- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
slackster
| Favorite team: | Stanford  |
| Location: | Houston |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 91415 |
| Registered on: | 3/3/2009 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Since the old Portal is now closed, who do we want from
Posted by slackster on 1/17/26 at 12:25 am to ReverendJeffro
quote:
You won't see a whole lot from Indiana, many of their players are Seniors and out of eligibility.
Most of their OL goes from the NC game to AARP.
0
quote:
That’s how I would calculate it. XOM was a Covid play for me as well. I got in at about $44 a share or so Which had the dividend yield hovering close to 10%. Over the past five years, with DRIP turned on, that has brought my cost basis to about $49 a share. Currently XOM pays $4.12/share. At a current valuation of $129, yield is 3.19%. My cost basis at $49 puts the $4.12/share paid at a yield of 8.4%. Current value means nothing to my cost basis except what my DRIP is buying on dividend payment date. Where are you suggesting a higher dividend yield than 8.4%?
What kind of math is this?
Absent tax concerns, this is the wrong way to view it for any real apples to apples comparisons. Your cost basis is immaterial. You have $129 in market value yielding $4.12 per share. Thats all that matters. Hell, buy CVX if you want an even better run company with a higher current yield.
re: XOM Stock
Posted by slackster on 1/16/26 at 12:27 am to lsuconnman
quote:
I guess MT sentiment has changed. XOM being dead money threads were on repeat around these parts for the better part of a decade.
Recency bias.
Total return from XOM has significantly underperformed the broader stock market over the last 10, 20, 30, and 40 years (I stopped looking), but whatever.
re: Seeking steer on tax exempt municipal bonds for lowering RMD strategy
Posted by slackster on 1/16/26 at 12:21 am to Everyday Is Saturday
Pretty simple math here - what tax bracket are you willing to exhaust doing the conversions?
If it’s 12% or lower, definitely use taxable investments over munis. If it’s 22-24%, irs debatable, and if it’s 32% (which frankly is a psychotic bracket to consider conversions outside of exceptional examples) use munis only.
If it’s 12% or lower, definitely use taxable investments over munis. If it’s 22-24%, irs debatable, and if it’s 32% (which frankly is a psychotic bracket to consider conversions outside of exceptional examples) use munis only.
quote:
With the money printing I think they're referring to the eventual lag effect of it all. M2 is always growing and that money has to go somewhere. Like water it will find the cracks
For the last 15 or so years you would have been better off burying your money in the back yard than you would have been buying silver - up until about 6 months ago. That’s simply not acceptable if it’s an M2 hedge over that time frame. How long is the lag supposed to be :lol:
Again - no need to argue the fundamentals. I get it. Just don’t act like it’s the precious medals of choice for M2 hedging.
quote:
Fair points, but current fundamentals are nothing like past run-ups. One notable example is China having massive new export controls on Ag(Started Jan 2026). In case you didn't know, they are the #1 Silver refiner in the world and the #2 producer.
This is a much different animal than the “as long as the Fed is printing money silver is a safe investment” thesis. That’s my point. I’m not arguing against any modern fundamental reasons to own silver/precious medals. I am arguing against the precious medals as a Fed hedge thesis which is laughable historically, particularly for silver.
quote:
for how long? this means nothing. as long as the fed prints money, silver and gold are safe investments.
Sigh.
Silver was down 50% or so from its highs for the better part of a decade while the Fed had the fire hose on full blast.
I realize that if you bought it at the high in 2011 you’ve basically doubled your money today, but for literally 95% of that time frame spot silver traded below the CPI index.
I’m not here to rain on any parades, but just throwing silver into this “as long as the Fed prints money silver is a safe investment” is frankly crazy given historical precedence. In fact, saying something is “safe” when it fell over 75% from 2011 to the 2020 lows, and 50% from the 2011 highs over the full 10 years through 5/2021 - despite a 125% increase in M2 and a 20% increase in CPI over the same time frame - is incredibly irresponsible.
You can wax poetic about silver manipulation and any other reasons for its substantial underperformance until the last 6 months, but the fact remains it has been a terrible hedge of the Fed printing machine for the majority of the last 15 years.
quote:
When you hear about precious metals coming from the mainstream media parrots is the time to sell. I'm not saying sell I'm saying don't sell now until it becomes strategically good to do so.
All jokes aside this was my point in mid December about selling precious medals when all the grandmothers are pouring into it. :cheers:
quote:
The 25% match, they didn't pay taxes. so no early penalty, but I'd owe taxes on deposited amount.
There would be an early withdrawal penalty if you took the employer match along with taxes being owed on it - unless you’re over 55.
To be very clear, you can roll the 401k into two separate IRAs - employer match would go into traditional IRA and your contributions would go into Roth IRA. There is no tax or penalties owed on either at that step, but there would/could be upon withdrawal to yourself.
OP, how did you come to the point that you’re retiring in 10m but don’t know how or if you’ll be able to use your 401k for income?
I’m not being a smartass- it’s a genuine question. So you know you’re good to never go back to work ever again but you don’t currently know how you’ll pay your first month of bills within the year? That seems like quite the head scratcher.
I’m not being a smartass- it’s a genuine question. So you know you’re good to never go back to work ever again but you don’t currently know how you’ll pay your first month of bills within the year? That seems like quite the head scratcher.
re: Rule of 55
Posted by slackster on 1/14/26 at 10:00 pm to notsince98
quote:
not sure how that is overly interesting. That is how taxing income works in this country.
Tend to disagree here.
The 20% mandatory withholding can force your gross income into higher marginal brackets (or force other income to be taxable that otherwise would not have been) vs withholding the exact amount of tax liability.
I see this all the time actually. People send Uncle Sam $20,000 in taxes that really only needed to be $18,000, and that extra $2,000 makes SS and/or qualified dividends taxable that otherwise wouldn’t have been, so instead of getting a $2,000 refund they’re only getting $1,500. Then you figure in opportunity costs and things like that and over withholding from a retirement account can be very expensive over time.
These kind of metrics are very useful for predicting that significant pullbacks are likely but they’re terrible timing tools, and therein lies the rub.
quote:
My AGQ is up 350+% right now just in the past 4 months or so....it's mind boggling.
Kudos - you’re a ballsy man holding 2x levered anything over 4-5 months. Heck of a trade.
quote:
Have you sold your GDX yet? Lol
:lol: was just thinking about this thread today. Glad you asked. No, not yet but I’m strongly considering moving out chunks into IAU soon.
re: If Jalen Hurts actually had to pass, you are likely going to lose
Posted by slackster on 1/14/26 at 9:42 pm to lsupride87
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. I’m not sure how the Dallas game and the Denver game jive with your thread title. They didn’t “have to pass” in either. In fact, in the Dallas game he threw 15 passes in the first 19 minutes and was 12/15 162 and 1 TD when they were up 21-0. Over the next 41 minutes he threw 24 passes, a much lower clip than he did building the lead. Their whole offense just sucked after the lead and they had massive penalties.
Honestly a better question is why tf are the throwing so much in games where they’re winning - sometimes in a big way and/or late in the game?
re: US companies are poised to receive record windfalls of tariffs if SC rules against Trump
Posted by slackster on 1/14/26 at 9:35 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
Tariffs are supposed to drive inflation way up. That has not happened yet. So the corporations will get the benefit and not the "people"?
I think there was alot of hype about tariff inflation but most reports in the early days were suggesting maybe .5% increase to core CPI due to tariffs.
quote:
Idealy we wouldn't have millions of illegals in this country which leads to some people being racially profiled. No one said cleaning up the mess was going to be pleasant
We agree.
I mean ideally it’s 170 too many but that’s not practical.
Rogan giveth and he taketh away.
Rogan giveth and he taketh away.
re: US companies are poised to receive record windfalls of tariffs if SC rules against Trump
Posted by slackster on 1/14/26 at 8:55 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Yeah, those Trump tariffs are causing prices to skyrocket! Whatever will we do???
:lol: what is this straw man?
re: US companies are poised to receive record windfalls of tariffs if SC rules against Trump
Posted by slackster on 1/14/26 at 8:33 am to LSUnation78
quote:
But I thought we would be paying the tariffs?
Fify, retard
:lol:
Only on the political talk can people argue that corporate taxes are paid by consumers but tariffs are paid by … someone else?
That square peg cannot be rounded.
quote:
Sure you do
Why would any sane person want the administration to lose? The chaos after a loss isn’t worth it. They have plenty of avenues they can pursue if these are struck down. It’s not like tariffs go away for good if they lose.
Popular
8
