Non Sabres Deadline Trades/Rumors

[Tondas]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

That assumes no income from that money.  If you can get 3% return by investing it, that's $150k per year without dipping into the principal.

Correct.  I assumed the return on investment equaled the inflation rate.  There are no guarantees that the market won't tank.  As we all know, past performance Is not Indicative of future results.   Many financial "experts" are saying that $2mil won't be enough for folks that retire at 55?  I just think to live off $5 mil over 55 years is worrisome.  But, it's a great worry to have!!

[Tondas]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Exactly. You could put 5mil a year in just about the safest retirement account and get around 3% per year (you might even get 4%). With even a hair of risk you can get to 5-7% per year. You don't have to invest in your buddies fish and tackle shop. 

Please tell me where I can get a guaranteed 3-4% return today.  And again, past performance is not indicative of future results.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Correct.  I assumed the return on investment equaled the inflation rate.  There are no guarantees that the market won't tank.  As we all know, past performance Is not Indicative of future results.   Many financial "experts" are saying that $2mil won't be enough for folks that retire at 55?  I just think to live off $5 mil over 55 years is worrisome.  But, it's a great worry to have!!

But your are looking at this wrong. 2mil at 55 is far different than 5mil at 25. If I had 5mil at 25 invested the law of 72 suggests that if I invest that money in mutual funds and guaranteed annuities, I will have doubled that 5mil several times before I hit 55. If you are that young and have that much money and are not investing that is really on you. 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Please tell me where I can get a guaranteed 3-4% return today.  And again, past performance is not indicative of future results.

I have a guaranteed annuity that depending on when I added money gives 3.01-4.02% regardless of the market. It is guaranteed to never return less than 3%. 

[Tondas]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But your are looking at this wrong. 2mil at 55 is far different than 5mil at 25. If I had 5mil at 25 invested the law of 72 suggests that if I invest that money in mutual funds and guaranteed annuities, I will have doubled that 5mil several times before I hit 55. If you are that young and have that much money and are not investing that is really on you. 

Agree with guaranteed annuities providing you choose the correct insurance company.  Law of 72 is a suggestion based on future performance, which cannot be guaranteed.

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I have a guaranteed annuity that depending on when I added money gives 3.01-4.02% regardless of the market. It is guaranteed to never return less than 3%. 

Seriously, what company?  I'm interested.

[That Aud Smell]

Annuities aren't really an investment, fwiw. At least not like a bond or equity. My simpleton understanding is that you basically fork over some of the value of your principal so that the person holding the money and paying the annuity can make bank on the margin. So you give some to get some.

Edited September 11, 2019 by That Aud Smell

[...]

29 minutes ago, WildCard said:

A regular 30 year old doesn't have the lifestyle/expenses of a professional athlete. It's all relative

Sounds like, at that point, this person would need to make a few lifestyle adjustments.  If not, oh well!  Dumb is dumb no matter how much money they gots.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Agree with guaranteed annuities providing you choose the correct insurance company.  Law of 72 is a suggestion based on future performance, which cannot be guaranteed.

The chances of you investing 5mil in mutual funds managed by a legit company and losing all that money or having less than that 5mil in 20 years are almost non-existent. Unless the entire global economy crashes and ceases to exist. Even after the great recession, things went back up. 

If you invested 5mil at 25 in medium risk stocks and bonds funds, you are going to have more than 5mil when you turn 55. A lot can happen in 30 years. 

[...]

23 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Not rich, but a good head start.  If he lives to 85, that $5 mil has to last him 55 years.  That's about $90k per year ($80k or so after taxes).  

That money would be post tax since it's an earning that has been banked.  And, NFW the taxes on that would be just over 10%.  And, I would say most of us live pretty comfortably on $90k annual. This is before investing.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, ... said:

That money would be post tax since it's an earning that has been banked.  And, NFW the taxes on that would be just over 10%.  And, I would say most of us live pretty comfortably on $90k annual. This is before investing.

Also you have to spend all that 90k per year with nothing left over. Let's say you took just 5k per year and invested that. That's 275k over those 55 years, let's give you a modest interest rate of 4%... you would have 763,000 dollars.So you are 85 and you have 763,000 dollars still left. At 6% you would have 1.5 million left. 

If you were given 5million today (after taxes) at age 25, you should be able with very moderate concessions to have that last you until you die. 

[Tondas]

1 minute ago, ... said:

That money would be post tax since it's an earning that has been banked.  And, NFW the taxes on that would be just over 10%.  And, I would say most of us live pretty comfortably on $90k annual. This is before investing.

The money is banked, but you earn interest which is taxable, and if you invest it (not in an IRA or 401(k),  capital gains taxes may apply.  If in an IRA you pay taxes up front (Roth) or on withdrawal (Traditional IRA).

[Derrico]

33 minutes ago, Taro T said:

And as soon as a player retires, a LOT of expenses he had go away - agent, trainer(s), nutritionist(s), sports psychologist, publicist, etc.

Provided he paid off his mortgage while still playing, he SHOULD be able to leave a nice nest egg for his kids at the end of a relatively comfortable life.

His health care costs comparative to the general population will be significantly higher.  Don’t want to really full out jump into the debate, just sayin...

Edited September 11, 2019 by Derrico

[Doohicksie]

10 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Please tell me where I can get a guaranteed 3-4% return today.  And again, past performance is not indicative of future results.

S&P 500.  You're looking at 55 years, you don't have to worry about short term dips.

[LGR4GM]

lol, don't you wish you had 5mil at 25 and invested it. 

[Tondas]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

S&P 500.  You're looking at 55 years, you don't have to worry about short term dips.

But you do.  If the market tanks in your first 5 years and you lose say 20%, you still are taking $90k out per year of your retirement account to live.  That earning power is lost forever.  It's not linear.  There's a great book by Jim Otar that proves luck and timing are the greatest influences to the safety of one's retirement.  http://retirementoptimizer.com/

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

lol, don't you wish you had 5mil at 25 and invested it. 

I wish I had $5 mil at 57 to invest.?

[Tondas]

I'm sorry to hijack the thread but in all fairness, @Doohickie started it. ?

[ddaryl]

55 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Not rich, but a good head start.  If he lives to 85, that $5 mil has to last him 55 years.  That's about $90k per year ($80k or so after taxes).  If he wants to work, he may have to go to college or a trade school which costs money.  Kids education, health care, weddings, etc. needs to be factored in.  SS will not be much if he doesn't keep working since he will only have 5-7 years of creditable work.  Now many can do it on $90k, but I don't think he'd be calling himself rich.

$5 million you can easily invest have it earn income while you draw down on that and have it last 50 years easily... Heck My lifetime earnings to date $3 million and I'm over 50.. My wife retires next year and I will retire at 58 (7 years)  with less than a million and we will live well the rest of my days from there on with little issues

 

Now it does come down to the your comfort level of quality of life, but I will be down sizing

 

https://retireby40.org/can-retire-5-million-dollars/

 

https://retireby40.org/early-retirement-withdrawal-strategy/

 

 

[shrader]

35 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

S&P 500.  You're looking at 55 years, you don't have to worry about short term dips.

This isn't the kind of trading I was expecting to see here.

[ddaryl]

20 hours ago, jahnyc said:

The situation with Risto feels a bit too similar to the situations with Kane and O'Reilly.  Sabres will be trading the player and we get our hopes up for a significant return.  Unfortunately, it did not happen with Kane or O'Reilly, and I doubt it will with Risto.  It just seems that when a team is openly shopping a player for an extended period and the player does not want to play for the team, the prospect of getting a decent return for the player is negatively impacted and diminishes the longer the situation continues. 

 

big difference. O'Reilly had a $7.5 million roster bonus do that would of greatly affected dead cap space if we traded him afterwards.

 

yes it was not fruitful, but Beane was determined to remake this team and it didn't include O'Reilly and a $7.5 mil roster bonus.... 

 

I do not see an O'reilly situation for 2 reasons. Risto has a manageable cap hit, and is worth what he is being paid. So we can wait this one out. The 2nd We will run Beane out of town if he trades another higher end asset for peanuts. He can't afford to short arm this one

[#freejame]

45 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

S&P 500.  You're looking at 55 years, you don't have to worry about short term dips.

Anyone looking beyond investing in index funds is simply overthinking things IMO

[That Aud Smell]

11 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Anyone looking beyond investing in index funds is simply overthinking things IMO

Overthinking it, or having an over-developed sense of their own competencies, or being greedy as a mofo. Or a combination of those three. Or all three.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

22 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

 

big difference. O'Reilly had a $7.5 million roster bonus do that would of greatly affected dead cap space if we traded him afterwards.

 

yes it was not fruitful, but Beane was determined to remake this team and it didn't include O'Reilly and a $7.5 mil roster bonus.... 

 

I do not see an O'reilly situation for 2 reasons. Risto has a manageable cap hit, and is worth what he is being paid. So we can wait this one out. The 2nd We will run Beane out of town if he trades another higher end asset for peanuts. He can't afford to short arm this one

It might be interesting to see "Beane" making the trades instead of Botts.

[Scottysabres]

"Blue Horseshoe loves Anacott Steel"

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

The fact is, the Leafs have offered him a deal that is financially commensurate with his status in the league. He would be the league’s 2nd highest paid winger and its fifth highest paid player.

It’s ego because he believes he is worth more, even though the market doesn’t support that.

They offered him more than his worth. He's not a top 5 player, not close. I'm actually surprised at the level of ego on display, I don't think we've ever seen anything like it in the NHL. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Thorny

[Wyldnwoody44]

So the trade rumor is that one can get 4%in savings.... JFC, the season needs to start