Posts by crimsonseal13

Anthony Evans78 said:A certificate? What if I actually want to hold physical gold in my hands?

Just head to a vault in Vienna with your certificate after scheduling an appointment 🙂 and you can inspect it, admire it, take it home... or whatever else you have in mind... It's your call...

Just a heads-up for anyone looking to get into gold with as little as $25 a month; this company just launched here in the States
http://www.protected-nm.com/de/home.html
You can build up a gold deposit through monthly installments, held securely in Vienna for US-based clients. It's all bought in your own name and for your account, plus you get a certificate for your records.
Shoot me a private message if you want more details.

Is this post allowed here? 🙂

I just received my Intel card. Does this need some kind of verification for online payments? I didn't quite catch that part. Thanks!

Until parents realize they need a strategy for everything—including dedicated savings accounts for their kids—we’re going to keep seeing these comments where everyone calls everyone else a crook or a thief. But has anyone stopped to consider that you might be the one doing it? You're essentially using your child just to squeeze out an extra percentage point of interest for yourselves. 🙂 i Marlea laid out some great points about why people do this and how there are plenty of valid reasons, since every parent is different. Being a "bad" parent isn't just limited to those struggling financially.
Just as there's planning for a child's college fund, there's also planning for emergency funds, family risk protection, active personal wealth management, and so on. In the US, things still feel far too reactive and disorganized. It's a perfect reflection of how this entire country is run. Ultimately, the people leading our nation are just a mirror image of ourselves... after all, we're the ones who voted them in. 🙂

Sophia Fox19 said:So, I’m looking at housing savings.
Specifically at some savings institution—maybe Vienna.
I don't care about those measly tax incentives ($250), and I'm not interested in taking out a loan once the
term expires—not when those tiny interest rates, even combined with a 3% incentive, only amount to
about 6% annual return on a sum of roughly $1667 (give or take).

Alright, so what *is* worth my time? Am I losing my mind here, or am I just crazy?

Here is what actually catches my eye:
Some savings outfits offer an 8% APY in the first year on, say, $10,000. Then in year two,
they drop it to 4%, then 3%, and so on through year five.

Well, I’d much rather just save at that 8% for the first year! Those pathetic 4% rates and
that massive tax penalty they slap on you if you decide to withdraw your cash after just one year
can honestly just shove it.
Basically, I'd get that promised 8% APY on $10k—something you won't find at any major bank.
I'd pay a $5 monthly maintenance fee, with no entry or exit penalties.
I'm just constantly worried they'll hide some fine print in size 0.314 font on the
inside of the envelope.
I actually asked them: ARE THERE ANY OTHER FEES BEYOND THE MENTIONED $5 FOR ACCOUNT
MAINTENANCE?
They said no.
Is that actually the case? Has anyone here dealt with this?

Now... if I put my money into a major institution like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, or Bank of America,
or really any major BANK (not a specialized savings firm), my deposit up to $250,000 is FDIC-insured
by the government, so there's no risk there.
But a private savings firm? That's a different story entirely.
Who am I supposed to sue if they go up in flames, disappear, or go bankrupt????

I’d love to invest more, but frankly, I'm terrified that their "guarantees" are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Has anything like this ever happened before?

thx

You're drawing way too many wrong conclusions without actually doing your homework.
Your whole philosophy regarding that $10,000 is just a classic example of that reckless mindset where someone thinks, "Just let me gamble a little, I don't care about the rest." 🙂 But since these housing savings accounts don't allow that, I'm actually glad we aren't in the same camp; I'm looking for secure savings with higher interest rates, and I have zero interest in local speculators trying to pull fast ones. 🙂

The purpose of these housing savings plans is well-defined, as is the effective interest rate—you can even find calculators on their websites. Calling an effective rate of roughly 6% "chicken feed" is... how should I put this... a bit foolish.
Interest rates on standard bank CDs will drop for you too, so why not take that $10,000 to JPMorgan Chase and see what kind of rate they offer you?
And just so you aren't living in fear or ignorance, keep in mind that all deposits in these housing savings associations are government-insured, just like they are in banks. So if either a bank or a savings association fails, you'll be looking to the U.S. government for coverage. 👍

Brandon Castillo6 said:Technically, you could just take on the extra financial weight if you wanted to; that's not really the point. The whole way people pitch life insurance when you're signing for a mortgage (at least how it went down in my case) is fundamentally flawed. They frame it like, "Hey, you shouldn't risk it, you'd basically be throwing money down the drain," while claiming life insurance has this built-in savings component. That specific line drives me absolutely insane. Sure, life insurance is a decent product if you need coverage for accidents, illness, and stuff like that, but honestly, I don't think its "savings" aspect is worth mentioning. And don't even get me started on the possibility of canceling it later. You can find forums overflowing with these exact questions:
http://www.life-insurance-usa.com/fo...578252701.aspx

http://www.life-insurance-usa.com/fo...s_policies.aspx

Next time, I won't just drop a link; I'll give you the full context:
To whom it may concern,
On January 3rd, 2005, I took out a 15-year mortgage, which required me to also take out a life insurance policy through Vienna, Austria for a 25-year term. The monthly premium is $61. I've been paying it regularly so far. I'm wondering if I can stop the insurance payments and what the consequences would be. Thanks.

You and I both know exactly what the answer to that was. It’s honestly terrible how life insurance is misrepresented to people. I feel like they only talk about the benefits and completely fail to warn them about the long-term obligations they're signing up for. While I was waiting for my personal banker, I overheard another teller talking to a client—it was the exact same story I heard a few days prior, just with a different vibe. The woman was a young mother, and unfortunately, she didn't seem particularly well-educated; she clearly hadn't spent ten days scouring the internet to understand the pros and cons of this specific insurance model. Her first reaction was, "Ugh, how are we supposed to afford even more expenses?" but once she was told it would protect her and her child, she jumped at the life insurance offer. Personally, I’m going to live my life today and ensure my kids have a life tomorrow by investing in a solid portfolio of blue-chip stocks. And before the life insurance advocates start yelling about what "safe" stocks are, let me clarify: 30% of my portfolio will consist of undervalued equities. That’s for peace of mind; the rest can go into a college fund for the kids, some low-yield savings, or maybe some relatively stable government bonds. But yeah, my own choices and a bit of a gambler's streak have led me toward mutual funds. It’s not for everyone, but I feel for that young mom from earlier—if one day she can't keep up the payments, she might not even recover half of what she put in. People need to realize that life insurance isn't an investment vehicle or a savings plan; it's essentially paying for the peace of mind we get from our fear of something happening to us. And that's fine, as long as we are informed—ACTUALLY informed—with all the facts upfront. It's like how I mess around with my guy every year for my auto insurance; the year rolls around and you haven't crashed the car, so he's like, "Too bad, better luck next year, bye-bye to those few hundred bucks!" :)))))

I’ve noticed that people who are actually happy with their whole-life insurance returns and savings components usually DON'T bother posting on forums... I wonder why that is.

To be fair, I would never swear off life insurance as a way to save money or try to convince anyone else otherwise. That feels dishonest and irresponsible to those who genuinely need that specific product. On the flip side, trying to diversify a portfolio with various stocks offers zero guarantee that the returns will outpace a solid life insurance policy over the long haul...

Of course, some people can set aside $50 every month, while others can do $500, some have an inheritance to play with in the stock market, and others are just starting from scratch... It all comes down to analyzing what you actually need. Every financial tool has its pros and cons, and most people just don't grasp their true purpose.

Jeremy Jackson2 said:That's exactly what I'm thinking too! I don't have any apartments or houses to inherit from anyone, but honestly, taking out a loan and putting my kid's financial future at risk just doesn't feel right to me. If I'm the one taking out the loan, then it's on me to pay it back—not my daughter, neither now nor after I'm gone.

Banks have every right to lend and to collect. If a loan is truly your only option left, then there isn't much to debate, really. I'm just speaking for myself when I say I wouldn't take out a loan because of a bad experience I had once. And regarding savings, everything basically boils down to: "I don't work for money. I work for interest."

I honestly can't tell what you're trying to prove with all these posts. You throw out a mountain of calculations—some of which are flat-out wrong (sh)—but to what end? What's the goal here? You complain about high repayment amounts if you take a loan, yet a few posts ago, you were comparing kids' savings accounts to housing savings accounts, claiming one yields $100 more per year (which is incorrect, by the way).?! It seems like you want to maximize your returns while minimizing your costs. But then, when it comes to a loan, suddenly it's too expensive. That feels pretty hypocritical to say.
Just a quick side note: the effective interest rate on housing savings is between 5.7% and 6.2%, which is actually better than the 4.5% on kids' accounts. However, I'm not trying to compare two completely different products; I'm just trying to meet you where you are with the math. Every financial product serves a specific purpose and target audience; the issue is that some people struggle to pick the right one for their specific needs and current financial situation.

Don't get me wrong, I respect your stance. We all have different views on quality of life. For some, it means renting; for others, it means taking out a 30-year mortgage to buy a home.
And we all know it's probably best not to get too involved in a debate about personal taste...🙂

brightnomad15 said:It's a decent enough amount, I suppose, especially when you factor in that slice of the pie meant for the insurance company—even someone like Made-off probably wouldn't feel too embarrassed about that.
My bad, I didn't mean to let that slip out. No hard feelings, I guess.

It’s not exactly groundbreaking news, I suppose; they've been selling that stuff over in the Netherlands since all the way back in the early 90s. I think insurance companies ended up setting aside something like 6 billion dollars just to cover themselves because of how "transparently" they were supposed to be informing clients about policy costs, though I stopped following the numbers after that point. 😍I guess it might be worth looking into some kind of compensation, maybe.

Best of luck, I suppose.

The Netherlands doesn't matter to me at all; I'm talking about America.

blueridge32 said:Well, it doesn't really work like that here in the States 😉

Plus, these investment policies don't give you any real flexibility when it comes to picking your funds.

They totally do, but man, I really don't feel like getting into a whole debate about it right now. Maybe one day I'll write a massive post explaining everything.

The only policy that makes sense to me is from Allianz Life. It has this specific perk that makes the insurance costs worth it for me: the Allianz Life Profit plan. It guarantees 90-100% of your principal depending on the term, though you're stuck with just one fund where you can buy shares through that product.

But wait, where's this "100% guarantee" exactly? 😉

@ bilokoje, I'll shoot you a DM sometime soon 😉

Alright then, we'll just be waiting for that moment of inspiration from you! 🙂

shadowpilot8 said:You know I have zero interest in life, but I do love stocks and mutual funds. 😁 Try harder to pique my interest. 😛
Fine. If that's the case, just make the payment. $33 Monthly. Put 50% into a standard savings account with a decent APY, then dump the other 50% into whatever stock or index fund you prefer. Or what's your plan?

Be specific. 😉

Give me some details too, I absolutely love trying new things! 🙂

If we're talking about structured financial products with managed portfolios, then I am even more intrigued...

Anonymous said:Is it better to stick with a standard high-yield savings account or go all-in on a mortgage savings plan?

What kind of fees am I looking at if I opt for a mortgage savings program?

Both options have their perks, depending on your timeline! If you can leave the money untouched for five years, a mortgage savings plan is a solid choice... but if you need it sooner, a CD or a money market fund might be smarter.
The penalty for withdrawing from a mortgage plan is usually about 1% of the contracted amount, which typically lands somewhere between $50 and $100.

blueridge32 said:Look, I know my stuff,😁 I just haven't had the energy to write out anything useful lately.😁 In my book, an investment life insurance policy is a killer product—way better than basic term life. The only catch is they're a nightmare to sell, so agents don't push them much. Doing the math on the fly is tough, and most folks aren't educated enough to feel confident selling it. Honestly? I'd take it over standard life insurance any day. It’s just way better.🤷

If something happens and you can't keep up with payments, it's a lifesaver—especially if you hit some snag during the year. Plus, the investment portfolio is totally different. I said "different," not necessarily "better."😉 I think you could see something like a 28% return over 4 years,🤔 but hey, that's just me shooting from the hip.

Personally, that's a sweet return. But look, if you actually know how to handle mutual funds and stocks yourself, you're better off doing it solo and just getting a cheap term policy.

I’d have to agree with your bolded point. An investment-linked policy is a good (just good) product, but the only downside is those fees—especially during the first three years, where they're massive. You lose about 50-60% of your annual premium to insurance costs, and after that, it's around 5% of the total premium every year. Also, these policies offer zero flexibility when it comes to choosing funds; you're stuck with whatever the insurance company has contracts with. There are probably 150 different funds out there in the US, but here you're limited. For example, Mercury uses Vanguard funds, Prudential uses BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase uses Erste, MetLife uses Fidelity Investments, Bank of America uses Allianz, and so on... Plus, the risk coverage within these policies is pretty expensive. Because of that, I'd rather avoid those insurance fees and just buy funds directly alongside a separate term life policy. Let's be real, you don't need to be a genius to handle funds—you just fill out the purchase request and the check—whereas stocks are a whole different ballgame...

I know plenty of salespeople and some failed "independent" advisors used to pitch these investment policies using one main selling point (alongside those projected 15% annual returns they'd calculate for you): the tax refund benefit. But that benefit could very soon become... well, it won't just change, it might vanish entirely.🙂

The only policy that makes sense to me is from Prudential because it has one specific advantage that makes me willing to pay those insurance costs: their GEICO Guarantee, which guarantees 90-100% of the principal depending on the term. However, you're still limited to just one fund where you can exclusively buy shares through that specific product.

I'm not trying to advertise, just giving an example, but if the admin thinks this isn't the place for that, feel free to delete that part.🙂

blueridge32 said:Investing in funds and stocks instead of bonds—just grab the riskiest fund out there and call it a day. Honestly, I don't think anything beats it right now. 🤷 You can't exactly smoke what you put in, but the returns? Way bigger.

Especially with everything sitting at these "lows" lately. Basically, things are lower now than they'll ever be once we hit that new normal. 😁

Why bother using a 401(k) for those funds?

shadowpilot8 said:On the contrary, analysts like Warren Buffett and Ray Dalio have been sounding the alarm on real estate and stock bubbles since 2006. They’ve long maintained that gold is a sound hedge. It is simple logic: if hyperinflation hits global currencies, paper money becomes worthless.
I find their track record more convincing than yours, especially since you haven't posted a single thing regarding gold yet. 😉
To be clear, I don't own any gold 😬. My portfolio consists of stocks, mutual funds, and CDs—nothing else. No life insurance, no 401(k).
People ask for my take, so I am simply repeating what sounds logical to me.
Regardless, shadowpilot8 already dismissed this idea, so discussing gold here will likely be a waste of time. 🙂

Let's be real, since 2006/07, there have been hundreds of different theories and predictions flying around online. Eventually, someone was bound to get lucky... 🙂 Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Now, we see all this "gold promotion" while prices are at historic highs, much like when everyone was aggressively pitching mutual funds and stocks right when they peaked. It's just a way to take money from the naive to make the wealthy even wealthier.

And if hyperinflation actually kicks in, none of your stocks, funds, or CDs will mean a thing.

I don't quite get why you wouldn't have life insurance when you clearly have significant capital tied up in stocks, funds, and CDs.

Kimberly Nguyen said:But let me ask you this—what do they actually lose by doing it? ... And what did they really gain from supporting the Democratic Party in the first place? ... Honestly, not much at all. The housing associations are going to take a massive hit because those Democratic Party accounts are their only real leverage left. Let's be real: most people aren't even saving through them because they want the credit; they're just using those specific accounts to park their cash. Once those Democratic Party products are gone, people aren't going to stop saving—they'll just move their money into some other financial product elsewhere.

The truth is, getting rid of these Democratic Party-style savings vehicles is just a matter of time, and frankly, it’s happening sooner rather than later...

For every dollar of tax relief provided, the government essentially gets four dollars back through sales tax revenue. Plus, there are plenty of loans up to $15,000 available specifically for home renovations, appliances, or interior design. So, cutting the tax incentive entirely isn't necessarily a loss for the state. But honestly, once someone pulls their money out after five years, what do you think they’re actually going to spend it on?
Steven Morris12 makes some really good points regarding this topic too.

shadowpilot8 said:Life 🙂
If you sign up for a thirty-year term, you’ll still be relatively young when it matures—trust me, 😁—and you'll have a massive amount of capital
. You will inevitably raid any other savings account to spend that cash.
Housing funds will be useless once the Democratic Party dismantles them, which could happen any day now.
Option B is a fixed-term account with contributions at your own pace.
Alternatively, you could start playing the stock market. 😁

Why would they even consider abolishing the Democratic Party? What exactly is the payoff for them...?

urbanhawk14 said:That's an assumption, and it seems you might have misread my original post.

The idea that my savings are at risk because some other saver fails to repay their loan feels like a bit of a stretch to me, though that isn't really my point.

No one is questioning my creditworthiness. I haven't actually finished my savings plan yet, so no formal assessment has taken place. But even when it does happen, I'm confident my credit score will be solid.

What I am addressing is how the insurance requirements have CHANGED (it actually feels like they've shifted several times) over the last few years—right during the time I've been saving. They've evolved into something that seems designed specifically to discourage people from taking out loans through these housing savings programs, mainly because the insurance costs are unreasonably high.

Rather than getting bogged into a debate about whether requiring two co-signers plus a mortgage at a 1:1.3 ratio is excessive, the easiest way to show you is to look at the insurance instruments at the SAME bank (Federal Reserve) for a standard mortgage not tied to a savings plan. Those rates are significantly lower; you can choose an option with just one co-signer or even none at all:

http://www.wellsfargo.com/my/bank/mortgage_rates_type=Citizen

My main takeaway is this: the bank doesn't actually want savers using their housing program to get favorable fixed-rate loans, so over the last two years, they've set such strict insurance hurdles that they effectively scare off almost every customer.

I didn't say it was outright fraud, because a bank is free to set its own lending terms. But it certainly feels borderline. Just imagine if, tomorrow, the bank told us they wouldn't issue a single loan unless we provided ten different co-signers.

*edit: Someone might argue that the whole point of these savings plans is to build up bonds rather than buy a home, but I don't see it that way. Based on the name, the mechanics, and what was presented to me at the local branch two years ago, it seemed like a perfectly valid way to tackle the housing market.

Since I don't have your specific data, I'm just making an assumption here... 🙂

Everything you're mentioning could simply be factored into the cost of a fixed-rate loan. For instance, in the European Union, variable-rate mortgages hover around 4% while fixed rates hit 7.8%; here, the situation is exactly the opposite.

And why did you even bother with a housing savings plan offered by someone selling a much more competitive product, like a standard commercial mortgage from the Federal Reserve?

Regarding your edit... I completely agree with you there. The logic fell apart once they introduced bridge financing—getting the loan immediately and saving up later. That's when the whole purpose of these savings plans started to vanish. You save for five years to cover installments, then ask for the loan.

urbanhawk14 said:In my opinion, these are rigged terms designed to ensure nobody actually lands a favorable fixed-rate loan. It feels borderline predatory toward customers like me; when I first started my home savings plan, I had no idea the requirements would become this unreasonable. Back then, you didn't even need a guarantor, but now they're demanding two.

For those who don't believe me, let me clarify: the way housing savings programs work is nothing like traditional commercial banks. They operate more like a mutual aid fund where everyone contributes over time, and then loans are issued from that collective pool. That pool is built from savers' contributions, loan repayments, interest, and dividends. Unlike a major bank, a housing program can't just go out into the international market and borrow money from someone else. If a borrower defaults, the program loses our private money directly.

I don't quite follow your comment about this being "borderline fraudulent." It sounds like you might have had a lower credit score, which led to a denial or requests for extra collateral. To me, that makes perfect sense because it protects MY savings from the RISK of someone failing to pay it back.
And I'm certain that once your term ended, you received all your principal, dividends, and interest, so there truly isn't any evidence of fraud there...

goldenwolf13 said:Yeah, I guess they do...

...credit 🙂

David Jackson4 said:Money market funds seem to be climbing pretty steadily, and they don't really deal with those crazy crashes you see with bond or stock funds, maybe seeing something like a 6-9% bump monthly. Plus, there aren't any entry or exit fees to worry about. I guess you can pull your cash whenever you need it, but the interest rate is still probably better than anything you'd find in a standard savings account or a CD.

Please show me this money market fund with a 6% monthly return. Thanks.