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

Fed's Yellen Suggests Zero Interest Rates Into 2016

POSTED ON BY

In a speech yesterday, the Fed's #2 official, Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen, said that the federal funds rate may need to stay near zero until early 2016. She also strongly supported combinations of unemployment rate and inflation thresholds to guide future policy decisions. As mentioned in this Reuters article, Yellen is seen as a "front-runner to succeed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke when his term expires in January 2014." So this speech may have long-term implications on what we can expect from the Fed for the next decade.

Yellen's full speech is available at this Federal Reserve webpage. Here's an excerpt which describes why she thinks the federal funds rate may need to be kept near zero until 2016. The excerpt references this chart:

The optimal policy to implement this "balanced approach" to minimizing deviations from the inflation and unemployment goals involves keeping the federal funds rate close to zero until early 2016, about two quarters longer than in the illustrative baseline, and keeping the federal funds rate below the baseline path through 2018. This highly accommodative policy path generates a faster reduction in unemployment than in the baseline, while inflation slightly overshoots the Committee's 2 percent objective for several years.

Here's an excerpt in which Yellen discusses inflation and unemployment thresholds:

Several of my FOMC colleagues have advocated such an approach, and I am also strongly supportive. The idea is to define a zone of combinations of the unemployment rate and inflation within which the FOMC would continue to hold the federal funds rate in its current, near-zero range. For example, Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed, suggests that the FOMC should commit to hold the federal funds rate in its current low range at least until unemployment has declined below 7 percent, provided that inflation over the medium term remains below 3 percent. Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Minneapolis Fed, suggests thresholds of 5.5 percent for unemployment and 2.25 percent for the medium-term inflation outlook.

In this Reuters graphic of the Fed, Yellen is shown to be more of an inflation dove than Chairman Bernanke. Not only are doves more concerned with unemployment than with inflation, but they think that monetary policy is capable of greatly impacting unemployment. Inflation hawks are not only more concerned with inflation, but they are skeptical about the effectiveness of monetary policy in reducing the unemployment rate.

This is another indication that low rates may be with us for a very long time. And there are other signs that it may be even longer. One economist says history "suggests interest rates may continue falling until 2022". However, it's possible that rates could rise even with a weak economy. DA member Lou made a valid point in the comments that we "should not discount the possibility of high inflation and/or bond vigilantes forcing rates to go higher. Greece, Spain and some other countries have very high unemployment rates and little or no growth while also having very high interest rates." This possibility was mentioned in an open letter to Congress and the President by 15 of the nation's top financial CEOs. On the other hand, some economists claim that the U.S. doesn't have to worry about bond vigilantes forcing higher rates.

No one knows the future and how long these low interest rates will last. As I mentioned last week CD ladders have a long history of providing a sound strategy for the low-risk part of one's portfolio, and it doesn't require interest-rate predictions.

Update 2:45pm: The Fed has released last month's FOMC minutes. As described in this Calculated Risk blog article, "It seems very likely that the Fed will adopt a threshold rule for the Feds Fund Rate based on inflation and unemployment, and remove the forward guidance sentence from the statement at the December 11th and 12th meeting".


Related Posts

Comments
76 comments.
Comment #1 by Scott (anonymous) posted on
Scott
Time to go Dove hunting

5
Comment #2 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
ONt his basis I would like opinions about locking up money for from seven to ten years.

anonymous

1
Comment #3 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Never fight the FED. Deflation is a bigger danger today than  high inflation. Of course inflation doesn't have to be "high" in order to wipeout any interest made on CDs today & eat into your principal in terms of purchasing power. It doesn't take a genius to figure any of the above out.

The bottom line is this...............If you think low rates are here to stay & the best rates you can get today still do not compensate for current inflation, then it is stupid to put your money into CDs. On the other hand, if you think inflation is around the corner & rates are going to go up soon, then it is also stupid to lock your money into CDs paying close to nothing when you can get much more tomorrow. Either way you look at it, CDs are the worst place to invest your money today.

Where do I put my money? Commercial real estate rentals, a little in dividend paying stocks & p2p investing, where I've earned over 12% per year or more for 3 consecutive years now. I won't elaborate further, lest someone responds with the ignorant comment that I'm trying to "sell" someone something. As if I have anything personal to gain.

3
Comment #4 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

 

Dear Mr Tumin,

>> In a speech yesterday, the Fed's #2 official, Federal Reserve
>> Vice Chair Janet Yellen, said that the federal funds rate may
>> need to stay near zero until early 2016. She also strongly
>> supported combinations of unemployment rate and inflation thresholds
>> to guide future policy decisions.

Excellent!

I am so glad to note that our Vice-Chair is mindful of the dual mandate we've given to the FED. If indeed Ms Yellen succeeds the current Chairman Bernanke, then I wish Ms Yellen the very best. May she succeed in makiing posicies as the future Chair-woman that will bring the unemplyment down, thereby helping millions among us who are unemployed, and also helping millions among us by curbing the inflation, when it comes our way.

Your Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #5 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
This is what the American people voted for.  God help us all!!

9
Comment #6 by RIFSLAW posted on
RIFSLAW
Respectfully, "this" has nothing to do with the election and everything to do with the economy, employment, and other (non-political) factors.

9
Comment #7 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
When the Feds are manipulating the markets with artificially low interest rates, it has everything to do with politics!

11
Comment #8 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear #7,

>> When the Feds are manipulating the markets

Surely you mean the job market.  ... No? 

We have given the FEDs the madate to manipulate the job markets so as to create maximum possible employment. 

Of course the job creation is political.  Both politicap parties claim that creating jobs is their primary job!

Your Truly,

Anonymous

 

3
Comment #22 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#8, No!  Read what I wrote:  "markets", not job market.  "markets" plural, meaning all markets not just the job market.  Stock, bond, treasury, commodities, housing, etc.  Retirees and elderly savers are being thrown to the wolves.   

2
Comment #9 by Wil posted on
Wil
Whether we like it or not, the interest rate environment is out of our hands. Given the fact that the United States is pursuing a near-zero interest rate policy for an extended period of time, investors (including cash deposit investors) will just have to adjust their strategies to get the best return on their money, and that probably means assuming more risk and accepting possibly anemic returns. I think #3's second paragraph has it right: locking your money in long-term CDs simply doesn't make much sense, except for capital preservation. Even then, the purchasing power of your savings will erode over the term of the CD. I'm not buying any new CDs. For liquidity, keep cash the best yielding savings, checking, and money market accounts that you can find. Jump on any specials you can find, even if there are limits to the amount that can be deposited, assuming you are willing to keep track of multiple accounts at multiple banks and credit unions. If income is a primary objective, and you don't need the principal any time soon, consider flexible-premium deferred annuities (I know some readers hate annuities, and I understand your reasons, but investing a portion of your savings in an annuity, so long as you don't need the principal, can be worthwhile for some investors). Assuming you don't think the U.S. government will go bankrupt any time soon, I bond and mortgage-backed securities may be worth a look. If you are willing to consider more risk, some foreign bond funds have a decent yield (the best "out there" is Templeton Global Bond, but it has a 4.25% sales load). More risk still, but with decent yields: REITs, MLPs, utilities stocks/funds (the best utility fund "out there" is another Franklin/Templeton offering, Franklin Utilities, which also has a 4.25% sales load), and certain closed-end funds, such as AllianceBernstein Income Fund (symbol: ACG). Of course, anything other than cash investments carry the risk of possible loss of principal. It seems that, for an extended period of time, yield is going to be at the expense of safety, and conservative investors don't have very attractive options. By the way, don't forget that discounts on sales loads are available when the sum invested reaches certain thresholds. No load mutual funds investing in foreign bonds and utilities exist, of course, but may not have the impeccable record of the two Franklin/Templeton funds mentioned previously.

5
Comment #10 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

 

Dear Wil - #9,

Your message is mostly quite reasonable.

Surely I'll add the Structured CDs (with FDIC insurance for principal, but not to the contingent interest) and Structured Notes (No FDIC insurance - neither to principal, nor to any contingent interest) to the list you've given.

Bond funds? ... Of course.  But surely not any with loads.  There are plenty of no-load bond funds available. Not to mention whole lot of ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) that are available, and some with fantastic dividends are available thru some brokers at no commission (with certain conditions)!

Fixed Annuities - No way Jose!  So long as I retain most of my facilities, I would not dream of handing off my money to an Annuity Company and getting a mere promise of payment in return. 

Variable Annuities of course are exceptiion where I continue to retain the ownership of every penny.  BTW I use Monument Advisor's - Jefferson Nationals - Variable Annuity.  They let me trade whole lot of Pro/Rydex Mutual Funds (branded for Variable Annuity) each day - if I so choose - and often I do - and charge mere $20 per month.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

3
Comment #11 by Wil posted on
Wil
#10: Actually, I agree with you about bond funds with sales loads. However, my reference was to foreign bond funds, and TPINX is the "best of breed." Some investors may be able to buy it without a load, depending on their brokerage (and a "clone" may be available in certain variable annuities). I was clear about the load, and that no load foreign bond funds exist, albeit with a record that may not be as stellar as TPINX. Your advice about structured notes may be a nice complement to what I wrote; I really can't comment further because I don't have experience with them. About annuities, if they're not for you, fine! Many people have good reasons for not liking them, as I acknowledged. I was only talking about a portion of one's savings, and only for people who are comfortable with annuities. State govenments having "guaranty funds," so I don't think that the risk is unacceptably high. But that is only my opinion. If you hate annuities, then ignore that part of my earlier comment. Personally, I dislike variable annuities, most are expensive and, unlike mutual funds, the gains of variable annuities are taxed as ordinary income. Of course, should the tax code change, that disadvantage could disappear.

3
Comment #12 by Wil posted on
Wil
Addendum: By the way, my above comment was not about "immediate annuities." With a deferred annuity, you don't have to annuitize the payments; you can withdraw your money in one or more lump sums, without loss of principal and interest, if the period of surrender charges has expired. Furthermore, many annuities allow withdrawal of interest without penalty. It is important to closely scrutinize any insurance contract and if you don't understand it, or there is something about it that you don't like, then DO NOT BUY!

3
Comment #13 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
The 30 year T-Bonds issued with very high interest rates back in the 1980s are coming due soon.  The 5 year CDs issued before the 2008 crash are also coming due soon too.  That would then leave junk bonds or emerging markets to get double digit returns.

3
Comment #14 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.




Dear Wil - #11,

I have used Structured Notes extensively. So far I've never lost even a single penny in Structured Notes.  Check out the prospectus for a new issue "38141GHM9" at SEC which is at URL below.  Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't.  ( Of course this products is NOT insured by FDIC, and one can lose all the principal and get no contingent interest at all. )

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886982/000119312512451431/d435158d424b2.htm

 

>> Some investors may be able to buy it without a load, depending on their

>> brokerage (and a "clone" may be available in certain variable annuities). I was clear

>> about the load, and that no load foreign bond funds exist, albeit with a record

>> that may not be as stellar as TPINX.
 
I believe by "record" what you are indicating is mere point-to-point appreciation of price (NAV), perhaps with the dividends-and-capital-gains re-invested.  (Surely not when one buys-low-and-sells-high again-and-again-and-again several times a year.)  I find such point-to-point record of little to no value - steller or otherwise.

To a trader (yours truly) what matters, I believe, is the personal rate of return, with an eye to how much risk, for how long the trader took.

Major objection I have to any annuity (fixed/immediate or whatever is the brand) when the ownership of the money is passed from the Annuitant to the Annuity Company is 100% loss of ones principal. One signs off the ownership of the money and obtains a promise in reuturn. ( As I indicated - the Variable Annuity - where the funds of the Annuitant are held in separate account, and the Annuitant retains the complete ownership of his/her assets is the only was that is acceptable. )

Yours Truly,

Anonymous
 

2
Comment #55 by Wil posted on
Wil
#14 recommended structured notes, which he made seem like a conservative investment. I have done a little research since, and I regret to say that they seem complicated and, possibly (as in 2008), dangerous. They are definitely not for "conservative investors." It seems that, being notes, they are essential IOUs from the issuing investment bank (for example, the now-defunct Lehman Brothers). So the first risk is the possibility that the investment bank forfeits the debt. It is entirely possible that the underlying securities have value, even a positive return, and yet the note is worthless, which is what happened to the Lehman Brothers investors. So there is credit risk on top of market risk. Next, there is the problem that they are highly illiquid; they rarely trade after issuance and the only possibility of an early exit is taking whatever price the issuer is willing to offer, assuming that it is willing to do so at all. Additionally, a corollary of their illiquidity is that prices are determined by a matrix, essentially a "best-guess" by the issuing investment bank, rather than an NAV. As if all this isn't enough to warrant caution, there are often performance caps and dividend exclusions. Caveat emptor! After all this, I can hardly believe that my positive comments about deferred annuities, which are conservative investments, was challenged on the grounds having only "a mere promise of payment in return" (notwithstanding state guaranty funds). What do you think an IOU is?

2
Comment #16 by Wil posted on
Wil
Anonymous #14: Since I am not a trader, and many people are not, obviously my references to TPINX long-term record are not for you. That's okay, as I'm sure, from your comments, that you possess the investing sophistication to pursue your own strategies, and hence the record to which I referred has little worth for you. Concerning annuities, the insurance company is just as bound to the contract as is the annuitant. Assuming the insurer remains solvent, then it is bound by contract law to the provisions of the contract. I still don't think there is a particularly high degree of risk involved here. And I have not lost a penny investing in deferred annuities (whether flexible-premium or single-premium). You disagree, and find non-variable annuities unacceptable. Again, I have acknowledged from the outset that many readers don't like annuities, and that I understand their reasons. So ignore that part of my first post, as I suggested in my comment #11, and be done with it. For myself, the only annuities I don't like are variable annuities, and I have my reasons. I should add, by the way, that I do, in fact, own one variable annuity, from Fidelity. The reason I have it is twofold: compared to other variable annuities, it is a bargain with an annual charge of only 20 basis points, and my holding within the annuity is a "clone" of TPINX (i.e., it is an effective way of owning TPINX without having to pay a sales load). By the way, I do appreciate your information about structured notes - I'll have to do some homework.

1
Comment #17 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Wil - #16,

 

>> By the way, I do appreciate your information about structured notes I'll have to do some homework.

 
Glad to know.

Since you mentioned Fidelity, I will give some more details.  Surf over to Fidelity and follow menu "Research -> Fixed Income & Bonds".  After that click on "Find Bonds and CDs" that is near the center of the page. Next under "Other Offerings" click on "Structured Products".  You'll see list of Notes/CDs that are on offer.  Every month the list changes as the then current offerings are added.  They have prospectuses for each of the product listed that will give very very details information inclding various risks, and examples of different scenarios that show hor the money might be made, or might be lost!

Hope this helps.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

4
Comment #19 by Wil posted on
Wil
#17: Thanks, I'll take a look at it. Having a nice evening!

1
Comment #18 by Retired (anonymous) posted on
Retired
The FED - "Let's really put the ****s to those seniors who were stupid enough to save for retirement".

8
Comment #20 by Wil posted on
Wil
Correction: I made a typo - I meant "have a nice evening!" I truly wish we could edit our comments in the blog, like we can in the forum!

1
Comment #21 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

 

Dear Wil - #16,

>> The reason I have it is twofold: compared to other variable annuities,

>> it is a bargain with an annual charge of only 20 basis points, and my

>> holding within the annuity is a "clone" of TPINX

 

I am sure you must have done the comparisons of the amount of assets you have vis-a-vis what the  20 basis points will cost you.  As the amount of assets you have grows the charge you end-up paying becomes higher. So for a 10k annuity you'll pay a small sum, but for a 1mil annuity you'll end-up paying much higher.

As against that the annuity I have has fixed cost of $20.  So if I have 10k the cost is same.  When it increases to 100k it is still $20. And so on. 

I find fixed cost advantageous, rather then cost tied to assets. Imagine the work a Realtor does to sell a 500k house and a 1mill house, and charges 3%, rather than a fixed cost.  Does the Realtor perform double the work to sell a 1mill house, than a 500k house?  Likewise does the annuity company perform more and more work as the assets you have grows to justify the higher and higher charge?  ( Nope ... I don't know the answer of course.  It is left to each individual to find his/her own answer. )

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

2
Comment #23 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Anonymous - #22,

Oh .. okay ... Plural.

Anyways, we certainly have given the FED madate to manipulate job market, to create max possible employment, and we have given the FED certain tools to achieve this.  As a voter I expect the FED to use the tools we've given to it, to try to achieve the madate we've given.  It would be rather unacceptable if FED does not use all the tools at its disposal including the rate-setting capability.
 

>> Retirees and elderly savers are being thrown to the wolves.  

Really? Hmm ...

Were/are these Retirees and elderly-s ever the voters, who for a generation elected the various governments which never thought of abolishing (even auditing) the FED?  Never though of changing the mandate to add "save the savers" to the mandate?

The Retirees and elderly-s certainly had decades to make suitable changes, and to build-up a significant majority.  Did they bother to do it?  ... No?

... Well I guess the Retirees and elderly-s are largely responsible for the state of the union we have today.  It is they who elected our governments for decades. If they are finding that they should/could/must have done this-n-that ... Well ... unfortunately perhaps it might be too late now. 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #24 by Wil posted on
Wil
"When it increases to $100K it is still $20. And so on."

You are either seriously wealthy, or expect to be. Good!

A variable annuity at a fixed cost. Sounds attractive. But if I read your comment #10 correctly, isn't your fixed cost $20 per month, not per year? So that beats 20 basis points only if your account is above $120K. Is that correct? If so, for the time being I'm sticking with my Fidelity annuity.

1
Comment #25 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Wil - #24,

>> You are either seriously wealthy, or expect to be.

I wish ... But I must admit that I can never have enough processor-speed, enough disk-space, enough giga-bytes-of-memory, and enough money!  ;-)

Yes, it is $20 per month.  I consider it a reasonable cost of doing business, because Jeff Nat offers me facility to trade the Pro/Rydex funds each day.  And their selecion is massive (long/short/ with leverage, without leverage).  I pay much higher charge for the broadband service.
 

>> So that beats 20 basis points only if your account is above $120K. Is that correct?

Maybe. Maybe not. 

Why?  Because at Fidelity they have extremely restrictive policies so far as trading is concerned in their variable annuity products.  Also the selection of funds is tiny, when compared to what Jeff Nat has.  The cost of course needs to be compared with the what facilities are offered, and which of those facilities are essential for the user?  I find myself makingup the $20 within first couple of trades of the month, and then the rest is all profit!

BTW, originally I had the variable annuity with Fido, but I shifted to Jeff Nat.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

2
Comment #26 by Maecl posted on
Maecl
Since some of the discussion is on bonds I was wondering if anyone can shed some light on this question:

Vanguard GNMA Fund VFIIX is at a 52 week low.  The bond market rates are low, which should mean the NAV of the fund should be at or near a 52 week high.  Does anyone think the reason for the funds drop is value is the Fed buying mortgage backed securities?

 

1
Comment #27 by Pete (anonymous) posted on
Pete
The Israeli Jubilee Bonds-10-year are paying 3.77% fixed guaranteed, paid twice yearly.  Three of my co-workers have bought these in the last 2 months.  They are backed by the Israeli Govt. and have never been defaulted on, and sold in US dollars, via US offices.  Are these worthwhile?  Anyone have experience with these? Thanks.

2
Comment #28 by Wil posted on
Wil
Pete: Looks like an interesting find! But if three of your coworkers have bought them, why not ask them about their experiences? Frankly, it sounds like you should be reporting whether they are worthwhile, rather than asking us!

1
Comment #29 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Maecl - #26,

 

>> Vanguard GNMA Fund VFIIX is at a 52 week low.

No. It is not.  Today's VFIIX close is at 10.98.  The NAV was below this value several times in June 2012.

I find that for a (dividend paying) mutual fund such as VFIIX, the "adjusted close" is a better mesure than unadjusted NAV.

 

>> The bond market rates are low, which should mean the NAV

>> of the fund should be at or near a 52 week high.

There are several segments to the bond market. Long Treasuries, Mdeium Term Treasuries,Short Term Treasuries, Jusk Bonds, Municipal Bonds, Mortgage Backed Securities etc.  When one says rates are low, I guess they are talking about a particular segment, rather than the whole of the market.  Today both the Junk Bonds and Mortgage Backed Bonds went down and the yields went up, but the Long Bonds did not, and the yields went down.




>> Does anyone think the reason for the funds drop is value is the Fed

>> buying mortgage backed securities?

It is of course possible, but I don't think so.

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

2
Comment #30 by Maecl posted on
Maecl
#29:  I got those NAV's from Vanguards site.  Where do you look to find the mortgage backed bond rates?  Thanks

 

52-week high  12/19/2011 $11.20    
52-week low 11/14/2012 $10.98

1
Comment #31 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Maecl - #30,

 

Check the following link for NAV history.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=VFIIX&a=3&b=6&c=1987&d=10&e=15&f=2012&g=d&z=66&y=0

 

>> Where do you look to find the mortgage backed bond rates?

One has to go thru prospectus of each bond issue to see the rate.  If your inquiry is more towards getting the SEC Yield for mutual funds then the issuer of mutual fund will (mostly) give every day the updated SEC yield.  e.g. see link below and check the details "SEC Yield"

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0036&FundIntExt=INT

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #32 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Just be glad you retirees don't live in Japan, where they are now talking about sub-zero interest rates, where deposit rates have been below 0.5% for ages & where the stockmarket is lower now than it was 25 years ago. 

2
Comment #33 by Wil posted on
Wil
Pete: The rate on the Israel Jubilee Bonds dropped this morning by 11 basis points. Ten year bond is now 3.66% (by the way, I did check their rates last night, and it was 3.77%). Wish you had posted sooner, but at least it wasn't too steep a drop.

2
Comment #35 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#33, #34.......... I'd love to know how exactly one is to evaluate if these are worthwhile or not. 10 year CDs from a country that is 2 nuke strikes away from oblivion? Talk about desperate for yield!

3
Comment #40 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#35  Looks like I am not the only poster who saw the news about Israel last night.  She seems just one torch away from lighting up.  This concerns me as to in what way the US will get involved if all Hell really does break loose over there.  I think, personally, I would wait to see what happens between her and Palestine and others in that area.

1
Comment #34 by Pete (anonymous) posted on
Pete
Wil:  my co-workers have limited experience with these bonds since they just bought them.  So, I do not know if they are worthwhile.  If any readers of this blog can enlighten us, that would be great.  Mid-3% seems pretty good now.

1
Comment #36 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

Take a look.

1
Comment #37 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
And when 2016 comes, they will extended to 2020 and when 2020 comes, they will extended indefinately.

I remember Ben Bernanke saying when he extended it to 2012 from 2008.

So, it is endless game the FEDs are playing with the people savings.

4
Comment #38 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Let's just face the facts.  The fed (bernanke) are clueless as what to do for our economy.  Their goal is to steal from the people who have been savers and give their money to the spenders.

5
Comment #41 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#38........I disagree with your assessment.   I think what is far more likely is that YOU don't really know what to do given what FED policies are.   

1
Comment #39 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Anonymous - #38,

 

>> Let's just face the facts.

Good idea!

 

>>  The fed (bernanke) are clueless as what to do for our economy. 

No. There is no fact in there. It's just your opinion. No more.

 

>> Their goal is to steal from the people who have been savers

>> and give their money to the spenders.

Again - There is no fact in there.  It is merely an allegation (without merit).  There are whole lot of people watching our FED keenly.  Congressman Dr Paul is one of them.  Yet, there have been no investigations/prosecutions of any wrongdoings of the FED - ever!

So ... where are the facts that we are supposed to face?

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

2
Comment #42 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear #41,

 

>> I disagree with your assessment.

Of course ... It is your right to disagree.

 

>>  I think what is far more likely is that YOU don't really know what to do given what FED policies are.

Once again that's merely your opinion.

 

So ... Where are the facts?

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #43 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#42........It is also your "opinion" that my statements are just an "opinion". 

Besides, this is America. No one is interested in the "truth" or the "facts"................which incidentally are both maleable anyway. And yes, those are my opinions!

1
Comment #44 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Anonymous - #43,

 

>> Besides, this is America. No one is interested in the "truth" or the "facts"..

No no ... Do not assume even for a second that you have any right to speak on behalf of others, let along speaking for America.  Most Americans I know are are much better than that.  We care deeply for the facts, and the truth.

If you wish to spead fiction and lies ... sure ... that fine, ... but do not label these as facts.

Just say "Let's face fiction", and we're good!

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #45 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#44..............I'm sorry, but did I not say that those were all my "opinions"?  And incidentally, I have as much right to speak for anyone or everyone as you do, my friend.............& I use the term friend in lieu of a less acceptable term.

4
Comment #46 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Anonymous - #45,

Sure ... Feel welcome to use the right to "speak" ... But refrain from from speaking on behalf of others, especially those Americans who deeply care about the facts and truth.

Make sure my .. err ... friend (?), that your are not infringing upon the right of others to speak the "facts" and caref for the "truth".

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

3
Comment #47 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
LOL right on #45,

 

 I'm sick just having to skim past any if this "uppity" your truly dude's BS. This guy needs to be on some Investment site for the uber folks, at lest by the way he likes to post in such a "over educated, egotistical,  I'm so smart" mode. its sickining, (my opnion of course) I didn't know this was a site for his type.

I figured it was geared more to wards the "lower" savers, you know the ones who have no idea what to do with stocks even if you gave then some, people that saved nickles and dimes in a jar most of their life, people that depended on adequate rates to supplement a meager SS income or low speed pension after retirement. People who didn't grad from Harvard or Princeton with a MBA or PhD in economics. People that survived by living way below their means, people that were always refered to as cheap while making it on what they had. People that DON'T own Apple Iphones or Ipads. Those are the ones more interest in this site and what it does. Those are the people that don't mingle with the "investor" type sitting on several million and not concerned about the cost of gas or food or what the CPI is or what Ben does with rates.

I thought I'd post "my Opinion" too, because I liked your way of thinking 45, other than that I haven't bothered for a long time, I do still "invest" in those worthless CD's, and will continue to do so, I figure when the whole thing falls there will be a lot more than us lower CD savers standing around.

 

7
Comment #48 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#47:  I had no idea there were so many people like myself in this Blog!  You explained me to a "T"!  But we always have room for the ubber rich.  They do give me something to aspire to  for at least in another life.  I have to admit all the penny pinching in the world just couldn't help me join their regaled  group this go round.  I'm here mainly to keep learning from anyone willing to share. 

5
Comment #49 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
To all Benny butt kissers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI or read the book "the creature from jeckyll island"

2
Comment #50 by Maecl posted on
Maecl
I read #47 last night before it was deleted and I thought "Why so angry?".  I don't know who said "You can't make the weak strong by making the strong weak.", but it's so true.

My husband and I are in our mid-sixties.  The longest vacation we ever took was 1 week in Orlando with our 3 children.  We did it on the cheap with a Amtrak package and stayed at a Days Inn which gave us free meals for the kids.

We are middle class and never lived beyond our means.  I'm greatful for the wealthy who invested and created jobs for so many.  It made that trip possible for us.

I don't know why is should bother #47 if some have the resources to invest as they choose.  Also, many have started in the market with very small investments over a long period of time.  I value this site.  It has given me great saving rates over the years.  I know I will never have the resouces invest is gold.  I can't put what we do have at risk, but there is room for other opinions.

3
Comment #51 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
LOL I had no doubt my post would be deleted, after all he's their "boy"

@paoli I may have a different outlook on things than you but I know you have your problems with pople here too from what I've seen and how they treat you.

@50, I'm not angry, I like (some) rich people too, I just have a problem with those that seem to think they're talking down to people whom they "think" are below their level in life, or try to make a point in some idiotic condescending way as to make you think your some peon being scrolled by the master.

I found this blog merly because a few years ago I was looking for CD's around my area, it seemed useful, in a way, but I liked to read ALL comments the "normal" folks had on this subject. I don't go flying around the country just to open a CD in some other state like one guy said he does, lol, I only deal with my local banks or CU's, some place I can walk in and they see me and know who they're dealing with. And where I know I can go if I need to to get it back.

 

Anyway even this might be removed who knows, I hope #45 saw it before it was gone though :)

 

5
Comment #52 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#51  Sorry I missed the post that was deleted.  Usually the Deleters put up with a lot unless they get several "Report this Post" thingees.  Yours must have been a doosy. :)  You have to be thick skinned and prepared to encounter all sorts of posters but basically we do have some nice people here.  Like myself.:) We all have something we can add even if our bank accounts differ quite a bit.  Keep posting but just remember to read the posting rules once a month and if you don't break the rules, you won't get deleted. Ken has this thing about we must play "nice", "nice" with each other and if we do, he is very lenient about allowing us to post most anything we want as long as it stays on topic.  There is always a way to make "Donald Duck goes to Mexico to buy pesos" be on topic if you know what I mean. :)

1
Comment #53 by Wil posted on
Wil
#51: I don't think that the anonymous against whom you reacted in your comment #47 is anyone's "boy." True, his tone is often condescending and he has a penchant for picking apart what other people write. But his posts manage to stay just within the line of avoiding deletion. I saw your comment #47 and, while I genuinely sympathize with your frustration, your original comment was rather "over the top." I'd be surprised if your latest comment gets deleted, as it is milder . . . and I would also be surprised if #45 didn't see your original comment before it was gone. In my exchange with him, which was relatively cordial, he did provide some potentially useful information, for which I thanked him. As for the rest, I didn't back down from what I thought, but I didn't get personal either.

1
Comment #54 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Maecl - #50,

 

>> My husband and I are in our mid-sixties. 

>> We are middle class and never lived beyond our means. 

>> I'm greatful for the wealthy who invested and created jobs for so many. 

>> It made that trip possible for us.

I'm grateful to most of my seniors who have made our great society that cares for truth (and justice and the rule of law).   It is (mostly) the serniors and generations before mine that have given me/us the robust instututes we have today - including the US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve - both of which are known to possess highest moral standards and are mindful of the laws that govern them.

 

>> I don't know why is should bother #47 if some have the resources to invest as they choose.

>> Also, many have started in the market with very small investments over a long period of time. 

Exactly! 

With a lot of hard work, and with some smarts (and with a dash of luck) surely it is possible to start small, and make it big.  ( Governor Romney - a self made man is a good example. And our President Obama is another example. Hard work, smarts and a little luck.)

Often times it is useful to have some relatively safe investments.  FDIC/NCUA insured products are relatively safe.  ( Not as safe as as US Treasuries, but quite safe. )  So perhaps some assets can go into safe/relatively-safe products and then some can go into riskier products (Structured CDs/Notes, Mutual Funds, Currencies, Metals, Commodies etc.)   Depends upon one's needs.

There are a few market wizards (link below) that are extraordinarily smart.  It is pointless to envy them.  But it is smart to learn, if possible, from them.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Market-Wizards-Conversations-Americas/dp/0887306675



This site supplies huge list of relatively safe products that I've found quite useful over years.



Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

 

 

 

1
Comment #56 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Wil - #55,

 

>> #14 recommended structured notes,

Nope.  Of course I did no such thing.

I only gave a link to the prospectus with stern disclosure "Of course this products is NOT insured by FDIC, and one can lose all the principal and get no contingent interest at all."

There is no recommendation there of any Note.  Merely a link to the prospectus.  Read (if you please), understad (if you can), and then make-up your mind.  No harm done, if you decide that this is not for you.  Althought I find Structured CD (FDIC insured principal) and even Structured Notes very useful.

 
>> which he made seem like a conservative investment.

Wow ... When I state that one can lose all the principal, does that sound conservative to you? ... Really?


>> I regret to say that they seem complicated

Now I got to say you might be right, for what is complicated, and what is not, would surely depend upon one's acumen.  Maybe for you it's complicated. (Sorry.) 

BTW, what's the regret? That you found it complicated?

 

>> What do you think an IOU is?

Hmm ... IOU ... Sort of like an I-Bond, sort of like EE bond, sort of like a Municipal Bond where the Government is promising the pay? ... No?


Yours Truly,

Anonymous

1
Comment #60 by Wil posted on
Wil
#56: Okay, I'll concede that you didn't actually "recommend," but rather mentioned and subsequently provided a link for obtaining more information. In that, you were helpful. Agreed, you intended no harm.

About the matter of "conservative" investments: Context matters. Your original comment #10 was a response to my original comment #9, which listed income-producing investments in a rising scale of risk, i.e., from no risk of losing principal to possible risk of principal, none which, however, would become completely worthless. The object of comment #9 was the "conservative investor." Since your comment #10 was a reply, then the object remains the same, unless stated otherwise (and your comment #10 did not mention possible loss of all principal, that wasn't stated until your comment #14). However, since you did clarify yourself in #14, and my #55 referred back to your #14 rather than to your #10, I apologize for possibly misrepresenting you.

If you have been reading this site for some time, you are aware by now that it attracts mainly "conservative investors," and that is putting it conservatively, for many shun risk of any kind! Therefore, adding structured notes (as distinguished from structured CDs, which you also mentioned) to my original "list" was out of context. My reason for posting #55 was to put up a red flag about the risks of structured notes -- they are not for the "conservative investor." And they are certainly not for people lacking experience in things such as derivatives and options, who might not understand exactly what the risk is.

Yeah, I Bonds, government bonds, municipal bonds, etc. are IOUs too. But tell me the last time any of those became completely worthless? Many very sophisticated investors who happened to own structured notes issued by Lehman Brothers were left with worthless notes. You are very fortunate that you have never lost a penny, and I sincerely hope that your continue to find your investments in structured products profitable. Since you fully understand all the risks, and rewards, involved they are appropriate for you. But you may be among the few for whom that is true.

I suppose that in this low interest rate environment for an extended period of time it is getting tempting to jump on board anything that offers yield without fully appreciating the risks involved. Our dialogue brought out the pros and cons. Maybe the result might have been helpful to others, or so I hope.

Anyway, best wishes to you.

1
Comment #57 by Shawn James (anonymous) posted on
Shawn James
If the federal funds rate would stay near zero until early 2016 then it will be a great step in economy. Its effect can be found in Stock Trading, mutual funds and other financial activities.   

1
Comment #58 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I have been on this sight for years.

I found a good longer term c.d. rate put my money in and moved on with my life.(love this sight)

I have recently came back to this sight and found it has gone down hill. Why? People are not posting whats new at the local bank or credit union. They are off the original intent of this sight. "DepositAccounts.Com"

Please if you know of a good Deposit Account at your bank or credit union please help this sight along with other Americans who have "fears" of other markets. Some people just want to find the best safer return and move on.

As Americans dig deep and post whats good! The reason all this other stuff is being posted on our "DepositAccounts.Com is because it's hard to find a bank or credit union that has good rates. It's hard but take up the challenge and help find the best "DepositAccounts.Com" The more Americans who view this sight the more chances we have of finding a great rate. If we don't stay on task this sight will become a financial sales blog and "savers" will no longer tune in and we all will be hurt by that. The people who post other investments will find other sights to post on if we work together to stay on task. Best Wishes Happy Hunting & Post What You Have!

2
Comment #59 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#58  I believe you know why this site has gone downhill.  There are NO good rates to be found thanks to bernanke.  In lieu of not being able to post any decent rates, many are just using this as a financial blog and complaining.  Otherwise there would be no posts.

3
Comment #61 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
I think this Blog is still very useful since we have a great opportunity to learn about the pros and cons of other investments such as Structured Notes which are being pushed very heavily by many of my bank's financial officers.  I had read about them some time back on one of these threads and did my own research and found out they were not for me.  I think it can be just as helpful for members to enlighten us about problems they have had with certain products as it is for them to share where to find a decent CD rate. 

2
Comment #62 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Readers,

Millions of Americans participate willingly in schemes where the principal can becomes worthless.

Americans do this not once or twice, but they do it many times, and have been doing it for months, quarters and years. The Americans who participate in such schemes are most common/ordinary/regular folks.  Oh, and such schemes are run not by Lehmans or Sir Stanfords or Mr Madoffs of the world! Such schemes are run by our Governments

I am referring to Lotto / Lottery schemes of course.  These schemes have risk to principal that is near total, but the offer of a reward to few that is simply breathtaking. 

Despite such risk Americans participate ... willingly  ... Why?  Because they weigh the risk, and the reawrd and make-up their minds.

So ... what about Structured Notes?  Same thing, Understand the potential risk, understand the potential reward, and decide for yourself.

I of course can provide a link where deep analysis about the Structured Notes issued by Lehman is done for the explicit purpose of litigation!  ( Before you go to the link, please be forewarned, the analysis may be complicated. )

http://www.slcg.com/pdf/workingpapers/Structured%20Products%20in%20the%20Aftermath%20of%20Lehman%20Brothers.pdf

 

Coming to the debt obligations of the US Federal Government.  Specifically (say) I-Bonds. Are they safe?  Will the participants get their interest and their principal? ... I don't know.

Till 2010 nobody would have doubted the creditwortiness of the US Federal Government. The rating was AAA.  Slowly the confidence shown in AAA rating got eroded and our rating got downgraded by one of the rating agencies.  ... In the coming weeks/months we will see if there is any change the perception about our nation's creditworthiness.


Yours Truly,

Anonymous

1
Comment #63 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#62  Is this for real?  How can you compare spending a dollar for a lottery ticket with structured  notes.  I don't know anyone who has a structured note for one dollar!  However, I have never purchased a lottery ticket.  The Spirit was willing but the flesh was too weak to spend a crummy buck for the chance of getting millions!  Yet some do win so I guess even with structured notes etc. some can be successful.  It just won't be me.

2
Comment #66 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#62:  Goodness, you DO take this note stuff seriously.  This has nothing to do with whether I understand it like you expect me to.  It has to do with I understand it enough to know I want no part of anything except my delightful wee CDs and will not throw them aside due to bad choices made by our government at this time.  No notes, no lottery tickets.  Let others use their hard earned dollars for a one in a billion chance to win millions.  I stick with what  I can count on until I can't count on it.  Thank you for caring anyway.

2
Comment #64 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Paoli2 - #63,
 

>> Is this for real? 

I'm afraid it is.  Millions do participate in scheme where the risk is near total.
 

>> How can you compare spending a dollar for a lottery ticket with structured  notes.

Alas ... No ... You have missed the comparison. Though I wonder why? Because its given in boldface.  Should be rather hard to miss actually.  Let me repeat the part about the comparison:  Understand the potential risk, understand the potential reward, and decide for yourself.
 

>> Yet some do win so I guess even with structured notes etc. some can be successful.

But of course ...    Some (maybe most?) do get the principal and handsome interest, but too bad I have no links where the success stories of the Notes are analyzed.

You say "crummy buck" about the price of lotto ticket, and balk at the $1000 price tag for a Note.  However try to put the "crummy buck" in perspective.  What's crummy for you might be worth a fantastic meal in places where there is abject poverty and people die of hunger.  And you balk at $1000 which might be chump change for the likes of maybe Mr Warren Buffet and the "Market Wizards"  ... No? 

Oh, and while we are talking about the risk, let me state the risk that exists in the so called "Reward Checking Accounts".  The risk of not getting the "contingent" higher interest that is subject to satisfying certain conditions (e.g. X number of debit transactions, Y number of ACH transfers, Z number of logins to web site.)  There is minimal risk to the principal, but risk to the contingent high interest is surely there.  I wonder if there is analysis where the success/failure of obtaining the contingent high interest for the reward checking account is analyzed.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

1
Comment #65 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
After the wonderful job Ken has been doing for years with this site and being so helpful to so many of us savers, it's a shame it has deteriorated to a squabbling few over market advice which is questionable at best. 

3
Comment #67 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#65..........While it may be unwise to follow any of the market advice being argued here, it may also be unwise to close ones eyes to the reality that a truly "risk free investment" which provides a positive after inflation return, doesn't exist & hasn't existed in the US for a few years now. Nostalgia aside & however useful this site may have been in the past in providing risk free investments, it doesn't change the reality today. The idea of limiting discussions to FDIC insured items & the like seems quaint, but rather pointless..............unless the goal is to find the slowest way to bleed out.

1
Comment #68 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Paoli2,  Either you have CDs paying a very high rate or you have millionS invested at a low rate.  You come across that you are mainly living off your CD investments.

2
Comment #69 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#68 Maybe I made a plan for my life many years ago and took into account all the problems that could occur and am able to survive financially because I make decisions and stick to them.  Only "I" know what I need to stay financially above water and the way I do it would probably not be right for most posters from what I have read of their posts.  What is wealth?  It is having enough money to help yourself and your loved ones survive their lives no matter what bad choices our government makes.  Don't be so concerned about how "I" do it.  Just be concerned that what "you" are doing will take and keep you on the road you financially need to be.  Having money is not the important point.  Having "enough" money for when you need it is my special mantra.    Thanks for caring.

3
Comment #70 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Paoli2 - #69,  Since you have financial "magic" maybe you could help congress get our country out of the mess it's in.

3
Comment #71 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#70 Please don't make light of what I post.  I was asked for info and I gave it.  I have shared my ideas with my congressman and many others.  You and I both know our so called "leaders" are not interested in what are the best ideas to save our country unless the information  is coming from one of their own.  I think they have already decided on the path they intend on taking us so babble from someone who is "only a housewife" would never get a serious thought.  Especially someone who calls herself "Paoli".  Think about what "Paoli" really means and I will have the last laugh after all.  :)

1
Comment #72 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
 

.

.

Dear Paoli2 - #66,

 

>> Goodness, you DO take this note stuff seriously.

Nice attempt to trivialize the matter that is serious by calling it "stuff".  All the matters related to money are serious for me - including CDs, Reward Checking, and other types of investments.

 

>> This has nothing to do with whether I understand it like you expect me to.

Actually that's not right. I have no idea of your acumen and aptitude to have any expectations of you.

 

>> It has to do with I understand it enough to know I want no part of anything except

>> my delightful wee CDs and will not throw them aside due to bad choices made

>> by our government at this time. 

Tut tut ... Now there is that attitude of shifting the blame to our government.  The so called choice was yours and that of your fellow voters just a couple of weeks ago.  Did you make the right choice of sending the people who will make the right choice?  Or did you not?

 

>> Thank you for caring anyway.

I must decline the "thanks", for I don't care!  I merely share, what perhaps might be useful.
 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #73 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
A couple of points that #67 & #68 really describes me.  My original retirement goal was to live off our CD interest income.  My wife and I were doing rather well for years thanks to Ken, until these days with artificially low rates, no thanks to the Feds.

Now our goal has been changed to find the slowest way to bleed out.  Although social security is keeping our heads above water, there is no guarentee S.S. will always be there.  Both of us being retired, do not have the financial patience to survive a major market downturn or the lifespan to wait for a turnaround should should it occur.  We choose to live off our savings and get something for it even if we eventually go broke, rather than watch it vanish in a rigged market which the big financial institutions control computerized instantaneous programs trades.  THIS IS NOT AN INVESTORS MARKET ANYMORE and is certainly not for retired people.  We refuse to be sucked in! 

3
Comment #75 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#73:  This post is for you.  I may get chided a lot by some posters on here for my determination to stick with CDs even at their low rates.  However, you and your dear wife seem to have figured out how to survive.  You can learn to still survive inspite of these horrendous interest rates and social security. You know just how much money you need to live on.   You can be chided into going for higher rates with the riskier products and see everything you saved be destroyed with one quick blow but at your (our) senior age, we cannot go back and reearn what we spent years saving.  I think they will have to make changes to social security for those coming behind us but for those already receiving income, they have to find a way to protect us.  This is because there are so many seniors who have nothing "but" social security to depend upon so if they take SS away, they will just have to print more money to pay to more seniors who will end up on supplemental security and Medicaid. 

If you have some savings and social security, you should be able to cope with these terrible financial times.  Just know you are not alone and keep an eye on Ken's Blog.  Any time there is a chance to get higher CD rates, you can find out on here.  IMO, it's more important than ever for seniors to protect what they have and learn to live on what they have.  Best of luck to you and your wife and all of us rowing the same boat.

5
Comment #74 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
Dear Anonymous #72:   I see we are back to nitpicking my posts again.  Please excuse me if I don't use better terms for your products.  Did you lose your Websters Dictionary again?  The way I used "stuff" for a financial product is appropo no matter how you would like to nitpick it.   Are we now going to pretend the financial predicament our country is in is NOT due to the decisions made in Washington?  Do you also not watch tv, or read the financial journals?  

Keep trying "Yours Truly" because sooner or later you may find something better to do with your life than nitpicking posts.

2
Comment #76 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Paoli2 - #74,

Your writing is so full of inaccuracies that I cannot help but point those out. Make an effort to post something that is sensible, something that is somewhat accurate, something that os somewhat reasonable, and then the need to make corrections will disapper.

Onus is upon you my dear!

Also many times you blame our elected officials. Why do you do that?  Is it (still) not clear to you, that it you, your friends, your neighbors, your relatives, your community, ... who actually have the proverbial "choice" of sending the right representatives. If you fail at that, then be ready to face the consequences, rather than keeping on telling us about how the "Government" has made bad choices.  Learn to take the personal responsibility for our government, and feel welcome to change it when you get to make your "choice".   ( Oh and some of actually appreciate the work our public servants are doing. )

Once again my dear, the onus is upon you.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #78 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
#76:  I am not your DEAR anything.  It is obvious you take great joy in harassing me.  I may vote but I cannot be responsible for the decisions made in Washington.   I, at least, do my job of writing my officials about problems.  Do you?  So if voters are responsible for Washington, I guess you are too unless you don't bother to vote.  Other posters write about the same problems in Washington that I do but why do you not go after them the way you do me?  This is a sick game with you and you need to stop it.  I could post "The Sun is beautiful today" and you would find something wrong with it. 

If there is an "ONUS" it is truly on you!  

 What credentials gives you the right to dictate to me what all my errors are?   Do us both a favor and ignore my posts.

Not Yours Truly,

Paoli

2
Comment #77 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Anonymous - #73,

>> Now our goal has been changed to find the slowest way to bleed out. 
>> Although social security is keeping our heads above water, there is no guarentee
>> S.S. will always be there.  Both of us being retired, do not have the
>> financial patience to survive a major market downturn or the lifespan to
>> wait for a turnaround should should it occur.

You both are retired, and are looking for the Social Security to stay afloat ... I imagine that life must not be too easy for you.

>> My original retirement goal was to live off our CD interest income. 
>> My wife and I were doing rather well for years thanks to Ken,
>> until these days with artificially low rates, no thanks to the Feds.

So then, can you imagine how hard the life must be, for those who are far from the retirement, and are currently unemployed? Are you sympathetic to those unemployed who have hardly any saving and get absolutely no social security?  Do such people deserve more help, than people such as yourselves who have something?  .. ( I strongly believe that your answer will be affirmative. ) So then, if our FED is their level best to satisfy the "max employment" mandate we've given them, using every tool we've put at their disposal,  to make policies that may help create jobs for the millions among us that are currently unemplyed and are in much greater need, then would you rather oppose such policies or would you support them?

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

1
Comment #79 by Wil posted on
Wil
I would change the first vowel in "onus" but it would get deleted. The treatment to which Paoli2 has recently been subjected is absolutely horrid. Apparently some people manage to get away with being the proverbial "bully in the schoolyard." It is possible to present one's thoughts in a spirited way without demeaning others. Does it really cost anything to be nice, or if not nice, at least courteous.

Paoli2: By the way, the sun was beautiful today!

3
Comment #82 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
RE: Paoli2 #81,  Are you leaving?

4
Comment #83 by Roush posted on
Roush
#82 - That would be nice but we can only hope. The departure 'threats' have been made many times before but, unfortunatelyy, have never came to fruition. Thus, the beat and distractions go on.

5
Comment #84 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

My Dearest Anonymous/Paoli2,



>> You are adding nothing helpful to this thread by your constant nitpicking
>> my posts and trying to embarrass me. 

No no no my dear ... We are trying to educate you. 

Believe me when I say that actually it is getting a bit embarrasing for us that despite our efforts you are not learning.  But I urge you try.  Don't consider this nitpicking. as it is not.  You make so many childish mistakes, and like a stubborn child refuse to admit/correect. them.  So it falls upon those who see the mistakes to call them out, in the sincere hope that you'll get better.


>> I assure you this WILL end after tonight.

Wow ... Are you implying that finally it has downed upon you?  Are you promising us that you "get it", and that you will refrain from such mistakes.   I wish you the very best, if that's what you are implying.

 
Yours Truly,

Anonymous

4
Comment #89 by Wil posted on
Wil
#84: You claim that you are trying to "educate" Paoli2. As someone who actually makes a livelihood in higher education, I am in a position to evaluate the success of your methods. You do not educate by humiliating your student with sneering remarks and a condescending tone. You do not educate by dismissing viewpoints that differ from own as worthless; rather, you encourage your student to think for herself. You do not educate by picking apart what your student writes; rather, you teach her the skills to better articulate her views. You do not educate by telling your student that you don't care, as you did, in boldface. You do not educate by calling an adult student childish, and then proceeding to treat her like a child. You do not educate by relentlessly hounding your student, like a verbal rapist, after she has asked to be left alone. You do not educate by deeming perseverance and conviction as a stubborn refusal to learn. You do not educate by subverting the meaning of words, as you did by repeating calling Paoli "dear," when it is excruciatingly clear that she is anything but dear to you, that in fact you were doing so for the express purpose of demeaning her. You do not educate by impressing your own political views on your student - there is a name for that, and it is propaganda, not "education" (unless your "language" is Orwellian doublespeak). You do not educate by insulting your student's intelligence. You do not educate by using patently absurd analogies, such as comparing income securities to lottery tickets! You do not educate by intentionally, and persistently, demeaning your student. If education has been your motive, then your methods are a case study in how to fail. But education is not your motive, because that would assume you care about your student, and you've already told her that you don't care. So the inescapable conclusion is that you simply enjoy the sound of your own voice, because it appeals to your vanity. Before you presume to educate others, then critically examine your own defects first. You might want to start with lessons in good manners.

5
Comment #85 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
SMIRKS, i told you he was their "BOY"  or else playing duel rolls.

 

3
Comment #87 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
Folks:  If any of you had recent posts deleted, please notice they should be back.   It seems Ken appreciates ALL his posters and when it is brought to his attention that the Deleters may have deleted in error, he is thoughtful enough to read them and decide if they should not have been deleted.   We don't get deleted for spelling or certain other type errors.  If, in the future, you feel you were deleted in error, you might consider dropping Ken a PM so that he can check it out for you.  Thanks for your help.

Paoli

3
Comment #88 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Paoli2:  Just a friendly FYI. 

Don't take all  posts to you as a possible derogatory comment.  Try reading it from someone elses' point of view.  Besides this website is getting very boring with no decent interest rates to discuss.

Have a nice day!

2
Comment #90 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
Wil:  I am going to do something that posters on here are not used to.  Write a short post.

Thank you so much for saying what I could not put into words as you just did.  I do hope we can all now appreciate Ken's blog and be here to help each other without conflicts.  Much appreciation.

Paoli

3
Comment #91 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.
.


My Dearest Paoli2 - #86,

I appreciate your pointing out several typos.  I’ll try to be careful about spelling.

Now shall we get back to your attitude of blaming your elected representatives?   Tell us why do you do it?

Did you (and your friends, and your relatives, and your neighbors, and your community) get a chance few weeks ago to send the representatives who will represent your views and make the so called “right choices”?  Did you take that chance?  Are you going to take some personally responsible for our democracy or you are merely going to keep on whining that people in Washington are making wrong choices?

Grow up.  Start taking responsibility.
 

>> Now the ONUS is glued to you!

Tut tut … Now what’s that my dear?  Isn’t that a little childish joke between you and “Wil” about changing the first vowel?  So do you see what I mean by grow up?

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

 

3
Comment #94 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#91:  My family is very involved in politics and a member holds a politcal position.  Sooooo  you are picking on the wrong person when you insinuate I do not do my political duty.  We all vote for the person we think from our research will make the best decisions for our country.  If they are elected and don't follow through with their campaign promises, I spend a great deal of my time emailing them and letting them know my opinions of what is going on.  If they don't keep campaign promises or respond to all my emails, I let them know they won't get our votes.  Other than that,  what do you expect me to do?  What do "you" do that makes more of an impact on Washington?  I am always happy to learn more ways to get our politicians to do their duties.  I get my guidance from a relative who holds a position in one of the parties.  For personal reasons I cannot go to Washington and picket the White House.  With the Savers Petition, I worked very hard for months to try to get higher interest rates.  Unfortunately, it was not well received by others including many in this Blog.  The key here is, "I" tried. I always do and I always will. 

Now that I have cooperated with you in answering you about how I work politically, I hope you will end this need you have to keep posting your remarks to me.  As for the word "Onus", I do not know what Wil writes in his posts until I read them when posted.  However, I agree with his post and think he was trying to get a point across to you.  "You" initiated the word into this group in post #76. 

BTW, your post you refer to of 11/14/12 as with all others deleted was restored because I took the time to PM Ken and made a request of him.  Ken checked all deleted posts and decided they should be reposted.  I think that was very kind and cooperative of Ken.  Ken deserves better than to have a poster like yourself daily turning his Blog into a conflict. 

Can you learn nothing from Wil's advice to you?  I assure you "he" does have the qualifications to back up his words.  You certainly could not find any errors in his post of any type.  "Those who refuse to learn are destined to keep making the same mistakes".  Are you determined to keep failing?  I have gone out of my way to get you to stop this infantile behavior in as nice a manner as I can.  If you care at all about Ken and the intense work he has done to give us this Blog and Forum, I urge you to stop this now before Ken has to intervene.   I will gladly agree to stop responding to your posts if you will stop posting to me.  Think seriously about what your behavior is doing to this Blog.

 

1
Comment #92 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.
.

Dear Wil - #89,

>> As someone who actually makes a livelihood in higher education

Really? … Do you really? 

I ask this, because I am quite surprised that a person involved in higher education would actually write something as immature as what you wrote on a very public blog such as this:  "I would change the first vowel in "onus" but it would get deleted."

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #93 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Mr Tumin,

I am glad to note that my post of "November 14, 2012 - 11:45 AM" was restored.

To add to the earlier point:  The "inflation targetting" is (IMO) a very sound idea.  It almost takes the guesswork out of setting the fed funds rate, as it gets ties to the inflation (CPI-U) number.

I guess it will be good for us to have services of Ms Yellen as the future Chair-woman of the FOMC.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

1
Comment #95 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

My Dear Paoli2 - #94,

>> With the Savers Petition, I worked very hard for months to try to get higher interest rates. 

>> Unfortunately, it was not well received by others including many in this Blog. 

Sure ... we remember that. 

So you need to understand (a) that the majority is not with you, even on this very blog and (b) that what you perceive as "right choice" actually might not be such when dealing with the whole of "policy" at the levelof the nation.

Now that you have tried (and failed), you have a choice to make.  (A) Either you can accept the defeat gracefully (rather than being a sour loser), and maybe try afresh to build a majority by convincing more voters (B) or you can keep whinning about it, thereby actually turning others away from your views.  I hope that you'll choose (A).

My initiation of the word "onus" was of course in good faith and quite appropriate.  If the people involved in higher learning want to twist in in an immature way on a public blog such as this then ... well well well ... I'll just have to watch to what new "low" level, the "higher" education people will go to next.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

4
Comment #96 by Wil posted on
Wil
Dear #92: Immature? Well, I guess you bring out the worst in people. One momentary slip, perhaps. But that pales compared to your predatory exchange with Paoli2. When you behave like a predator, don't be surprised if the prey bite back. I am also glad your post was restored, and that your other posts remain. I don't want them deleted. With every post you write, you expose what you really are. Keep it up. Keep entertaining us by continuing to play the fool.

2
Comment #97 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Wil - #96,


>> Immature? Well, I guess you bring out the worst in people.

I see ... So that's the excuse you have?

No matter ... the fact remains that it is you who are/were at your worst on a public forum, and yet have the gall to claim that you are involved in higher learning. I wonder how many such "momentory" slips you have had with the co-workers and students and others?

Oh ... and on "November 17, 2012 - 8:29 AM" you apologized to me for misreprsenting me. So the fact remains that you were involved in "misreprsentation" as well ... What was that?  Another such "moment" I assume.  No?
.
Yours Truly,

Anonymous

3
Comment #98 by Wil posted on
Wil
Unlike you, I admit to my mistakes. That is maturity. You still have yet to apologize to Paoli2 for your deplorable treatment of her. I don't think you are capable of an apology, except possibly in sarcasm, with which you are richly endowed.

1
Comment #99 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Wil - #98,
 

>> I admit to my mistakes.

Sure.  Admitting to the mistakes made arguably is maturity, but making two of them in one thread in the first place, when you claim to make a living out of higher education, is what?  ... Shall we call it "stupidity"?

BTW in one thread what you have are "two strikes".  I hope that since you claim to be involved in higher education, you will learn the lesson from this on your own. Yes?

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

3
Comment #100 by Wil posted on
Wil
Your apology to Paoli2? Is it missing? Something got lost when you hit submit? Maybe I had two slips, but yours are beyond counting. How about starting your lessons in civility? I never questioned your intelligence; but when you use the gifts of your intellect to abuse others, I must question your character. And you keep eminently showing exactly what that is with every insult. And about "gall," what about the gall of cloaking harassment as an "education." I simply couldn't let that stand.

2
Comment #101 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Wil - #100,

>> Maybe I had two slips.

Oh ... so now its a "maybe"?  Not a certainty?


>> I never questioned your intelligence

But I must question yours! ...  Especially after seeing your quick flip-flop about what were originally  admitted as a mistakes into a "maybe two slips".

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

3
Comment #102 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Yours Truly seems like a pain in the you know what.....maybe the little troll has nothing else to do.

I don't visit the site as often as some of you but whenever I see the Yours Truly posts I can't help but be reminded of that little troll doll that was popular in the 70s...haha

2
Comment #104 by Paoli2 posted on
Paoli2
#102  Oh my goodness.  I have one of those troll dolls!!  I used to think it was so cute.  Now everytime I see it, it will disgust me now.  Dear Heaven!  Why would an adult want to be thought of as a weird little creature??  I think he is the same one that tormented me for months while I was monitoring the Savers Petition Ken agreed to allow on here. He seems to have more than one IP so he can return under more fake names.  What a pathetic life one must have to end up hiding behind such terrible insults to someone he doesn't even know.  

1
Comment #103 by Wil posted on
Wil
Okay, I'll satisfy you. When I misrepresented your position, it was mistakenly placing your comments about structured notes within the context of my original post about what the conservative investor faces in the current environment, notwithstanding your clarification in #14. When that mistake became clear, I apologized to you, and that apology was sincere. I was done with this thread until you started relentlessly assaulting Paoli2, despite her repeated requests that you ignore her posts and leave her alone. Your behavior towards her has been predatory. Go ahead and question my intelligence, if that satisfies your vanity. There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom, just as there is a difference between stupidity and foolishness. You are intelligent. You are not wise. By the way, still no apology to Paoli2?

1
Comment #105 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#103 #104    

A troll is a troll, there is nothing you can say to it to change that, ignore it and maybe it will go away.

Don't waste your time, a troll thrives on the fact that it is getting to you....ignore the little troll maybe its mommy will find out it can't play nice with others and take its computer away or whatever it uses to troll with.

Btw,you should see the amount of trolls on the cnbc blogs, this is nothing.

1
Comment #106 by Wil posted on
Wil
#105: Thanks, you are right. The one you've deemed the troll has written so much that is just plainly vile, that no further eloquence is required. His own words are the noose around him. Doubtless he'll add more rope before he is through. Maybe his antics will entertain somebody else for awhile. Good night.

2