In the meantime, he has a home to live in. Plus, most investment accounts give you easy access for withdrawals (eg. debit cards) or the ability to borrow while transfers or sales settle. I fail to see how it's precarious.
In the meantime, he has a home to live in. Plus, most investment accounts give you easy access for withdrawals (eg. debit cards) or the ability to borrow while transfers or sales settle. I fail to see how it's precarious.
Of the (mostly affluent) people I know... none of them possess a traditional savings account. Most use a checking accounts for direct deposit and a brokerage account. There's no reason to have a traditional savings account.
[1] http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_produ...
If that happens its probably the financial amagedden anyway.
If the stock market falls by 50% i still have 70% of my portfolio. I'm OK with that.
But for a bond to go to absoulte 0, would take a lot.
Also I'm not sure that small increases in the interest rates would that much of a disaster. We've been in situations with low interest rates before, and increments in the interest rate didn't harm stocks in the long term.
In many ways it's a positive indicator, that goverments see a positive future.
When the fed announced that the interest rates were on hold. Stocks went down.
There is a lot of lose money in the system though from low interest rates.
Yes, the FDIC does insure savings accounts, but that's only useful so long as the FDIC exists.
> how would "cash in savings" be equally worthless? Maybe I'm not understanding, but it's pretty difficult to actually lose money in a savings account, that's the whole point.
The cash wouldn't be lost, but it would have reduced purchasing power in a recession. And if inflation is steep, you're actively "losing" money.
It would be "worthless" in the context of long-term investing, because nothing would have long-term worth.
People with cash on hand in 2009 made out like bandits. Cheap stocks, cheap houses, cheap cars. Everything was cheap, cheap, cheap.