Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
About Ken Tumin About Ken Tumin - Founder and Editor

Ken Tumin founded the Bank Deals Blog in 2005 and has been passionately covering the best deposit deals ever since. He is frequently referenced by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and other publications as a top expert, but he is first and foremost a fellow deal seeker and member of the wonderful community of savers that frequents DepositAccounts.

Featured Savings Rates

Popular Posts

Featured Accounts

Senator Questions Bernanke about Gauging the Costs of QE3

POSTED ON BY

Fed Chairman Bernanke was before the Senate Banking Committee today in his semiannual monetary and economic report. Many of the questions from the Senators dealt with the Libor scandal. Consequently, little time was spent on monetary policy. As expected, Chairman Bernanke didn't provide any clear signs that QE3 was near.

In February, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) did a good job at describing his concerns with the Fed's zero interest rate policies. This time, Senator Toomey focused on the Libor Scandal. However, another Senator did take some time to question Chairman Bernanke on monetary policy and the downsides of another round of quantitative easing. That senator was Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina. Below is an excerpt of his questions and Chairman Bernanke's response:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC):

You mentioned costs and benefits of some of the things that you are clearly considering such as quantitative easing has costs that we don't talk about at least on our side as well as keeping the interest rates low.

You are well aware that keeping interest rates where they are is costing Americans about 400 billion dollars a year in loss interest on any savings that they might have. So there's a real cost. And over the last four years probably about a trillion dollars in loss. So people who are actually trying to save and put aside dollars are on a negative tread mill in the sense that they're losing value on their dollars. So there's a cost to that stimulus effect.

And also quantitative easing that you are clearly considering, our own Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimates that about 50 percent of the value of the S&P over the last decade is related to Fed action and the build up around Fed action of quantitative easing. My concern now is what we're seeing is not an increase in the value of stocks, but a projection and a loss in the value of our dollar.

While we talk about no inflation, I think what we are talking about is no visible inflation at this time because clearly if we're printing more money to buy more of our national debt, I think you'd agree that the federal reserve through intermediaries has bought over half of our debt in the last couple of years, we are diluting the value of our dollar over time. While it may not show up today or tomorrow, it's inevitable that it will show up, and I think we see that in the reflection of the price of stocks because it's obvious that doesn't reflect the long-term projections of value and profits as much as it does playing a market in what's coming out of the federal reserve.

So my concern very much now is another announcement of quantitative easing which might inflate the stock market temporarily but another short-term effort that might help employment in the short term but actually reduce the value of the dollar and therefore everything we work for here in this country.

So how are you gauging the cost of another round of quantitative easing?

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke:

Let me respond to the specifics that you raised.

On savings, we understand the low interest rates are hardship for many people.

The reason interest rates are low, of course, is that we're trying to promote a recovery in the economy. People who save hold fixed income type of securities like CDs or Treasury bonds, but they also hold stocks or corporate bonds or small businesses or other types of assets which depend on the strength of the economy. And if raising interest rates might help some folks but if it causes the economy to weaken considerably, it would be bad for investors broadly speaking.

So what we're trying to do, of course, as our mandate suggests is to strengthen the economy which in turn should make America a more attractive place to invest, provide higher returns for everyone investing in the United States.

On the dollar inflation, I appreciate your concern, and obviously that's one of the things we pay very close attention to. We have not seen inflation yet though, and the dollar has been in fact recently a good bit stronger. And we are comfortable that we have the tools to unwind these policies in a way that will not threaten inflation. But as I said to Senator Schumer, we take both sides of the mandate very seriously as we are looking to try help reduce unemployment, we also want to be confident that we maintain price stability in the United States, and thus far we have been successful in doing that.

You will probably recognize Chairman Bernanke's responses since they are very close to what he has said in previous testimonies and press conferences. In summary, he continues to maintain that low interest rates are required for an economic recovery and that the Fed has the tools to prevent inflation when the economy does improve.

I was hoping to see a question about the Fed's language in its statements about the date when they expect to start raising interest rates. That date is currently late 2014, and I'm worried the Fed may soon push that out to 2015 or 2016. I worry these dates will make it impossible for the Fed to decide to raise rates before these dates. Besides the impact to savers, there are reasons to question this policy based on downside effects to the economy. For example, people have no reason to borrow and spend today if they think rates will stay low for several more years. Hopefully, we'll see questions on this topic tomorrow when Chairman Bernanke testifies before the House Financial Services Committee.


Related Posts

Comments
40 comments.
Comment #1 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I, too, was watching the testimony and all I can say is Bernanke likes to make the assumption that all savers are also invested in the stock market, which is definitely NOT the case.   I have zero in the stock market and my retirement savings are earning "zero."   Years and years of saving are going down the drain with no reasonable amount of interest to provide for future years of retirement living.

I am going, if possible, to send an E-mail to Senator DeMint to thank him for bringing up the concerns of savers --- the loss of interest that would have been earned without all the Fed's tinkering.   Perhaps others might do the same.    Perhaps if he gets swamped with E-mails he will give even more attention to getting Bernanke to pay attention, too.

22
Comment #3 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#1  I, too, will join you in sending an email to Senator DeMint.  The more letters they get the better our chances are that someone will take action and help savers.

13
Comment #5 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#1:  I don't know if it will do any good but I sent our Savers Petition url to Senator Demint and asked him if he would support us by signing it.  Too bad I am not from his State or I would have a better chance to get his signature on it.  Is any one on here from his State.  I think it is South Carolina?  Thanks!

10
Comment #2 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I agree. Chairman Bernanke plays fast and loose with his commentary that most savers own stocks and bonds.  Last statistics I've seen indicate roughly 60% of Americans own stock with the vast majority of that 60% holding small dollar amounts of stock.  Far more Americans are dependent on housing and fixed income investments, as a percentage of their overall net worth, than the stock market.  His comments on this subject are disengenuous and symptomatic of the incestuous relationship between Washington and Wall Street.

20
Comment #7 by 51hh posted on
51hh
I was somewhat surprised when I join this board to find out that there are really (a significant group?) people that have zero investment in the stock market (or 100% cash).

A "conventional wisdom" I learned from investment 101 (or one of the "Dummies" books) is that one needs always to be in the market.  For example, at age 30, invest 70% in equity, age 50, 50% in equity, and even at 70, 30% in equity.  Even Benjamin Graham (in "Intelligent Investor") advocated a minimum of 25% in equity at all times. 

So, when Mr. Bernanke stated that those savers also invest in the stock market, maybe he is following the conventional wisdom/assumption, whereas many here have follow the realism and lost confidence in the stock market long ago. 

Then there is the choice of "bonds" vs. cash.  I am also surpirsed that few here are in bonds or bond funds.  I am in the same boat for this since I can never spell "bonds.":-)

I am curious to see any reliable statistics on how many people remaining who are still in the stock market as a whole, one way of another (401K, cash investment, 529, etc.) and how many are pure savers, without any stock coverage.  

I, for one, have certainly learned over the years that the conventional wisdom is simply tricks the financial world has cooked up with.  One needs one's own tailored strategy and prudence to invest in the stock market.  In addition, the common percentage (e.g., 100-age) in equity is simply non-sense. 

 

8
Comment #9 by KenBDG posted on
KenBDG
@anonymous #6, me1004 provided a good explanation why the late-2014 language is counterproductive from an economic point of view.

3
Comment #10 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

.

 

Dear Mr Tumin,



>> me1004 provided a good explanation why the

>> late-2014 language is counterproductive from an

>> economic point of view

Nah ... that's quite lame.

Do you have anything specific about why you keep crowing about the "savers" suffering as if FEDs got to do something about it? 

As you already know, the the FED is not charged with alliviating the suffering of the savers. 

Your crowing appear similar to the questions our represntatives asked the Chariman about LIBOR.  WTF can FED do about LIBOR? ( Charmain explained that they lack the authority of course. )

What next?  Let us hold US FED accoutable for the inflation in Zimbabwe?  Shall we?


Your Truly,

Anonymous

4
Comment #11 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I can't believe you guys are going to let Bernanke get away with the comment:

"People who save hold fixed income type of securities like CDs or Treasury bonds, but they also hold stocks or corporate bonds or small businesses....."

Really? Savers hold small businesses? I think someone ought to take his member out & step on it!

6
Comment #12 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

 

Anonymous - #11,

Why merely small business?  I'm a saver and hold even big businesses.  I own some of AT&T, Exxon, Apple, Chase, and Walmart to name a few.

And small business? ... sure ... I own parts of quite a lot of them as well.  About 2000 of them.

....

No?  You don't believe me? ... Well I own an ETF with ticker SPY (S&P 500 based ETF), and IWM (Ruseell 2000 ETF).

The Chariman was describing some of us quite accurately.

..

 
Your Truly,

Anonymous
 

2
Comment #13 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#12  Maybe Bernanke was describing you but I don't think a lot of senior savers who want to be free of risk due to their age, would be in your category.  Bernanke was making it sound like a majority of us are in stocks etc. and I can't believe that from the comments we get from the Petition signers.  The only thing I ever lost money on was in stocks so I stay free of them and am content with just risk free products.  Bernanke has to rationalize his zero interest rate actions so this is the reason he says what he does.  I have read too many articles from professionals stating what he is doing is not working.  HE initiated this Zero Interest Rate Policy as Chairman of the Fed so he is very capable of changing it if he wanted to.   If what he is doing is so right why were Senators DeMint and Toomey not confident in it?  You have a right to your opinion and I hope you will understand why I disagree with you.

9
Comment #14 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
look the bottom line is the fed since 2008 has destroyed ihe income of savors, we are taking the most punishment and we did nothing to cause this financial disaster.our free spending youth, our greedy bankers and wall street caused it BUT BERENKE ONLY WANTS TO HELP THE STOCK MKT <BANK PROFITS<AND LET THOSE WHO BOUGHT HOUSES THEY CANNOT AFFORD REFI AT THE EXPENCE OF THE SAVORS<ITS FIVE YRS NOW BERNANKE YOU ARE STARVING THE SENIOR SAVORS<YOU DID NOT NEED ZERO RATES  I THOUGHT ALAN GREENSPAN WAS THE THE WORST BUT YOU TAKE THE CROWN AS THE WORST FED PRES IN HISTORY  YOU HATE SAVORS AND LOVE LOSERS

14
Comment #15 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
There are those that complain about the rules of the game, and those that change their gameplay to match the rules.  There's sure a lot of complainers here.

3
Comment #16 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

 

Paoli2,


I have interacted with several members of AARP, and Calpers, and plenty of them do have some sort of investment, and yes those include S&P 500 based mutual fund and/or ETF.  In short they own part of Apple, Walmart, Exxon etc.


 

>> If what he is doing is so right why were

>> Senators DeMint and Toomey not confident in it?

We entrust our representatives to do their jobs, and part of which is to investigate, and oversee the FED.  Therefore, surely I expect the overseers to be skeptical and to ask tough questions, and of course some of the tough questions are going to appear as if there is no confidence.

Allow me to ask a simple question - If there indeed is no confidence in the FED, then can the Congress act and abolish the FED (go Dr Ron Paul)?  ... And allow me to answer as well ... YES.

Another question:  Has the Congress made even one single attempt either in the House or in the Senate, and passed any bill that calls for abolition of the Fed?  ... Answer NO .. NEVER.  ( Perhaps this will address the confidence, or lack thereof of the Congress in the FED. Oh ... as against that there are penty of bills that were passed to get rid of Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare.)

Your Truly,

Anonymous

6
Comment #17 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#16  You make good points but you ignore something.  WE (people who are of my same concerns) are not asking for the Fed to be abolished.  We just want someone in charge who will take the concerns of ALL citizens to heart and not punish a certain group to help another.   We also know that putting a different person in charge may not be a certain that he/she will do different than Bernanke.  It's a chance we take when we change leaders.  We know what Bernanke has done and refuses to undo but maybe a new person will take a better route.  It's not like savers are asking for 5% CD rates!!  Good gracious!  I'd be thankful to see 3% again!  Why can't he find a way to help savers and his beloved stock market?

6
Comment #18 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I am a senior who does not invest in the stock market. This policy of zero interest rates keeps me working, I want to retire.

My question is:

If  romney got elected  president would anything change in regards to interest rates. What would happen to Bernanke, would he be replaced.

 

 

3
Comment #20 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
#18  The word is out that Romney (if he is elected President) will "try" to replace Bernanke when his term ends in 2014.  It's the "try" part that has me concerned and who will he replace him with.  I don't hear anyone out there spouting ways to help our nation from going over the cliff.  We know what damage Obama has already done so all I can say is "maybe" we have a fighting chance to survive with Romney. 

3
Comment #19 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

 

.

 

Anonymous - #17,

 

Well ... the capital WE that you mention above, have elected some representatives in the Congress to look after your interests.  As mentioned earlier, if any of the representatives are harboring thoughts to abolish the FED (Dr Paul for sure is), and/or to imping any of the specific officials of the FED, then it is evident that no such thoughts have been put into action - ever.  ( Sure Dr Paul has expressed the though in verbal/written form, but is any of it actionable?  i.e. Have the representatives passed even one single bill regarding this? ... Nope. )

It is evident that such capital "WE" are on the fringes of our society and/or are an insiginificant minority and/or are too few for the representatives to pay any attention to.  Maybe such fringe/insiginificant elements form a majority on this blog, but that simply does not cut it. 

Mr Tumin and any of his cronies of course are free to crow about the "plight of the savers" all they want, but they must bear in mind that their crowing is not going to have much actionable effect.  (Although such crowing  surely provides a bit of action in the form of entertainment on this blog! *smile*)

 

Your Truly,

Anonymous

 

3
Comment #21 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
#19:  I have news for you and your spouting out about Ken and his "cronies".  If he had so many "cronies" on here why didn't they all flood to sign the Petition?  I think we got very few "cronies" from this blog to sign so I think they think for themselves and do not deserve to be called "cronies".  Did you forget where you are posting?  This is not Mafia 101!

2
Comment #22 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

 

.

 

Anonymous - #18,

>> I am a senior who does not invest in the stock market.

Okay ... So?

 

>> This policy of zero interest rates keeps me working, I want to retire.

No.  I guess your utter failure to understand how the financial/monetory systems work has kept you working.  When you were saving did you count on the interest rate being 1% or 2% or 3% or something like that?  If yes, then that's your failure.  The interest rate is not a mathematical constant (like PI), but is subject to change as the market conditions change.  Any assumption on your part about the interest rate being anything at all is, I guess, what keeps you working.

 

>> My question is:

>> If  romney got elected  president would anything change in regards

>> to interest rates. What would happen to Bernanke, would he be replaced.


No.  I don't know the answer at all.  However, I would not count on a business man who ran a Hedge Fund and who is exceptionally well aware of the financial/monetory policies and their effect on the voters and doners (which include corporations) to make changes that would potentially hurt voters/doners.

Remember, the crowing "savers" are fringe/insiginificant minority, so it would not be wise for any of the elected representatives to pay much (actionable) attention to them. 

Lip service, maybe ... Action ... afraid not.

Your Truly,

Anonymous

7
Comment #24 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
#22/23:  So you really think savers are a useless minority which no one in Washington will pay attention to??  What about the millions of workers who are trying to save through 401Ks etc. and all the people with IRAs or Roth IRAs?? Do you really feel our country is just full of welfare recipients and all of us on Ken's Blog and Forum just read and post here until our soap operas come on??  I think not!  If they are like me, they are trying to salvage their lives with finding the best CD rates they can, wherever they can.  People who get dividends from stocks and bonds are also savers but willing to take more risk to get these dividends.  I am not.  I prefere to think of my fellowman as one who is trying to save for his future and the future of his children not one who is teaching them how to game the Welfare system and get taxpayers to support them for the rest of their lives. 

4
Comment #23 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

 

.

 

Anonymous/Paoli




>> The word is out that Romney (if he is elected President) will

>> "try" to replace Bernanke when his term ends in 2014.

 

Hmm ... 2014 ...

 

Your Truly,

Anonymous

3
Comment #25 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I believe there is a TROll among us...................

5
Comment #26 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

 

Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) - #24,

 

>> So you really think savers are a useless minority which

>> no one in Washington will pay attention to??

Oh no, they are not useless.  But minority? Sure. That they are.

Let us consider the "uses" of such minority (besides of course the entertainment they provide).  Such weak minority often times pins the hope on Republicans, who of course are propped up financially by doners (and which include corporations).  Such "useful" minority often times help elect Republicans and then Republicans turn around and help the doners (and which include corporations)!  ... So useful they are to Republicans, to get elected by a bit of lip service.

 

>> What about the millions of workers who are trying

>> to save through 401Ks etc.

Of course ... what about them?  Do such 401(k) offer "CDs"?  Reward Checking? ... Of course not.

What do the 401(k) offer?  At least one diversified stock fund? ... Sure ... So are the supposed actions of the FED indirectly helping such millions of savers by boosting their savings?  ... Looks that way.

 

>> People who get dividends from stocks and bonds are

>> also savers but willing to take more risk to get these dividends.

Then tell me Anonymous/Paoli, what's all this crowing about "plight of the savers", when in fact by your own admission there are millions of workers who save thru 401(k), and get dividends (not to mention capital gains/ capital appreciation), and the action/policy of FED is indirectly helping corporations generate more of the same?



Your Truly,

Anonymous

5
Comment #28 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
#26  When we were in DP's 401K at his job for upteen years, we never put a penny into stocks.  We were getting a good interest rate on a special money fund they also offered so we never risked losing a penny and did very well with it.  However, I feel those who were in the stock funds or company stock may have felt a lot of pain since they were put out to pasture years earlier than expected so any money they lost they did not have time to remake.   The only money we lost was in company stock which went down due to circumstances and he "had" to buy "some" company stock which he got at a discount price so what we lost evened out thank goodness.  You can poke fun all you want at people like myself who stick with vanilla CDs but they are our choice and even at these gruesome rates, still what we intend to stick with as long as we can.

6
Comment #29 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
All, do you realize the dividends you receive are deducted from the closing value of your stock?  In other words, you are being giving back some your own money you have invested.  It's not the same as interest received on a CD.

3
Comment #31 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
In addition to receiving your own money "back" in the form of dividends, you are going to be double taxed also.

2
Comment #32 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

 

.

Anonymous/Paoli,

>> #26  When we were in DP's 401K at his job for upteen years,

>> we never put a penny into stocks.  We were getting a good

>> interest rate on a special money fund they also offered

>> so we never risked losing a penny and did very well with it.

What's with "we" and "his" job?  Was it one person who was employed or two?

 

>> You can poke fun all you want at people like myself

>> who stick with vanilla CDs but they are our choice and

>> even at these gruesome rates, still what we intend to

>> stick with as long as we can.

No no no ... I'd never poke fun at people who stick to pathetic (to use your word gruesome) CD rates, and make their funds available to the financial institutes, who (most likely) in thru use those funds to generate higher interest and benefit their members, and stockholders.

People like you who readily accept lower rates are quite essential for smooth functining of the financial markets.  Without people like you I'd imagine the financial markets will collapse. 

Imagine what if every last one of you refused to accept the gruesome CD rates, and started putting their funds in checking and/or under the mattress?  Will the financial instututes - both big and especially small - have the funds to do their business with some assurance that they have your funds locked-in at pathetic rates?  Nope ... Don't think so.  Will they be able to do their business, and benefit their stockholders? ... Don't think so.

So believe me, you and people like your are essential.  Won't dream of poking fun at how you manage/mis-manage your funds.

 

Your Truly,

Anonymous

    .

4
Comment #33 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#32  Excuse me if I laugh at your remarks.  You are either too young or too old to remember the "good ole days of 12 - 16% interest rates on CDs.  Why should I have risked a penny in risky investments when we were doing fantastic with just CDs?  And no, it was just DP working while I managed the finances and he was very happy with the fantastic things we were able to do under my money management.  I learned how to do things you would only dream of it seems from your post and proved one could do it with just CDs!  I was one of the rare wives who got to stay home and actually not have to work.  My work was making sure our CDs worked for us.  So laugh all you want.  As long as we don't have to cry because of any mistakes I made, that is all that matters.  Unfortunately, my system could not work for the young people suffering under these paltry interest rates so they may never reach the goals we were able to reach in the "good ole days"!

6
Comment #34 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#33  In other posts you stated you worked and sometimes was laid off.  Which is it?  Where you a stay at home wife or not?

2
Comment #35 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#34  You are confusing my posts.  My DD was laid off and my DP was early retired in his 50's.  After I married and had a family, I never worked again except shortly after he was laid off to bring in extra money.  He didn't like my working so I quit.  I was never laid off or fired.  I dedicated any other time I had going to numerous financial seminars learning about all the aspects of every financial investment available and how to achieve the life we wanted with the funds we had available for saving.  Although many on here may disagree with my tactics and my decisions, I can assure you I reached all goals set out for myself and family.  It did take a lot of work, determination and dedication to do this but when I look back, I would do the same thing again in the financial environment I lived in at the time.

2
Comment #36 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
>> going to numerous financial seminars learning about all the aspects of every financial investment available

Wow!  All aspects of every financial investment available. Amazing!

 

3
Comment #37 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#36  Don't ask me questions just to poke fun at me.  It took years of my life to do this probably something you would never do.  When I take on a project (especially finances) I take it seriously and I am willing to put in the work involved.  If you are just doing this to be a "troll" go back into your dark place in the earth and don't bother posting questions to me.  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that for once, you were actually being serious.  Too bad I was mistaken.  Don't you know you can't keep hiding and pretending to be anonymous.  Your Avatar is your unshining light!

2
Comment #38 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

.

 

Anonymous/Paoli,

Your writing is far too unclear.  In one post you claim that "his job" and in the same breath you claim that "we" were in 401(k).

>> When we were in DP's 401K at his job for upteen years

Well .. the 401(k) account is always owned by a single account holder.  The 401(k) account can have many beneficiaries and can have many attornies-in-fact, but only a single owner. So, there is no such thing like "we being in 401(k)".  As long as the "DP" of yours was/is alive and sane and in his senses, he was/is in 401(k).  Not you.

 

>> Unfortunately, my system could not work

>> for the young people suffering under these

>> paltry interest rates so they may never

>> reach the goals we were able to reach in the "good ole days"!

Right.  So whatever was this system of yours is now useless

Sure there are 100s of systems that work in rear-view mirror, but not when you are moving forward!

 

>> I would do the same thing again in

>> the financial environment I lived in at the time.

Of course you would. 

But if you still alive, and hope to stay that way for a while, then you got to do something that will work in the present to generate reasonable gains for the immediate / intermediate / far-away future.  But then again since you claim that you have learned about all the aspects of every financial investment available, perhaps you'd know about something as simple as this already. No?

 

Your Truly,

Anonymous

3
Comment #39 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#38  Oh no, you don't get to spout off and then run off from me!  However, you do deserve some answers because I tend to have an odd way of expressing myself.  First of all, I said WE when referring to the 401K because we have a very unusual marital arrangement.  Everything that's his is mine, and everything that's mine is mine.    He is fine with the arrangement and has never had a problem with it.  He knows I see to it that he is always kept in the state he is used to being.  That state being whatever makes me ok with him.  So I have always handled the finances and he basically went to work and I made sure he never was in debt and always had great meals to eat. 

You are wrong by stating I can't still use the same methods now that I did years ago.  Nothing has changed except the interest rates and I have found a way to work around that problem.  I won't state what it is because it is not something you or others in this group would be willing to do, imo.  All you have to do is readjust for the new financial situation and get your family to cooperate.  My system has worked for upteen years and I hope to keep it working for whatever years I have left.  BTW, you have taken up a lot of my valuable time this evening so if you haven't signed the Petition, could you please sign it?  Thanks!  Have a good evening.

3
Comment #41 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#39  You stated   "You are wrong by stating I can't still use the same methods now that I did years ago.  Nothing has changed except the interest rates and I have found a way to work around that problem.  I won't state what it is because it is not something you or others in this group would be willing to do, imo."

And what is this proprietary investment system?

2
Comment #40 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

 

Anonymous/Paoli,

 

>> I tend to have an odd way of expressing myself.

Not merely odd, but illegal as well.

 

>> WE when referring to the 401K because we have

>> a very unusual marital arrangement.  Everything that's

>> his is mine, and everything that's mine is mine. 

You are free to have whatever arrangement you want as long as it is within the bounds of the law.  Once again, as long as the "DP" of your is alive, (and sane, and on his sense) the 401(k) governed by ERISA is his and his alone.  Too bad for you Paoli, as no arrangement can change that. 

( Now that I know about the arrangement of yours that "whatever is his was yours", I wonder if the "DP" of your is sane and/or in his senses. *smile*)

 

>> I won't state what it is because it is not something

>> you or others in this group would be willing to do, imo.

Absolutely.  Because you have learned about all the aspects of every financial investment available, please keep the "rear-view mirror" scheme of yours to yourself.  Don't think it will be of any value to people who perhaps are well short of all aspects / every investment.

 

>> BTW, you have taken up a lot of my valuable time this evening

Nope.  Wrong.  You have chosen to spend your time.



Your Truly,

Anonymous

4
Comment #42 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#40:  Illegal??  How can I be expressing myself illegally?  If you are referring to what I stated about the 401K, give me a break!  I have forgotten more about the "rules" of all of these financial products than most people take the time to learn!  Legally I know perfectly what is in his name is his and that is why I make sure we have and keep all copies showing beneficiaries (guess WHO?).  His Iras are his also until he deceases but since I have made everything possible for him and handle everything for him "with his permission" since he IS sane and considers himself to be very fortunate to have found someone like myself to take on all of the financial burdens for us, he trusts me completely.  Not withstanding what you may think of me, he knows how trustworthy I am and everything I do is for US not just for ME!  If YOU took me seriously when I posted the "everything he has is mine and everything I have is mine" then I think you are the one who needs a sanity judgement.  I was JOKING with you and thought you had enough sense to know it. 

However, let me clear up one thing for you.  I don't have to look in any mirrors.  I am the most honest, trustworthy person you could ever find.  I believe in rules and follow them explicitly.  When I posted why I would not share my particular financial decisions, I still stand by that.  From the posts I have read, I am certain there isn't one person on this Blog who would be willing to put forth the determination, dedication, and research work I have done and still do to achieve financial goals for my family.  You all have your own ways of doing things and I hope they work out best for you.  I agree your ways would not be my ways either so let it rest at that and keep your mirrors for yourselves.  I don't need them.  Thank you.

2
Comment #43 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#42  What is this proprietary investment system of yours?

2
Comment #44 by Roush posted on
Roush
#43 - Obviously a figment of his/her imagination, i.e., all hat and no cattle!

3
Comment #45 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#43  I did not say it was a proprietary system.  I just said I prefered to purchase only CDs because I can't take risks at this point in our lives.  Sheryl Nash tried to share part of what I do in her article but it seems many people were against what she stated.  My system is nothing special.  Just a frugal way of living and dedicating my life to researching financial information.  One cannot help without the other and if everyone in the family does not cooperate we can't be successful. I, mainly, do all the physical work and studying but my DP is involved with what CD choices I make for us.  It's nothing special but it takes a lot of time and effort that most people do not have or do not want to do.  I will search for banks near our locality when I need CDs and we drive to them if I can get a better interest for us.  It is easier to do this now that he is retired and has the time to take me.  I do not do anything he is not aware of or in agreement with.  I assure you he is as sane as they come and I do resent that earlier statement being made but I can understand it was because of a misunderstanding of what I posted.

I am sorry my posts can be confusing at times.  Thank you for your understanding.  Have a good evening.

2
Comment #46 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
To Anonymous - #18,

Romney said in couple of speeches, Bernanke will be gone if he is elected.

1
Comment #47 by lou posted on
lou
Let the free market set interest rates. Govt manipulation of interest rates will have consequences no one can predict. It will probably end very badly for all of us. Bernanke is playing with fire.

7
Comment #48 by lou posted on
lou
BTW, for all of those posters who invest in stocks and bonds - if the market crashes, I don't want to hear your bellyaching and don't start begging the govt for a bailout.

6
Comment #51 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#48  lou 

After hearing and taking note of what Bernanke is doing, do you really think he will let the stock market crash?  It will be volatible but Bernanke will intervene to calm it down.  He is committed to having a strong market at the expense of the CD investors.

1
Comment #49 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

 

.

.

 

Anonymous - #46,

>> Romney said in couple of speeches,

>> Bernanke will be gone if he is elected

 

Err ... Hmm ... Yeah ... 

To me that sounds like classic lip service to get a few extra votes. No?

Your Truly,

Anonymous

3
Comment #50 by lou posted on
lou
#49  Are you a mind reader? You really think Romney is going to reappoint Bernanke. I seriously doubt it.

2
Comment #52 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
To Anonymous - #39,

You stated: "We have a very unusual marital arrangement.  Everything that's his is mine, and everything that's mine is mine."

Have you heard of President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation?

What do you have there? A husband or a slave?

1
Comment #54 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#52  Were you too tired to read ALL the posts last night?  I explained the answer to your question.  Are you now trying to turn this into a "race" issue?  Yes, I've heard of Lincoln.  He taught me all I know!  Oops!  I forgot.  You probably will take me seriously and think I am hundreds of years old. Well guess what?  I may be!  Now let's close the topic of my "slave" SANE DP and see if we can find some better CD rates.  I'm on the hunt!

2
Comment #55 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#54  Have you recently found any good CD rates that were not listed on Ken's reports?

2
Comment #56 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#54  Yes but what was good for my needs may not be good for the rest of you.  They are no longer available anyway or I would have shared.  I am going on a 75 mile radius from my locality and not finding much of anything even for "my" needs.  I still have a month to look so maybe something will pop up in some small town someplace.  Ken's list is still the best and Best Cow is my second best help.

1
Comment #53 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

.

Anonymous - #51,

 

President Obama was a lawyer.  While a lawyer, he had no direct ties to Wall St.  Currently majority of his doners are "small". 

Governor Romney was a Hedge Fund manager.  While a Hedge Fund manager, he had very close ties to Wall St.  Currently he get huge sums of donations from Wall St.


I have every reason to believe that if the Governor gets elected as the Presiden, then he would do nothing that would hurt his past associates while he was Hedge Fund manager, and nothing that will hurt his current donors. ( You ain't seen nothin yet. )

 

Your Truly,

Anonymous

6
Comment #57 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
"I am certain there isn't one person on this Blog who would be willing to put forth the determination, dedication, and research work I have done and still do to achieve financial goals for my family."

You are certain?  How can you be certain?  Knowing my experience with financial planning matters for my family, I think you are WRONG.  I can only say I think you are wrong, because I or anyone else knows for certain who puts more time and effort into such matters.

However, I do agree with many of your other posts.

1
Comment #58 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#57  Wow, a woman who helped Lincoln free the slaves and only asked to keep one for her DP sure gets a hard time on this blog!   You are theorectically correct.  I should have posted "I think" since I cannot for sure know if any of my clones are on this Blog.  I go by my theory because I have never found any one in my own family, friends (the one or two I still have) or associates who would be willing to take on my style of life or saving particulars.  Most people think it can't be done and if I prove it can, only get angry at me because it is not what they want to do to achieve their purposes.  These are bad times for savers and I am so grateful I trained myself and my family to prepare for them.  I expect things to get worse so we all should be extra grateful we have Ken working so hard trying to help us find better CD rates.  That is, those of us who are still using CDs for our savings. 

2
Comment #59 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.
 

Anonymous/Paoli,

No.  I'm not going to ask you any question about the CDs.  My question focusses on learning/teaching.  Let me quote from a couple posts you wrote.

>> 1) ----

>> I had going to numerous financial seminars learning about all the aspects of every financial investment available

>> 2) ----

>> Yes, I've heard of Lincoln.  He taught me all I know!

 

Would it be safe to assume that President Lincoln conducted financial seminars for you?  *smile*

Your Truly,

Anonymous

 

4
Comment #60 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#59  A Poster brings Lincoln into the converstation and the Emancipation Proclamation.  Did you really not expect me to reply bringing Lincoln into my answer?  What is this?  Do I need to put my hand on the Bible and do the "I promise" bit.  I WAS MAKING FUN OF THE POSTER'S POST TO ME!!!  Are some of you so dry that you can't tell the difference between a real answer and a snide reply?  Maybe in another life I knew Lincoln but in this one, I have to admit, he hasn't appeared yet, to me.  If my replies aggravate you, why do you respond to them?  Let's call it quits to this because fun time is over.  I have to return to working on finding the CDs I need.  I think Lincoln would greatly approve of the way I live my live and handle my finances. 

2
Comment #61 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

.

Anonymous/Paoli,

>> I think Lincoln would greatly approve of the way I live my live

Nah ... don't think President would ...  especially if he were to learn that you've enslaved your husband.

Your Truly,

Anonymous

 

5
Comment #62 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Hey #61:  It's not "enslavement" if the subject agrees to it and cooperates with his condition.  YOU are considering it enslavement but as I see it he is a very lucky DP who is able to have a DP (me) who can handle all his finances, taxes, accountings, and can also cook and handle most of any healthcare issues. YOU should have it so good!  This man may live to be 200 years old! :)  Now get off of the enslavement issue just because you don't have it that good is no reason to poke fun at me and him.

2
Comment #63 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Anonymous/Paoli,

Have you heard of Dr Kevorkian?  His "subject" aka patient, agreeded to end his own life, and the good Dr assisted him.  In the eyes of the law it was still a homicide.

So you say your "subject" aka husband has agreed to terms "whatever is his is yours" ... Hmm.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

3
Comment #64 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Anonymous - #62,

You say "YOU are considering it enslavement but as I see it he is a very lucky DP who is able to have a DP (me) who can handle all his finances, taxes, accountings, and can also cook and handle most of any healthcare issues."

And his ****ual needs?  Do you take care of that, or do you out-source it?

 

You say "YOU should have it so good! "

I'll pass.

 

2
Comment #65 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#64  You are pushing your luck now with your posts.  If you had the sense of a Cookatoo, you would know that everything we do is legal.  Have you no knowledge of the law?  Have you ever made a Will?  We are partners and have all the legal papers for everything.  In your society it is called a "marriage"!  If you think what we have is odd, I would hate to think what you consider is normal.  Now leave my DP alone!  You are beginning to make me angry.  I am very defensive of my family so stay out of my life!  BTW, I most certainly know who Dr. Kevorkian is and we won't go into that because you certainly know what my feelings are on that issue!  

2
Comment #66 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

.

Anonymous/Paoli,

It is you who described that you take care of your DP's taxes, finances, cooking and healthcare.  Therefore surely it is interesting to know if DP of yours has any ****ual needs, if so who takes care of those, and perhaps where did you learn about that aspect?  ( By chance, did you learn all about it from Ms Lewinsky and President Clinton? *smile* ) 

Anyways ... now coming to the topic:

>> We are partners and have all the legal papers for

>> everything.  In your society it is called a "marriage"!
 
You're stupid.  I don't think it is within your grap to get the following.  But let me try.

In my society ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) has the final say about all the 401(k) accounts.  No amount of marriages and/or marriage licenses can ever give you ownership of the 401(k) account of your DP, as long as the DP is alive / sane / in his senses.  

When your DP is dead or goes crazy or goes in a coma/vegitative-state etc. then (maybe) you can gain the ownership of his 401(k) account. ... So be patient.  Let the nature take its course.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #67 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#66  I am a lot of things but "stupid" is not one of them.  I already explained that I know exactly how a 401K works but it is no longer a 401K.  It is now a Rollover IRA which makes it much easier for me to handle "for him".  What I want to know is what makes someone who is supposed to be a "male" be so concerned about what is going on in another man's life.?  Is it because YOU have to pay someone to do all the things I am capable of doing for him for free?  Did you not luck out and find your own DP who can take care of all of your finances?  Is that why you are so nosey about ours?.  Would you like me to recommend someone who can do yours?  It may cost you thousands of dollars but every man can't be as lucky as my DP to have ME!  Now take a hike!  I have to do some work for us. 

NOW I CONSIDER THIS SUBJECT TO BE CLOSED!  WE HAVE TAKEN UP ENOUGH OF KEN'S BLOG WITH YOUR ABNORMAL INTEREST IN MY DP AND MY LIFE! 

1
Comment #68 by Roush posted on
Roush
Sorry, #67, but you have brought most of this situation on YOURSELF, once again, and I think you should know why....seems as though you have a chronic habit of taking exception to anyone and everyone that questions your many ill conceived remarks. Perhaps you mean well but it oftentimes does not come over that way. Nough said.  

3
Comment #70 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#68  Thank you so much for your honesty.  I don't mean for my remarks to come off the way they do but this is the internet and if they are ill-conceived, I apologize to posters like yourself.  However, I don't apologize to our "Brown Avatar" who has spent months taunting me with his terrible remarks and thinking I don't know it is always the same person.  First it was the Petition, and now he/it seems to have taken advantage of my remarks about my DP.  Believe it or not, I am new to the internet as of about a year ago and need to understand how to post without opening up the gates of Hell upon myself by people like Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Brown Avatar:  You have no pride and probably not much of a life or you would not have to say such terrible things to me every chance you get.  I may be a slow learner when it comes to posting on groups like this but I can learn.  YOU have taught me how cruel posters really can be.  I have never been cruel or obscene to anyone in these groups.  If I come off angry at times, it may be because I can't understand certain reactions to my posts.  You will have to find someone else to spew your nasty mean remarks to because no matter how you try to hide behind your Anonymous posts, I WILL find a way to recognize you and NOT respond to you. 

I hope you can at least care enough for the work Ken has put into these threads to stay away from my posts and allow me to be able to use Ken's work for my research.   I think the groups on other threads will see that I am never a problem until you and your Brown Avatar pop up on the same thread and you start up posting to me.  You've had your fun at my expense and now enough is enough!   Have a good evening everyone.

2
Comment #69 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

.

 

Paoli,

>> It is now a Rollover IRA which makes it much easier for me to handle "for him".

Aha ... finally we have some progress!  Perhaps you're a little less stupid now that we all have educated you a bit.

Good ... so now you seem to get it, that the Rollover Individual Retirement Account is his, not yours (no matter what arrangements you might have with that DP thingy of yours.) 

So ... you admit that you are merely handling it for him, without staking a collective claim on it.

( If in future you get confused, iust look at the name of the account. As long as they don't have a name like Group Retirement Account (GRA) or maybe DP & DP Retirement Account (DDRA) or something like that, rest assured that you are not the owner. )

 
>> Would you like me to recommend someone who can do yours?

What exactly are you offering so far as this recommedation goes? ... Taxes? Finances? Cooking? Healthcare? ****? ... Err ... Maybe not the last three? *smile*  Right? ...

... Or for that matter if you have some recommendation of literally "someone" (just one) who can do all the five, then sure ... I'd like to hear you out  .... please go ahead. *smile*


Yours Truly,

Anonymous

4