Has anyone who has read this been able to refute this book? The summary of the book is: >spend less than what you earn, save and invest the rest>avoid debt, even "good debt" like mortgages and student loans >learn the importance of compound interest and invest early and consistently>Invest in Vanguard's total stock market index fund VTSAX>Don't try to beat the market, no one can. Buy and hold VTSAX forever>try to save 50% or more of your income to achieve financial independence>once you are able to live on 4% of your portfolio a year, you are financially independentI'm failing to see anything wrong with this, and I'm curious about /biz/'s take on it. I'm not interested in hearing cryptogamblers' opinions though.
I wouldn't follow this myself, but if everyone else would do it, it would greatly benefit me.
>>61433996What are your reasons for why you wouldn't follow it
>avoid debt, even "good debt" like mortgages and student loans This is retard. Your home is not only an investiment, a product but an insurance.
>>61433595>>avoid debt, even "good debt" like mortgages and student loansToday its a good thing to go by unless you live in a place where living is actually affordable, if you can get a mortgage with low interest for 15/30 years it makes sense to take one, otherwise not so much.Also, people who actually take student loans are usually retarded and go to study useless degrees in shit schools and then wonder why they're 200k USD in debt.>>once you are able to live on 4% of your portfolio a year, you are financially independentThis will never happen unless you invest a few thousand $ a month consistently for 20-25 years, which is not an option for most peopleThe best way to gain wealth is by getting a job in a field that actually pays well, getting seniority and living off of 80-100k USD a year no matter how much you make until your portfolio is valuable enough for you to either retire or work for fun.
>>61434059https://jlcollinsnh.com/2023/03/02/why-your-house-is-a-terrible-investment/He has blog post about why homes are terrible investments. He makes some good points.
>>61434081>homes are terrible investmentsMost people don't buy homes as an investment but as an insurance policy, also its much nicer to own your own place than rent one.
4% is not enough to beat inflation and taxes, unless that's already accounted for.Conservative strategies simply don't cut it.Avoiding good debt is debatable, spending less than you earn is just common sense.Dumb boomer.
>>61433595>>avoid debt, even "good debt" like mortgages and student loansThe problem with that is that you're competing with the millions of retards who will gladly take on huge debt so they can chase rising house prices.
>>61434086Collins' point is that they are expensive money pits, and should not be thought of as good investments. If you can afford one (most people can't) that's fine if you want to buy a house. But most people are buying way more house than they need, going into massive debt for it, and thinking it its appreciation will cover the losses. They aren't taking into account the massive maintenance, insurance, and property tax costs.
>>61434163Sure, but the alternative is renting for the rest of your life, being at the mercy of landlords who don’t properly maintain your apartment and charge double what a mortgage would be for the same place. I don’t think houses are the slam dunk investment they were 40 years ago, but still the lesser of two evils.
>>61434215Most of the time, monthly rent payments are lower than monthly mortgage payments. Also you don't go into debt to rent.
>>61434271I'm not saying renting is ideal or even good, either.
>>61434059the maintenance and repairs are pretty costly in the long run
>>61433595I did exactly that but with BTC instead of Vanguard.
>>61434114Retard.
>>61433595You're not supposed to give good advice on here to the gamblers
>>61433595You can do whatever you want but unless you have a high paying job in a robust field then this advice is difficult to apply to the regular person >avoid debt, even "good debt" like mortgages and student loansStudent I can agree with but there are other considerations such as how much debt, what field, and how long you postpone graduation by working menial jobs with a reduced course load. For mortgages it depends. Rent vs mortgage vs buying is an entire financial problem with a lot of variables. See Martin shkreli on mortgage vs renting >learn the importance of compound interest and invest early and consistentlyCompound interest isn’t something that’s available to people in a meaningful way. Compound interest should be understand but as a means of why it should be avoided >Invest in Vanguard's total stock market index fund VTSAXTQQQ exists >Don't try to beat the market, no one can. Buy and hold VTSAX foreverSee above, back test it idc >try to save 50% or more of your income to achieve financial independenceGLHF. Live at home as long as possible though and save closer to 90%>once you are able to live on 4% of your portfolio a year, you are financially independentThat’s one way but it’s not wrong so I’m not disputing it
>>61433595There's nothing wrong with this. This is the basis of most fire/early retirement extreme.I can pick at some things:>Getting a degree could be a good idea for some people and a loan might be the feasible way to do that. It may NOT for the majority of people so there's that.>You can definitely try to save 50% but that's hard. It's good to do though. It does involve fundamentally accepting a lower consumption lifestyle. I highly recommend doing that, but it's hard, especially if you're trying to date.Personally I think saving as much as possible is good advice, but what you do is you hit FI but then keep working a bit. Your nest egg will grow even more and then you'll more than replace your whole salary with annual returns. You get to live FAT then all your life. if you want to do a passion job afterwards and just work a little also a possibility.
>>61434382>TQQQyou could "beat the market" by buying VTSAX on leverage too. it's just more risky. if you really would go all-in a 3x leveraged etf (a bear market would be very difficult to stomach) for the long term, perhaps best to choose a more diversified index.
>>61433595solid. but 90/10 SOXL TQQQ is the biznessmans portfolio don't you know?
>>61434081I hope homes can be homes again and not thought as an investment. I know it's crazy talk
>>61434618Like I said, back test it against whatever vanguard fund and see for yourself
>>61434712You can take more risk if you can live with the volatility. It might or might not work over your investment horizon, backtesting doesn’t tell you the future. Will tech continue to overperform? Who knows
>avoid debt, even "good debt" like mortgages and student loans bad advice (shorting the dollar to buy appreciating assets is generally a good idea, just have good risk management)>learn the importance of compound interest and invest early and consistentlygood advice (explanation unnecessary)>Invest in Vanguard's total stock market index fund VTSAXbad advice (VTSAX is a shitty investment, you can do better anon)>Don't try to beat the market, no one can. Buy and hold VTSAX foreverreally bad advice (it's easy to beat the market if you aren't retarded, especially in bear markets)>try to save 50% or more of your income to achieve financial independencegood advice (spending money is financial cuckoldry)>once you are able to live on 4% of your portfolio a year, you are financially independentbad advice (4% is too high, needs to be 2%)
>>61434635nah, 50/10 leveraged long LINK position is the biznessmans portfolio
>>61434920kek
>>61434271for the first 10 years maybe, after that your rent will continue to increase while mortgage payment stays the same
>>61434907Why is VTSAX bad? What is a better investment and why?
>>61434983I'd personally use the S&P 500 over a total stock market index for stock exposure since I don't trust European or Asian stocks. Also some wise gambling with individual stocks (this requires a significant amount of autism though, so it's not good for set it and forget it portfolios) and more volatile indexes (e.g. NASDAQ 100) can help improve your portfolio.Also going 100% equities is a bad idea, equities and any other speculative asset can go *decades* without significant price appreciation, whether that be 1929-1950 bear market or the post-dotcom bear market which lasted the whole 2000s. You should have exposure to uncorrelated assets, like precious metals and low volatility yield bearing assets/strategies (hedge fund games are typically better in that department, but those also aren't set it and forget it).The exact makeup of your portfolio really depends on the amount of risk/volatility you are willing to take. If you're young/poor and want large returns, 100% equity/speculation portfolio isn't that bad. If you're old/rich and want to keep your money after inflation, I'd say putting it all in equities, VTSAX or VFINX, is too risky versus diversifying into bonds and precious metals.
>>61435078VTSAX is a US total stock market index fund. I'm not sure where you are getting European or Asian from, unless you don't know what VTSAX is. S&P500 and total stock market indexes yield roughly the same returns, except VTSAX is more diversified, yet still solely in the US. As for Nasdaq, while it can yield better returns, it is more volatile and less diversified, which is riskier in the long term. I still don't see the downside of VTSAX, except for your last point. If I was old I would shift to bonds. But even in a decades-long bear market, the market always goes up in the end, even though it takes a while.
>>61435146>VTSAX is a US total stock market index fund. I'm not sure where you are getting European or Asian from, unless you don't know what VTSAX is.I misread it, in that case I don't really consider that much different than the S&P 500. You can basically ignore my first sentence then because I'm retarded.
>>61433595this book assumes you're coming from a stable, not necessarily rich or middle class, but stable and predictable 'average' living contextunfortunately, not everyone comes from stabilitysay you were born to drug addict parents and is on the foster care of the state then released from care when youre 18...you have zero stability, zero grounding and not enough education to put any of those practices to work.
>>61434057i dont read books from 50 years ago so that would make following the book impossible
>>61436800The Simple Path to Wealth Copyright © 2016 by JL Collins.
>>61433595if you want the simple way then yea its decent. the problems all arise from trying to save 50% or more of your income and trying to live far below your income level. living poor will probably take 5-10 years or more off of your total life expectancy assuming you dont get killed by a random pavement ape. from shitty food, poor nutrition, dangerous living areas to save money, higher chance of being a victim of crime, increased danger of driving a longer commute in an old vehicle without proper maintenance. the list goes on and on and the cost of living has squeezed so tightly to average salaries since covid. the TL;DR is basically cut corners in your young earning years to invest more and hope that you make it to retirement age and have multi-million dollar 401k/IRAs to live off. i wouldnt consider that to be "wealth" since you'll be too old and decrepit to do anything besides spend a fortune on old age health-care.
>>61436866eating healthy is cheap. brown rice & kale.
>>61433595yes it works but you need the discipline to see a 20+ year plan through hard times and good times. are you going to have the stomach to keep throwing $1k+ into the market when your portfolio is down 30-50% and has been for a year? what about when everyone is screaming the worlds ending?
>>61436882if you knew anything about macro & micro nutrients that go into proper nutrition along with necessary supplements you would know thats not true. you still think brown rice is healthy? even the poorest shitholes in the world take rice out of the brown husk. retard.
>>61433595>once you are able to live on 4% of your portfolio a year, you are financially independentthe only good advice listed. The only way you will ever get there is by taking significant risk. Crypto is a smart long term risk to take.
>>61433595This has already been said and I will just echo it - this all relies on you somehow getting a $200,000 a year job, or $400,000 a year if you don't want to live on literal rice for 30 years.Basically it's common sense / useless, on par with "don't get fat" - thanks bruh, good insight.
