Yellow | Pension or 401K?

Just curious Breezer, did the banks call those CD's when rates dropped or were they just short term. I always figured if you locked in a rate like that on a 10 year CD and a few years later rates have dropped significantly, they'll just call them.
A CD can only be called in early if it states that on the CD itself.
 
A CD can only be called in early if it states that on the CD itself.

That is true. Short term CD's are usually not callable while all of the longer term ones are. There's an obvious reason for that. I've been going with 3 month CD's, none are callable, all of the 5 and 10 years are.
 
That is true. Short term CD's are usually not callable while all of the longer term ones are. There's an obvious reason for that. I've been going with 3 month CD's, none are callable, all of the 5 and 10 years are.
I try to ladder CDs but recently the higher rate ones have been changing the length. Promotional rates at my bank have stayed at 5.13% but have dropped from 14 months to 11 and now 7 months making laddering nearly impossible.
 
You really need 1,000 shares to do much. 10 cents green is $100. $1 is worthless. It's funny how you act like you know everything. I could post videos. But why bother. Keep going with Neil Cavuto and the experts and your 401K. Nobody cares in the long run.
Can anyone here translate this into English for me? :duh:

Somehow young Liberty thinks that if you have 1000 shares of XYZ and it increases 10cents per share you make a $100, but if you have 1 share of ABC and it increases $100/share that it's less money. Evident in his statement regarding a $10K investment going to $40K in 5 years is somehow not very good because it's only $11/day.

Invest $10K, company matches $10K, growth adds $20K. On $10K you make $30K in 5 years. That's 31.95% annual rate of return.
 
I try to ladder CDs but recently the higher rate ones have been changing the length. Promotional rates at my bank have stayed at 5.13% but have dropped from 14 months to 11 and now 7 months making laddering nearly impossible.
At Fidelity I can get 10 years at 5% not call protected. Call protected around 4.2%. Same thing with the 10 year, if you want call protected you're going to give up a little less than 1%. 4.2% might turn out to be a good rate to lock in for 10 years if you think we get recession and go back to near zero interest again and the stock market takes a painful haircut.
 
Somehow young Liberty thinks that if you have 1000 shares of XYZ and it increases 10cents per share you make a $100, but if you have 1 share of ABC and it increases $100/share that it's less money. Evident in his statement regarding a $10K investment going to $40K in 5 years is somehow not very good because it's only $11/day.

Invest $10K, company matches $10K, growth adds $20K. On $10K you make $30K in 5 years. That's 31.95% annual rate of return.
Who doesn’t love free money? (Match)
 
Who doesn’t love free money? (Match)
You lucky dogs, I never had a match.
They gave us a deal on Ryder System stock which I'm still holding for the past 60 years.
I U spun off Gotaas Larsen to the employees which was a big deal, so I can't complain.
I U also gave us Echo Bay Mines which was no big money maker, but it was free.
 
You lucky dogs, I never had a match.
They gave us a deal on Ryder System stock which I'm still holding for the past 60 years.
I U spun off Gotaas Larsen to the employees which was a big deal, so I can't complain.
I U also gave us Echo Bay Mines which was no big money maker, but it was free.
Never got matched @ Roadway or YRC. Did put in 15% until ‘09. I owned Ryder stock for a time. Maybe broke even, but enjoyed the dividend for a couple years. Got out declared a loss vs the profit I made on Cummins. (Shoulda never sold that)
 
You lucky dogs, I never had a match.
They gave us a deal on Ryder System stock which I'm still holding for the past 60 years.
I U spun off Gotaas Larsen to the employees which was a big deal, so I can't complain.
I U also gave us Echo Bay Mines which was no big money maker, but it was free.
Damn you Breeze, You triggered me, I.U. helped run Thurston and Ryder/Pie into the ground. Training ground for future YRC, management.
 
Never got matched @ Roadway or YRC. Did put in 15% until ‘09. I owned Ryder stock for a time. Maybe broke even, but enjoyed the dividend for a couple years. Got out declared a loss vs the profit I made on Cummins. (Shoulda never sold that)
I bought ALB at $68, sold for $117, it hit $300 after I sold.
It's at $115 now
John Deere has been good.
 
We dabbled in Duke out of MN. Bought at 5.20 sold at 32 in 7th month.

I kick myself for not buying JBH at piddling 14 or something decades ago. I did not see what they were doing getting into everything that can hook to a 5th wheel. Their leadership had Prophets who can see the future.

I am pure cash. My bank smiles at me now. And I keep several accounts away from each other so that the bank does not force me to overdraft and charge me 30 a pop. (And it takes three days to clear a debit card now...)
 
Interesting, I guess 🤔. I thought we were discussing individuals and retirement?

Matters not an individual or a business. Cash flow is the difference between cash in and cash out. It's either a positive number, negative number or zero.

Your statement was that negative cash flow meant you were broke and it absolutely does not mean any such thing.

Two retired couples' scenarios:

Couple (A) Social security and RMD's taken equal $6000/mo. Their monthly expenditures equal $8000/mo. They have $1M in their ROTH-IRA, $250K in a money market at their local bank and a paid for home worth $500K.

Couple (B) Social security and pensions equal $6000/mo. Their monthly expenditures equal $5500/mo. They have $1000 in their savings account. They owe $500K on a house worth $525K. They owe $150K on their cars and a boat. Those cars and boats are worth about $75K. They are cash flow positive 500/mo.

One couple is cash flow positive and broke. The other is cash flow negative but has a net worth approaching $2M.
 
Last edited:
Matters not an individual or a business. Cash flow is the difference between cash in and cash out. It's either a positive number, negative number or zero.

Your statement was that negative cash flow meant you were broke and it absolutely does not mean any such thing.

Two retired couples' scenarios:

Couple (A) Social security and RMD's taken equal $6000/mo. Their monthly expenditures equal $8000/mo. They have $1M in their ROTH-IRA, $250K in a money market at their local bank and a paid for home worth $500K.

Couple (B) Social security and pensions equal $6000/mo. Their monthly expenditures equal $5500/mo. They have $1000 in their savings account. They owe $500K on a house worth $525K. They owe $150K on their cars and a boat. Those cars and boats are worth about $75K. They are cash flow positive 500/mo.

One couple is cash flow positive and broke. The other is cash flow negative but has a net worth approaching $2M.
Your scenario is a little off. First couple is at 1.75 mil not 2 mil which is an 14% over exaggeration and 500 k in house is not liquid assets like cash or investments. So really only 1.25 million in liquid assets
60% less than your stated 2 million.Roth IRA’s do not have a RMD requirement. You stretch your cash flow scenario pretty far.
And we wonder how Yellow got in to so much trouble?
Yellow had way more assets than debt so why did they go BK.
NOT ENOUGH CASH FLOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Your scenario is a little off. First couple is at 1.75 mil not 2 mil which is an 14% over exaggeration and 500 k in house is not liquid assets like cash or investments. So really only 1.25 million in liquid assets
60% less than your stated 2 million.Roth IRA’s do not have a RMD requirement. You stretch your cash flow scenario pretty far.
And we wonder how Yellow got in to so much trouble?
Yellow had way more assets than debt so why did they go BK.
NOT ENOUGH CASH FLOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dokman, you're over complicating a simple concept. Cash flow is either cash or equivalents coming in or cash or equivalents going out. Net cash flow is cash in minus cash out, period. It has nothing to do with assets behind the scenes. As EX396 has stated it, you can be quite wealthy with assets but have negative net cash flow, or your can be asset light with positive net cash flow. Yellow was cash poor, i.e., they lacked sufficient cash on hand (liquidity) to pay their current obligations. They did however have sizeable wealth tied up in real estate, equipment, etc. as we're seeing in the BK.
 
Dokman, you're over complicating a simple concept. Cash flow is either cash or equivalents coming in or cash or equivalents going out. Net cash flow is cash in minus cash out, period. It has nothing to do with assets behind the scenes. As EX396 has stated it, you can be quite wealthy with assets but have negative net cash flow, or your can be asset light with positive net cash flow. Yellow was cash poor, i.e., they lacked sufficient cash on hand (liquidity) to pay their current obligations. They did however have sizeable wealth tied up in real estate, equipment, etc. as we're seeing in the BK.
Agreed but too many people operate in the negative too long and over extended themselves. I worked with a lot of guys who made good money, but had nothing and we’re always borrowing from others. They always spent more than they had coming in . Teach people to not spend more than they have. His examples leave a lot to be desired.
Friend of mine said ask an accountant what 2+ 2 is if he says 4 go look for another one, ask same question if his answer is what do you want it to be then he is your man, that kinda thinking will get you in trouble.
Ex uses examples that aren’t accurate comparisons.
 
Top