumes full dividend reinvestment.)

PG's dividend yield was a little under 2% for part of the mid-90s, but in 1990 it was almost 4% and has generally been over 2% most of the 20 years ending in Jan. 2010.

So that is fairly large capital appreciation with an income component.
What does this have to with investing money in the next 50 years? It's totally irrelevant.
  #13  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:03 PM
billfish678 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
What does this have to with investing money in the next 50 years? It's totally irrelevant.
You are totally right. Just invest 1 million in a stock that will return 20 percent for the next 20 years and you''ll be super rich bitch! Problem solved.

but seriously, unless you just wanna pull numbers out of your behind, past investment performance is certainly a realistic start for what is reasonable and what isn't

Last edited by billfish678; 08-26-2012 at 08:03 PM.
  #14  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:03 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
What does this have to with investing money in the next 50 years? It's totally irrelevant.
Only to those that lack the sophistication to understand the fairly obvious point he's making. A diversified portfolio of blue chip stocks with a solid history of performance is a pretty standard approach to retirement planning.
  #15  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:57 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,189
I thought I was making a concise point. Basically one way you could live off of $1m for the next 50 years would be to invest it in a collection of blue chip, dividend paying stocks for some number of years.

At the average annualized return rate for blue chip dividend payers in the United States you'd basically double your money every ten years. At some point you could just roll it all into an annuity with a 3-4% rate for the remainder of the 25 years and live very, very well for that time. Or you could start living off some of the capital appreciation as it happens, for that matter.

I'm not going to live 50 more years as that would make me well north of 100, so I wouldn't invest this way, but if you plan to live another 50 years I think you'd need to invest in something with at least a potential for serious capital appreciation. By and large most fixed income investments have very little capital appreciation.

What I'm talking about isn't fanciful and you do not have to be Warren Buffet. I've been investing in Proctor & Gamble since the 1980s, and I'm not a guru or a great investing mind. The reason I mentioned PG so much is they are a "poster boy" for the "Dividend Aristocrats" index.

The reason I talk about Dividends is typically dividend paying companies are "cash cows" meaning their days of fantastic (imagine Google / Apple type growth) is long past, but they are reaping massive amounts of revenue and distributing hefty dividends. A lot of things go along statistically with these dividend paying blue chips, for example over long periods of time they actually outperform many non-dividend stocks because you literally get paid to hold the stock even during market downturns.

Companies in this vein would be the aforementioned PG, but also Colgate-Palmolive, 3M, Clorox, Abbott Labs, Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, McGraw-Hill, Cintas, Exxon, McCormick & Co...hell you can look at the list here.

This isn't really a crazy risky stock investment scheme either, many of these companies are probably more reliable than many governments. Many countries in Europe have defaulted on debts more recently than some of the Dividend Aristocrats have failed to pay a dividend. For example Proctor & Gamble, every single year since 1891, including during the Great Depression, two world wars and etc has issued a dividend. Further, the companies on this index aren't just companies that pay long term dividends, they are companies with 25 consecutive years or more of annual dividend increases. Which means your dividend payout is likely to at least track with inflation.

In general these stocks average over a 11% annualized return historically, and even during particularly bad periods, say the last 5 years, this index has had 6.5% annualized returns (including dividend pay) and that is during the financial crisis and stock market crash we went through.
  #16  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:08 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,920
Boy, life as a millionaire sure ain't what it used to be...
  #17  
Old 08-27-2012, 10:08 PM
Rand Rover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,307
Well, Martin Hyde, you are just using a different definition of "pretty darn safe and sure" than I was thinking of. I was thinking in terms of instruments with a guaranteed return from a creditworthy source, like US government bonds--I was thinking of strategies on the extreme side of the safe and low return side of the spectrum. You are thinking in terms of historical performance.

I definitely agree that the US stock market overall has returned 10% in every rolling 20-year period since the Great Depression, but investing solely in stocks (no matter how well diversified) seems kinda nuts to me if someone wants to be absolutely certain that they'll be able to live on the million. But as a riskier strategy somewhere in the middle of the spectrum I outlined above, sure, it's fine.
  #18  
Old 08-28-2012, 06:22 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,162
Well, 1 million divided by 50 is $20,000 a year, and it's quite possible for one person to live on that. Heck, I've been supporting TWO people on less than that for the past 4 years. Granted, it's not a lavish existence, but we live in secure housing, eat well, have adequate clothing, reliable vehicles, travel occasionally (usually to visit relatives) and have a small amount left over for entertainment purposes. While I can certainly understand wanting more than that, strictly speaking, you don't need more than that.

Of course, inflation is going to nibble away at that over the next half century.

So, really, the question might be better expressed as how to maximize one's use of the money over the next 50 years. With that in mind, investing some of it while living frugally the first few years is probably the best way to extract the most utility out of the inheritance.

Work any job at all during that time period and you could live comfortably even at a less than ideal return on one's investments for the rest of your life.
  #19  
Old 08-28-2012, 06:35 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
Well, Martin Hyde, you are just using a different definition of "pretty darn safe and sure" than I was thinking of. I was thinking in terms of instruments with a guaranteed return from a creditworthy source, like US government bonds--I was thinking of strategies on the extreme side of the safe and low return side of the spectrum. You are thinking in terms of historical performance.

I definitely agree that the US stock market overall has returned 10% in every rolling 20-year period since the Great Depression, but investing solely in stocks (no matter how well diversified) seems kinda nuts to me if someone wants to be absolutely certain that they'll be able to live on the million. But as a riskier strategy somewhere in the middle of the spectrum I outlined above, sure, it's fine.
Fixed income instruments are often times just as risky, if not more so, than stocks.

Warren Buffet explains it very well:

Quote:
“They are among the most dangerous of assets,” Buffett said in an adaptation of his annual letter to shareholders that appeared today on Fortune magazine’s website. “Over the past century these instruments have destroyed the purchasing power of investors in many countries, even as these holders continued to receive timely payments of interest and principal.”
That being said, both I and Warren Buffet would advocate holding some fixed income. But I think in terms of risk over a 50 year period there is actually a greater risk in holding a basket of investments overweight with bonds versus overweight with equities.

The problem with bonds is two fold, one is they are intrinsically vulnerable to inflation of the currency in which they are denominated. Two, you can ultimately end up in a liquidity "trap" with bonds, because if you buy a bunch of bonds at a low interest rate then interest rates go higher you will not be able to sell those bonds on the open market for a profit, but instead will have to sell them for a loss or end up potentially holding bonds that earn nothing relative to inflation. A lose-lose.

Equities are based on the intrinsic value of the underlying business, and thus a company like Microsoft or ADP's share price is going to reflect fairly closely the fair value of those companies no matter what inflationary activity occurs with the dollar. If you have $1000 in ADP stock and the U.S. dollar becomes 50% less valuable (due to massive inflation) then generally that $1000 in ADP stock is going to be worth roughly $2000. Equities are an amazing protection against inflation, probably better than anything else (certainly better than TIPS bonds and gold which is only a hedge against Weimar Republic style economy-destroying hyperinflation.)

That said, you're right to characterize a 100% equities allocation as crazy, and I don't follow that example in my personal life. I personally hold a mixture of bonds, real estate, and stocks. Additionally I diversify my stock holdings into domestic and international stocks (and try to diversify international stocks into both European, Pacific, and other developing areas) and large, medium, and small market cap companies. My strategy of just investing in a basket of consistent dividend growth blue chip stocks isn't one I personally follow. However, such a strategy is just one example of how easy it is to make money on the stock market if you invest in intrinsically valuable companies and hold them for a long period of time.

Last edited by Martin Hyde; 08-28-2012 at 06:35 AM.
  #20  
Old 08-28-2012, 08:30 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,552
3% on $1,000,000 would net me more than my current annual income. I think it would be fairly easy to find safe investments and (very) slowly grow my principal while living solely off of the interest/growth of the initial investment.
  #21  
Old 08-28-2012, 08:45 AM
Zsofia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 24,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
Let's assume you're 30 and you want to live to be 80. That's 50 years. I suggest you pack up and move to Laos or Thailand. In fact, just pick a country from Estonia on down. I hear Malta's nice. You'd live an average (OK, median) lifestyle for just your principal, and your interest is icing on the cake.
This seems by far the best way to me.
  #22  
Old 08-28-2012, 09:06 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,259
Use it to attract someone with real money, and marry her.

My wife may object, but hey, 50 years is 50 years.
  #23  
Old 08-28-2012, 09:42 AM
chela is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: mystic water
Posts: 1,827

What's your retirement number?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
Boy, life as a millionaire sure ain't what it used to be...
That's fo sure, consider that a million dollar pension invested in corporate bonds may yield you 50-80k yearly. THat's a middle class income! But not a bad living, esp if you supplement with the odd part time job.
  #24  
Old 08-28-2012, 10:22 AM
Enderw24 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: KC. MO -094 35.3 39 4.9
Posts: 10,601
Just as a marker if you earned a consistent 2% interest on your money, you could spend $32,000 annually and if would take 50 years for you to go through that million dollars.

So could you live on $32,000 today? Probably. In 50 years? That would be like trying to live on $4,200 a year today. Good luck.
  #25  
Old 08-28-2012, 11:15 AM
Dr. Love is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 942
Living safely off $1 million over the long term is going to require making more money, and the usual way to do this is with financial investments. Then the question is: how much can you live on per year without running out of money before running out of time? This is called the "safe withdrawal rate" (SWR), i.e., what percentage of the initial investment ($1 million here) can you take out each year without running out of money too soon.

There has been research on SWRs for investments made up of stocks and bonds. The most famous study, a 1998 study colloquially called "The Trinity Study" (pdf) because the three authors are from Trinity University, found that an inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate of 4% from an investment of 75% stocks and 25% bonds was historically successful 98% of the time for a 30 year retirement (see Table 3). A withdrawal rate of 3% had a 100% success rate under the same circumstances. The Trinity Study is based on historical returns of the US stock market (represented by the S&P 500) and high-grade corporate bonds from 1926 to 1995. There were 41 possible 30-year retirement periods in this data (1926-1955 through 1966-1995). Only during one of those 41 periods did a retiree withdrawing 4% run out of money before the 30 years was up.

Table 4 shows the terminal value of the investment for various (non inflation adjusted) withdrawal rates and allocations. After 30 years of taking $40,000/year from the initial $1 million, the investment would have been worth at least $1.497 million for 75% stocks. The median investment was worth $8.5 million after 30 years.

Of course there has been other research since 1998. In particular, the Trinity Study authors updated their findings through 2009. In Table 2, you can see that an inflation-adjusted $30,000/year (3% withdrawal) has historically always lasted at least 30 years, provided at least 25% is invested in stocks. Table 4 shows the median value of the portfolio after inflation-adjusted withdrawals. Our $1 million invested in 75% stocks and 25% bonds and after inflation-adjusted withdrawals of $30,000/year had a median worth of over $8.5 million!

Of course, all this research assumes only 30 years or retirement, rather than the 50 suggested by the OP. I haven't found anything that projects out quite that far, but take a look at this commentary on the updated Trinity study. In particular, look at the table at the very bottom of the blog post. This table shows the probability of success of inflation-adjusted withdrawal rates going out to 40 years. Once again, a 3% withdrawal rate was 100% historically successful even for a 40 year time period, provided at least 25% was invested in stocks.

Finally, for some additional information on calculating SWRs, see this blog post. All these pieces of information combined, I think that a 3% withdrawal rate has a good chance of lasting indefinitely.

On the other hand, if you don't want to invest all of it in the stock or bond market, you could take one financial guru's advise and go into debt in order to purchase rental properties that will make you income for the rest of your days.
  #26  
Old 08-28-2012, 12:44 PM
clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by billfish678 View Post

After a few decades of that your investment should have grown enough to provide a much larger annual income that you can now spend with a decent safety buffer.
Probably not. Compound interests are overrated. Once you deduce inflation and taxes, and assuming a low risk (hence low return) investment, you won't have much more money 20 years down the road than you had at the beginning.
  #27  
Old 08-28-2012, 01:01 PM
billfish678 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Probably not. Compound interests are overrated. Once you deduce inflation and taxes, and assuming a low risk (hence low return) investment, you won't have much more money 20 years down the road than you had at the beginning.
True. But the point is, even if you don't grow it, you want to slow the drain down to an acceptable level. See the other posts by other posters who apparently actually know about this stuff.

One thing you might want to do is budget to buy a gold plated long term/elderly care policy. You know at some point you'll be pretty damn old if you are lucky enough to live that long and moving into the old Sunset village is already paid for would provide nice piece of mind.
  #28  
Old 08-28-2012, 01:08 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,776
I'd put the bulk of it in diversified index funds, and then maybe 10% each in something relatively guaranteed and liquid, and a set of stocks I'd hand-pick based on what technologies I think are emerging. Take maybe another 10-20% for an efficient, sustainable house. Then, I'd aim for a cost of living around $10-15k a year (yes, I know I can get by just fine on that), with all the rest of the dividends and interest re-invested. If I find the right woman and get married, up that to maybe $30k. Yes, I know that there are risks to the stock market, but my needs are humble enough that I should be able to weather most of them (at worst, dipping into the principle occasionally). And I figure that any downturn extreme enough to wipe me out is probably also going to wipe out nearly everyone, no matter how they plan, so there's really nothing to lose.
  #29  
Old 08-28-2012, 01:10 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,091
You people are overthinking it. Duh, a million Powerball tickets? You might even win more than once!
  #30  
Old 08-28-2012, 07:19 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
You could invest in say, Proctor & Gamble your entire $1m and that'd bring you around $33.5k/year in dividend income. That's without any capital appreciation and without any selling of those shares.

Now you wouldn't actually put your money all in P&G stock as that'd be insane. But P&G is just an example of a "Dividend Aristocrat." Dividend Aristocrats are large blue chip companies that have paid a dividend and increased it annually for 25 consecutive years or more. S&P maintains a list of them, and if you invested basically an equal portion of your money into each you'd have a very safe investment (as these are all blue chip stocks) that provide income without even having to touch the principal.

Now we're just talking about living off the dividends of these stocks, over the last 5 years (a very, very bad period for equities) the Dividend Aristocrats returned 3.6% annualized, so you would have gotten some capital appreciation as well. Over the long term these stocks have historically averaged over 10% annualized returns over long periods of time.

So that being said, you could buy such a basket of stocks and hold it for ten years living off the $33.5-35k or so a year. After twenty years you'd have at least $2.5m or so that you could just invest in a fixed income annuity for the second half of the 50 years. Buy a fixed annuity at around 3% (still available especially at the amount of money you're talking and signing up for 25 years) and that's $11.8k/mo for the rest of the period so quite the raise over the $35k a year you had been living on.

So 50 years ago you would have invested in Pennsylvania Railroad? The trouble is that it is exactly the companies you describe that see no need to do anything differently from what they have been doing.
  #31  
Old 08-28-2012, 09:52 PM
Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 40,693
Taking into account just the principle, I would not recommend Thailand. US$1 million for 50 years comes to $1667 a month. That's only 52,200 baht a month at the current exchange rate. That would not net you much of an existence in Bangkok; I'd rather just move back to America and throw myself on the crappy welfare system. This does not take into account interest payments or other investments, so maybe it would work once that's considered. You could also make some shrewd land investments ... or you could lose your shirt on that.

Upcountry Thailand would be somewhat better, but I think you'd get very tired of the limited lifestyle long before 50 years were up. You might try Cambodia, as it's an up-and-comer, with cheaper living costs. I also like Nepal, but it can get cold.

Last edited by Siam Sam; 08-28-2012 at 09:53 PM.
  #32  
Old 08-28-2012, 09:58 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
You people are overthinking it. Duh, a million Powerball tickets? You might even win more than once!
You could be the next Powerball thousandaire!
  #33  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:00 PM
R. P. McMurphy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,884
I would probably go with a triple tax-free muni fund. It will pay far more that any bank or CD. It will probably be less than the blue chips but the yield is tax free. That's the kicker.

Currently the muni's are priced high because of how attractive they are but they are probably as safe as the blue chips. When a municipality goes bankrupt they rarely default on their bonds.

So, see what the investment is yielding and live within that number. That's the hard part. Don't think of yourself as rich, think of yourself as blessed and live within the blessing.

It will still be a frugal existence. As said, a million dollars ain't what it used to be.

Last edited by R. P. McMurphy; 08-29-2012 at 11:01 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017