I stand corrected. Cf. Chart 33 on p.65. :-) (nt)
The Four Horsemen is better known and recognized as the Baldwin Group. Most publications refer to that group name. It should be noted herein after.
A term life insurance coverage at a FIXED rate is a better option. You can get your money back at the end of the term. It's a better return than when you cancel your whole life insurance.
"If you are smart with the money you have today and you get rid of your mortgages, car loans and credit card debt and put money into retirement plans you don�t need insurance 30 years from now to protect your family when you die."*
I do agree with the 401K contributions up to the companies match.
A variable annuity is also not a recommended investment. A better choice would be to invest in an exchange traded fund.*
* Suze Orman can explain the details better. Check out the 'Suze Orman Show' for good advice from someone not trying to make commissions off your whole life insurance or variable annuity.
Too bad you're under attack here Franz. Your critics must not know you.
I've done pretty well in retirement. I don't have an IRA, but I've done the other four things you listed, although the whole life thing hasn't been that great. I think I'd recommend term life to a youngster. I'm not old enough to collect from my deferred investments yet, nor am I old enough for Social Security. The fixed pension includes full medical insurance coverage at no cost to me and that has been great. It is also enough to pay the bills with some left over. Blackjack has provided me with spending money, vacation money, home repair money, car money and gas money plus a decent and growing bank account. This past year, during the stock market downturn, blackjack partially made up for the losses from my investment accounts. It has also enabled me to help out family members who have been hit a lot harder by this recession than we have. All in all, blackjack has been a pretty good retirement supplement, although I did have a losing year during my first full year of retirement. Fortunately I had a pretty decent bj bankroll going into retirement so I was able to absorb that loss. Like the man said about baseball, blackjack has been very good to me. I'll also admit that when the taxman cometh, I sometimes wonder about being in a strictly cash business, but it passes. I just grit my teeth and pay my taxes and remember that there is still something left. :-)
That said, I've never had a hankering to be a full-time professional blackjack player and I'm glad I had a straight job over the years. It has paid off in spades.
Not sure what you're referring to. My page 65 is blank. I gave the correct reference for the first edition, 1980. I thought that the book was out of print and that there never was a second edition.
Don
One Deck Basic Strategy.
Get it right. Easy to learn.
11 vs. A: If dealer hits soft 17 Double your bet. (Hit=Action=Double)
11 vs. A: If dealer stands on soft 17 Hit. (No Hit=No action=No Double)
I have the first (1980) edition. My page 65 has two color charts. They are single-deck pair splitting basic strategy. One chart is for no DAS; the other is for DAS.
My copy of How to Play Winning Blackjack does not have a chapter on double exposure. I seem to remember seeing a copy of this book with either a chapter of a basic strategy table for double exposure. It may have been called Zweikartenspiel. Does your book cover this game?
My copy is noted as First Edition 1980. Second printing 1980. Double exposure blackjack is treated in chapter 19, the last of the book. Page 65 contains a single short paragraph at midpage, referring to preceding charts on splitting and doubling.
I purchased the book many years ago from a used book store. The original owner (he signed it with the date "November 1980") inserted at the front a carbon copy of a Dec. 20, 1980 letter he wrote to the publisher, with a cc to Braun, setting forth, in detail, six errors he had found. Two of the errors are improper forms of "its" versus "it's", two are incorrect math calculations, one is a "then" instead of "than" correction and one is a misspelling, most likely an overlooked typo. Obviously, Don was not asked to proofread this book. :-)
That investing for 5% return when you have to keep the money in 49 years is probably not a good idea. At 19 years old you are not worried about retirement. I am older than that and have a mid-6 figure bankroll. I put IRS max (16,500) into my 401k plan every year but only because of the tax benefits. Other than that I wouldn't put a dime in there. Yes you should always do it if it is matched. And probably do it for tax benefits over a certain age, given other considerations. But it shouldn't be automatic. And for a 19 year old it is almost certainly not worth it.
Quite frankly I earn far more than 5% with my money that I can freely invest (in blackjack or other things) so I have no interest in tying it up. And like I said I am way beyong 19. However 16.5k is a small % of my income so no big deal.
You wrote: "One Deck Basic Strategy. Get it right. Easy to learn.
11 vs. A: If dealer hits soft 17 Double your bet. (Hit=Action=Double)
11 vs. A: If dealer stands on soft 17 Hit. (No Hit=No action=No Double)"
Ahem! One Deck Basic Strategy. YOU get it right! Easier to learn than you think: 11 vs. A: Double all the time!!
Don't know where you got the above, but it is wrong. Sorry.
Don
"My copy is noted as First Edition 1980. Second printing 1980. Double exposure blackjack is treated in chapter 19, the last of the book. Page 65 contains a single short paragraph at midpage, referring to preceding charts on splitting and doubling."
Yup. That's what I have.
"I purchased the book many years ago from a used book store. The original owner (he signed it with the date "November 1980") inserted at the front a carbon copy of a Dec. 20, 1980 letter he wrote to the publisher, with a cc to Braun, setting forth, in detail, six errors he had found."
I see his six and raise him a half-dozen more! :-) I wrote to Braun extensively in the spring of 1980 and received several lovely, handwritten letters in reply. I pointed out several of the errors I had found in the book, and he was grateful for the input.
"Two of the errors are improper forms of "its" versus "it's",
A national plague.
"two are incorrect math calculations, one is a "then" instead of "than" correction and one is a misspelling, most likely an overlooked typo. Obviously, Don was not asked to proofread this book." :-)
Obviously. :-) He did promise to print an Errata sheet that was to have incorporated the corrections that I had sent him, along with others, but I don't recall ever seeing it.
Don
You said:
"Don't know where you got the above, but it is wrong. Sorry."
Please find my answer on page 35. Winning Without Counting by Stanford Wong. I have to admit that many books state that BS doubling 11 vs. A IS always the correct play with 1-DK but I really like this book and the author. So...It's your call
The below link is from the left margin on this site, so it can reasonably be considered policy of the administration.
I know that the administration here has said more than once that it is okay to make derogatory comments about another poster's idea or concept, but not about the poster himself.
Let's all think about it.
Sincerely,
D. Duck
The conventional wisdom is that stocks returned 8-10% per year, not 5% as quoted. It may very well be that after the last year or two, the average may be 5% but that doesn't mean that investors should abandon stocks. It has been proven that most investors, even professional money managers, can't beat the indices such as the S&P 500 (active vs. passive management). Legendary fund investors such as Marty Whitman (Third Avenue Value Fund) and Bill Miller of Legg Mason (who beat the S&P for something like 17 straight years) lost over 40% last year. That can sure bring average returns down. Unfortunately, asset allocation didn't work last year, so almost no strategy except cash worked. Cash will now get you less than 1 or 2%, not a great way to beat inflation. Maybe you should be a money manager or hedge fund manager.
If 19 year olds did worry about retirement (I agree that they don't but don't agree that they should), they wouldn't have the problems this generation is having not being able to retire. Numerous studies have shown that starting early is greatly beneficial. The tax benefits of IRAs, Roths, 401ks are enormous and should be used by all.
I agree with you about whole life insurance (except for the very rich under certain circumstances), but you didn't have to call him an idiot. Buy term and invest the rest. Doesn't mean everything he said is wrong.
Since this is a BJ board, I'll say something about BJ. It's a tough way to make a living.
"Please find my answer on page 35. Winning Without Counting by Stanford Wong."
I don't have that book; I have its counterpart, "Basic BJ," which was an updated version of the original, but without the warps information.
"I have to admit that many books state that BS doubling 11 vs. A IS always the correct play with 1-DK but I really like this book and the author."
Are you sure you're reading correctly? You see something written by Stanford Wong that says, specifically, for a one-deck S17 game, that you should not double 11 v. A? Or, are you looking at a "generic" BS for any number of decks??
"So...It's your call."
No, it's not. We don't vote on correct BS any more than we vote on 2+2=4. The correct play is to double. That isn't a personal opinion; it's a mathematical fact.
Don
You asked...
"Are you sure you're reading correctly? You see something written by Stanford Wong that says, specifically, for a one-deck S17 game, that you should not double 11 v. A? Or, are you looking at a "generic" BS for any number of decks?? "
Yes I have read it correctly.
It is not a generic chart. It is very specific and states that rule.
Sorry...I wasn't asking for a vote.
The $119.60 is the annual premium for a small participating whole life policy that was bought on my life when I was eight years old. The $782.51 is the 2009 dividend. The policy was transferred to me when I was in my 20s. I could have stopped paying the premium years ago and let the past and future dividends keep it in force. Instead, I pay the premium and apply the dividend to buy additional insurance. The death benefit is now about three times the face amount. Dividends are credited free of income tax as return of unused premium, which is paid with after tax dollars.
Whether one should buy whole life, some form of term, universal or variable universal life insurance depends on the nature of his need for insurance, the duration of the need, the owner's or other premium payor's ability to pay the premium and the owner's risk tolerance. Suppose that a 20-something with a limited income becomes a parent. His need for insurance has just increased, but his ability to pay for it has decreased. Term is his best choice.
One can buy a lot more insurance for the same amount of premium with term than with whole life. There are different types of term, including policies with level face amount and premiums that increase every year or every five years, policies with a level premium and decreasing face amount and policies with both a level face amount and level premium for 20, 25 or 30 years. A common feature of all term policies is that they have neither cash value nor dividends.
Consider a 25-year term policy with a level face amount and a level premium. This policy may be good for someone who is of the opinion that his responsibility to provide for his family upon his death ends when his children reach adulthood. Suppose, however, that his widow or adult children will need further help, or, that he will want to provide for grandchildren. At least one of two things will happen or have happened at the termination of the term policy. The premium for any type of insurance for the same person 25 years older increases sharply. The insured's health may have changed so as to make purchase of any type of insurance prohibitive or even impossible.
Before one buys term insurance, he should be aware of how the premium increases with age in the case of an increasing premium policy, whether it can be continued beyond the guaranteed duration without providing evidence of insurability in the case of a 25-year term policy and whether it can be converted to whole life without providing evidence of insurability. Have you ever looked at a mortality table, specifically the column labeled q(x), which is the probability of death at age x?!! These probabilities start to increase sharply a late middle age and they increase ever more sharply with increasing age.
Term insurance is most appropriate appropriate when it is known that the need for life insurance will be for a limited, known duration, e.g. when a bank requires insurance on a borrower as a condition for a loan. If the duration of the need is of neither known or of limited duration, then whole life is appropriate. One use of whole life is to provide funds for payment of estate taxes. The person with a taxable estate is likely to live to an age at which term is either prohibitive or unavailable.
Then, there are the forced savings, increase in value and reduced premium payment period availability of participating whole life. None of these is present for term insurance
Are you at all familiar with the mathematics of life insurance? The premium for a $100,000 one-year term policy for a person age x is 100,000*q(x)/(1+i)^^0.5, i is the interest rate assume on company assets, not sqrt(-1) and q(x) is the probability that the x-year old will die within 1 year. These premiums increase each year, first slowly, then rapidly.
The net premium for a $100,000 whole life policy for a person age x is
[100,000*q(x)/(1+i)^^0.5 + 100,000**p(x)q(x+1)/(1+i)^^1.5 + . . . ]/[1 + p(x)/(1+i)+ . . .)
The premium for a whole life policy is higher than that of a one-year term policy for the same face amount, but the premium for the one-year term policy increases each year, sharply with advancing age. Term policies may or may not be renewable, without medical underwriting. The premium for a whole life policy cannot be increased by the company if the insured's health changes. In the case of participating whole life, the dividends can be used to reduce the premium. In the case of an older participating whole life policy, the dividend will exceed the premium.
See Life Contingencies by C.W. Jordan, published by the Society of Actuaries. I worked in the actuarial field and passed several of the Society's exams. Hence my interest in card counting.
A question you should ask is: Why put whole life or any type of insurance on a child?
A family should adequately insure the parents before insuring the children because the death of a parent, but not of a child, causes the loss of income or services to the family. Insurance companies do not issue term on children for that reason.
A person's insurability may decline during adulthood. Whole life premiums are higher than term premiums, but whole life premiums for children are much lower than for adults, especially older or medically impaired adults. A rider that allows the child to buy additional insurance duing adulthood without providing evidence of insurability can be added.
I have worked in the insurance business. I have no loyalty to it at all. Search for my posts on the Politics board and you will see that I faulted the life insurance industry for opposing repeal of the estate tax because it sells many large policies as a means of funding payment of the death tax. I distinguished the dental profession, which does not oppose fluoridation of water, even though fluoridation reduces the number of cavities that dentists fill. Know the facts before you call someone retarded or accuse him of trying to sell something!!
Auto accidents - They have quicker reflexes than old people and can recover from injuries faster. They can afford to take chances with alcohol, excessive speed, etc.
Smoking-caused illnesses - They can always quit before they get old. If they don't quit, they can be sure that we will have cures for lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc. before they are old enough to get these diseases.
Retirement - Almost everyone in the most exclusive gated retirement communities got there by waiting until they were in their 40s or 50s to start planning for their retirement. Their planning included keno, state lottery tickets and slot machines.
Revereman, thanks for the defense. See my post "I'm so retarded . . ." above.
I recommend going into business for yourself and forget about employment exploitation. Dont retire. What's the point if you like what you do? After retirement, most people die off quickly anyway.
