Magic the Gathering as a 401k alternative?

In reply to 1988RedT2:

Poker is no good. It fell out of style so all the cool kids with their easy money left. Trust me, I was a cool kid with easy money.

petegossett wrote: In reply to mtn: Sadly, no. Although to be 100% honest I've not even looked at my balance in 6-months or more. I know how dumb/ignorant this sounds, but I just have no interest in trying to babysit it, nor in learning how to be a better player. I'd much rather cash out(as if there was much there to begin with) and buy/sell tangible items as I come across good deals. It wouldn't be consistent, but I'd have better control. Now, also to clarify - I have an IRA from a former 401k with Schwab that I'm not really loosing on long-term, but I'm definitely not invested aggressively either. I was without any retirement plans at my last jobs spanning 6-years, and have only been investing in the 401k here(minimally) for the last 3-years. IIRC I only had a ~$1500-$2k balance in it last time I checked, but there were definitely months my contribution was less than my losses. We're also an ESOP, so I'm not *as* concerned about this 401k...plus SWMBO has other retirement funds too, and combined we *should* be able to get by in 20+ years when the time comes.

You don't need to babysit it, but if your contributions are barely covering your losses, you do need to learn a lot more about it--if that is the case, you are indeed losing money and you'd do better to put it under a mattress. If you meant that it is sitting stagnate and not growing much, then just wait, or you need to get it in better/cheaper funds.

Seriously, if you just go and invest in just about any total market index fund and leave it there you will be ahead in the long run.

It is hard to do really well and beat the market significantly--and that carries great risk, the minimum of which is that you underperform the market.
It is really, really easy to do good. If you aren't doing good, you're doing it wrong. If you think that collectibles are a better alternative*? Well, I'll keep my opinion on that one to myself.

*Please note, I am not saying that the stock market is the end all be all, and I myself have a few other investments aside from the market. But none are collectibles, unless you count my guitars, and I don't count those as an investment so it doesn't matter.

In reply to mtn:

Whoever is managing our 401k now(it changed last year & id have to find the info) had a nifty tool on their site that you could slide side-to-side for selecting your risk tolerance. I always am at the conservative end, as I'd rather keep my cash under a mattress than lose it.

Id say invest in cars. Im picking up an "investment" saturday :D

That way, when they never go up in value, at least you have a fun car!

Disclaimer- its not an investment car, I just want it

petegossett wrote: I always am at the conservative end, as I'd rather keep my cash under a mattress than lose it.

Ironically, keeping money under your mattress WOULD be losing some of it. It has no chance of keeping up with inflation over time if it's just sitting somewhere, so if you stashed $500 someplace where it's not earning significant interest, then it will be worth less and less as time goes on.

STM317 wrote:

petegossett wrote: I always am at the conservative end, as I'd rather keep my cash under a mattress than lose it.

Ironically, keeping money under your mattress WOULD be losing some of it. It has no chance of keeping up with inflation over time if it's just sitting somewhere, so if you stashed $500 someplace where it's not earning significant interest, then it will be worth less and less as time goes on.

While this is certainly true, I can fully appreciate Mr. Gossett's view. His mattress is far less likely to have no ethics and commit gross damn negligence than say a financial institution claiming expertise in investments.

1988RedT2 wrote:

STM317 wrote:

petegossett wrote: I always am at the conservative end, as I'd rather keep my cash under a mattress than lose it.

Ironically, keeping money under your mattress WOULD be losing some of it. It has no chance of keeping up with inflation over time if it's just sitting somewhere, so if you stashed $500 someplace where it's not earning significant interest, then it will be worth less and less as time goes on.

While this is certainly true, I can fully appreciate Mr. Gossett's view. His mattress is far less likely to have no ethics and commit gross damn negligence than say a financial institution claiming expertise in investments.

Nothing at all wrong with holding cash. It can give you great buying power. But the flipside of your argument is that it's not insured in any way either, so if the house floods, or burns down, or gets blown apart in a tornado, or somebody breaks in, then your money is history. I'm sure he was joking about stashing it under the matress, but if you're really risk averse, then atleast keep it in a bank. At least with banks, if any of that happens it's federally insured.

I have to agree that car parts might be the best investment. I restored a 1986 Mustang SVO a couple years ago and even the everyday items like gas caps and battery cables were worth their weight in gold. I don't think the owner ever paid the $600 to get the correct NOS negative battery cable, but he did spend $80 for the right gas cap.

I tried to play Magic when I was a kid but there was so many angles to it you have to understand to play it I just gave up.

1988RedT2 wrote: Who had even heard of Magic - The Gathering a few years ago? Now, a lot of people have.

I would think anyone like me who was in college in the mid-90's would have heard plenty about it. Not as well-known probably as Pokémon (and I have to laugh at the fact my browser's autocorrect added the emphasis on the 'e'...) due to the lack to tie-ins but still very well known in the right age set. It's just that Pokémon was targeted at kids young enough that their parents had to be at least passingly aware of it vs. Magic which was more popular/aimed at the late teen/college age-set.

I never got into either- but know at least one friend who essentially made his living for several years buying and selling cards from both. And that if my brother ever went through and sold his old Pokémon cards that he'd probably make a tidy sum.

It's only a good investment on a few cards- ones that you had to be playing in the early 90s to have cheaply

The "power 9" are the only ones who's value is likely to hold at any significant per card value (they range from $20k-1k now) The rest are potentially re-printable which kill the value

And all the modern stuff gets effected by rules/banning so you have a pretty big risk there

I suggest vw Rabbits. Ok, never mind....

Magic the Gathering is much better as a 40k alternative.

No boom stick I have ever bought has gone down in value. Boom stick food, either, for that matter.

Two of my forever alone cousins buy huge boxes of used cards off of craigslist, sort through them while getting way too baked, and sell the rarer or more expensive cards. They specifically look boxes that got left behind when kids went off to college or moved out of mom and dad's house, you know. Not from other enthusiasts who have already weeded out the "good stuff".

It's always struck me as an odd way to spend an afternoon, but they've never lost money doing it, which is more than I can say about my hobbies.

I hear that smoking those old cards gets you otherworldly high.

Ashyukun wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: Who had even heard of Magic - The Gathering a few years ago? Now, a lot of people have.

I would think anyone like me who was in college in the mid-90's would have heard plenty about it. Not as well-known probably as Pokémon (and I have to laugh at the fact my browser's autocorrect added the emphasis on the 'e'...) due to the lack to tie-ins but still very well known in the right age set. It's just that Pokémon was targeted at kids young enough that their parents had to be at least passingly aware of it vs. Magic which was more popular/aimed at the late teen/college age-set. I never got into either- but know at least one friend who essentially made his living for several years buying and selling cards from both. And that if my brother ever went through and sold his old Pokémon cards that he'd probably make a tidy sum.

Coincidentally, the dude who suggested I invest in these cards also gave me their history lesson... Apparently at some point after gaining initial popularity, the parent company for Magic bought the rights from Japan for what became Pokemon here in the US, and used it as a means to nurture younger kids into future Magic players. Of course, those cards aren't worth squat now, and that's what our boys were into.

Coins are ok Investments if you know what you are doing. In 2011 and 2012 I made some nice profits selling Silver and Copper coins.

Well coincidentally I received an email today about upcoming changes in my 401k plan, so I logged in and took a look. John Hancock is the plan administrator, FYI. My present rate of return is -6.99%, and I'm in the medium-risk American Funds Trgt Date Ret 2040 R6(RFGTX). I'm presently doing a 2% pre-tax contribution.

And that's about all I know about it...

petegossett wrote: My present rate of return is -6.99%

The way the market has gone the last month or two, most every fund is taking a hit. Not much you can do about that on the short term.

In reply to stuart in mn:

YTD = -1.39%

1-month = -5.56%

3-month = -6.12%

1-year = -1.49%

A few things: collectibles will bite hard if you do not know what you are doing. Beanie Babies is a perfect example, as is the Cabbage Patch Kids. I'd stay way far away from that.

Most 401's are run to suit the plan administration company, not the investor. If you look, you will see a pattern of them making more than you. It's very difficult to find a plan that's NOT done that way.

How to fix that? Roll your 401 into a self administered IRA, but do your homework before picking a plan! This makes YOU the boss of your fund, not some nameless goober in an office somewhere.

Don't be fooled by wild claims; study the long term history and also see what the fund charges for fees. Once you pick a fund, diligently put money into it. Vanguard so far has had the lowest fees, BUT: if you ask for their recommendation they'll steer you to stock based funds which don't typically return very well.

Look through the portfolios of the different funds, you want the one with the longest history of steady returns, NOT the one with a few years of 'wild card' returns. Oh, and the time to buy is when the market is down.

Curmudgeon wrote: ...do your homework before picking a plan!...study the long term history and also see what the fund charges for fees...Look through the portfolios of the different funds

I understand this 100%, yet it is on the list of "Things I will never bother doing". Quite honestly, this is (another) one of the things that I just don't have the attention or interest to deal with.

So maybe the real question is: Am I better off leaving my money in some fund like this that I'm going to completely forget about and never check it's performance, or should I move it into something else that doesn't require as much oversight?

The work is all up front. Once you pick a plan and stuff your money in it, do like me and check once every week or two. No biggie.

This is one of those things no one wants to do, yet in 30 years you will see it as the most important thing you ever did. Trust me on that.

petegossett wrote: In reply to stuart in mn: YTD = -1.39% 1-month = -5.56% 3-month = -6.12% 1-year = -1.49%

What was it between 2012 and 2014?