+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Stock Market Thread (/showthread.php?tid=7719)
Re: Stock Market Thread - BLINGMW - 09-02-2016
Apoc Wrote:I never actually understood why it's weighted so heavily in consumers' minds.Oh no doubt, people care too much when it comes to saving or losing a dollar on a whole tank of gas, and driving to the cheapest place in town by $0.03/gallon is silly. But when we're talking about a 2 or 3 fold price difference from just a few years ago, then I could see how it becomes valid, and harmful to the Model 3. Interest in that car would be so much higher if gas was $5 / gallon. And add to it that the fed tax credit will likely run out soon and suddenly the Model 3 does just become a luxury, not a car that actually makes financial sense.
Re: Stock Market Thread - .RJ - 09-02-2016
Even when you extrapolate it out to a % of your annual spending, the shifts in gas prices are seriously low impact. People get far too wound up about it.
Re: Stock Market Thread - D_Eclipse9916 - 09-03-2016
.RJ Wrote:Even when you extrapolate it out to a % of your annual spending, the shifts in gas prices are seriously low impact. People get far too wound up about it.
:thumbup:
I was laughing when people were posting up about "how high would gas prices be before you stopped racing?" in regards to towing fuel costs. People were quoting as low as $4.50 a gallon. I am like really? $60-100 more in towing fuel for a race weekend breaks your budget? Maybe you shouldn't be racing...
Re: Stock Market Thread - ScottyB - 09-03-2016
i never got why people get so concerned about having to use 93 instead of 87 octane unless you're driving like 15k+ miles a year or getting 10 mpg. around here its about a difference of $3.50 a tank. over the course of a year its like what, $300 bucks, tops? don't supersize your lunch once a week and you make up the difference.
Re: Stock Market Thread - Mike - 09-04-2016
ScottyB Wrote:over the course of a year its like what, $300 bucks, tops? don't supersize your lunch once a week and you make up the difference.
a difference of $3.50 a tank costs me like $50 a year. how am i gonna feed the chidruns? :bootyshake:
Re: Stock Market Thread - JPolen01 - 09-04-2016
ScottyB Wrote:i never got why people get so concerned about having to use 93 instead of 87 octane unless you're driving like 15k+ miles a year or getting 10 mpg. around here its about a difference of $3.50 a tank. over the course of a year its like what, $300 bucks, tops? don't supersize your lunch once a week and you make up the difference.I have this conversation all the time with my dad. He refuses to look at cars that require 93. I always explain to him that you not be looking at like $5 more per tank. Not sure if he doesn't get it or is just principle that he won't buy 93. Makes me so frustrated.
Re: Stock Market Thread - Apoc - 09-04-2016
I put 89 in my car that requires 93. :dunno:
Re: Stock Market Thread - WRXtranceformed - 09-04-2016
The low wage hourly workforce that doesn't use public transportation to get to work, trucking / air / sea logistics firms and for-profit transportation companies (airlines, etc.) are probably the only major groups that are actually financially affected (not just psychologically) by higher fuel costs.
Re: Stock Market Thread - ScottyB - 09-04-2016
JPolen01 Wrote:just principle
i think that attitude is 90% of it. kind of the whole "well if they can send a man to the moon why do i have to put 93 in my car to get all my MPGeeezzz." with such a competitive car market, anybody that can flaunt a "value" prospect like using cheaper gas can probably make a couple million more than the other guy a year. maybe. i dunno :dunno: considering most cars get better mileage on 93, AND make more power doing it, it just seems like a stubbornness issue.
WRXtranceformed Wrote:The low wage hourly workforce that doesn't use public transportation to get to work, trucking / air / sea logistics firms and for-profit transportation companies.
totally get that, and agree. those entire groups buy cars based on nothing but the bottom line.
Apoc Wrote:I put 89 in my car that requires 93
you're a monster
Re: Stock Market Thread - JPolen01 - 09-04-2016
Apoc Wrote:I put 89 in my car that requires 93. :dunno:This makes about as much sense as people that use their own "choice" of oil over what the manufacturer suggests. Why would you put a lower grade gasoline in the car than what the engine internals were designed and tested for?
Re: Stock Market Thread - ScottyB - 09-04-2016
JPolen01 Wrote:This makes about as much sense as people that use their own "choice" of oil over what the manufacturer suggests.
that oil argument in and of itself doesn't really apply as well as you think it would for everything, especially performance oriented cars. what manufacturers put in the cars to satisfy 90% of the casual commuter crowd and eek out the last 2mpg is not what's adequete for competition or truly hard driving. there's a reason turbo subarus in the US are spec'd 5W-30 but everywhere else in the world, come from the factory with 5W-40. there are 4 or 5 other examples i can think of where the factory viscosity leads to a lot of broken engines. CAFE and fleet MPG averages, dude...the struggle is real.
so, ah, anybody else not worried at all about the Tesla stock? its probably overvalued a bit compared to other big manufacturers, but they'll be fine.
Re: Stock Market Thread - Mike - 09-04-2016
Apoc Wrote:I put 89 in my car that requires 93. :dunno:
not a problem when you drive like a grandma in a prius.
Re: Stock Market Thread - Apoc - 09-04-2016
JPolen01 Wrote:Apoc Wrote:I put 89 in my car that requires 93. :dunno:This makes about as much sense as people that use their own "choice" of oil over what the manufacturer suggests. Why would you put a lower grade gasoline in the car than what the engine internals were designed and tested for?
It's octane, not grade. If it starts to knock, which I've never had a car do, put higher octane in. My dad has done the same for decades. Octane is largely a joke in modern cars.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/automobiles/03OCTANE.html">http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/au ... CTANE.html</a><!-- m -->
Re: Stock Market Thread - Apoc - 09-21-2016
Where are you guys at in savings compared to your annual income? It's generally the guideline I follow, and I'm pretty happy with my next egg, but my savings rate have not kept pace with my income growth over the last five years. Buying a house and dumping a bunch of cash in it hasn't helped... but I'll be able to reverse that with subsequent RSU awards.
I'm at about 1.1 excluding any physical assets (home equity, cars, etc.).
![[Image: fidelity-retirement-guide-.jpg&w=1484]](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2016/01/fidelity-retirement-guide-.jpg&w=1484)
Re: Stock Market Thread - .RJ - 09-22-2016
If that includes home equity, I'm close. If not... well I am still working for a while but have been investing a lot more the past year or two.
Re: Stock Market Thread - WRXtranceformed - 09-22-2016
Minus home equity and cars etc I'm ahead of schedule for the 40 mark, but current liquidity is only part of the plan. Aside from the Roth 401k, I'm putting about $600/mo after tax into an investment grade life insurance policy. It builds cash value on top of the face value in 5 year lumps and multiplies in blocks. At 65, I can withdraw penalty AND tax free about $115k per year until I die, the rest would go into my estate when I do pass away.
So yeah that doesn't show up as a liquid asset other than a relatively small amount of additional cash value but I'm right at the first big 5 year jump. Definitely a long term play but a really awesome legal tax haven
Re: Stock Market Thread - HAULN-SS - 09-22-2016
Do they mean savings as 401k + Cash? I'm not 35 but have almost
Re: Stock Market Thread - WRXtranceformed - 09-22-2016
I'm assuming it meant 401k + mutual funds / investment accounts + savings / checking
Re: Stock Market Thread - davej - 09-22-2016
Dang, the last five years have really put a damper on those recommendations. Might be about time to start shopping around
Re: Stock Market Thread - Apoc - 09-22-2016
The thing this doesn't help with is saving more as 6x your income at 50 prolly won't be closento 6x today... so the raw amount you "need" accelerates. I used a few online calculators, but they require you to make too many assumptions to be worth the effort.
I don't include equity because people rarely liquidate everything in retirement. My dad uses vrbo, but he's got a crapton of cars. I guess you could always pull some equity, but it's equally as nice to eventually pay the mortgage off. I have to assume it's cash, stocks, etc.
The one thing I don't know is family gifts, like my parents giving us money for the kid's tuition. I guess it's best to never count on that, but a bit now could be a good chunk of change in 18 years. I have the extra special situation of him graduating a bachelor's program when I'm 60... which is the latest I'd like to retire.
My saving is weird because I'm almost 50% RSU and they don't take 401k out of those awards. That means I'm really only putting half my election into it, unless I deposit big chunks at RSU vests.