pull down to refresh

Alright, here's a pretty standard run-of-the-mill take that's completeeeely insane, borderline immoral.
It's a violation of fiduciary duties to your client by recommending things like this that lock up funds for thirty years! with the hopes of ~5% returns.
Wealth manager Tideway Wealth calculates that £180,000 added to your fund in your early 30s, which might cost only £100,000 after tax relief, could add £580,000 in today’s money to your fund by the time you hit your early 60s. deferring until a time in the future when your pay is much higher is also not the most sensible tactic. If you want to turbocharge your pension, the time to act is now.
lol, 4-5x the money in thirty years! pathetic.

You could have just bought bitcoin...

(OK fine, Mr. Schiff, gold!) By the author's own account (based on pension firms or wealth manager calculations), normal people earning normal wages don't have a chance in hell to save enough to comfortably retire at decent ages.
Meaning: Hail Mary's are the only things left. Luckily, bitcoin is a pretty sure thing compared to where it was/seemed like only a few years ago.
I have confessed before that I sort of follow this advice... for reasons outlined here (#1081555); but I don't think I'm representative! I'm balls deep into bitcoin already, incomes and assets directly tied to the success of this monetary revolution. Most people reading Ms. O'Neill's column are NOT in that situation.
Rather: they are painfully underallocated to gold and bitcoin.
Silly:
with just under 10 weeks to go until Christmas, Gen Z know what to say when they get asked what present they’d like under the tree: a slug of money in their pension.
Tradfi people really are out of touch with reality. It's like the truth is staring them in the face, yet they can't make themselves see anything else than what they've always seen. The edgiest thing Ms. O'Neill comes up with is the spooky conclusion that thirty-year-olds should be "all-in equities." Yeah, no shit.
...or just opt out and stack sats.
How did this get published? Even without the bitcoin angle, it just seems like a pretty shallow analysis. Maxing out your retirement accounts might make sense for some people, but it depends so much on your personal circumstances and goals that this type of "it'll 5x in 30 years" type analysis seems extremely shallow, especially for a paper as venerable as the FT
reply
Sometimes, as a crash approaches, the current bag holders will try to find new bag holders
reply
Oh, we talking treasury companies now, or what??
reply
Slow news cycle? No interesting opinions out there? Editor doing nephew's neighbour a favour...?
reply
In the US, if you have the option to invest in paper bitcoin in your retirement account, I think this strategy can make sense.
It turns out, we're allowed to withdraw "sufficiently equitable" installments with no tax penalty prior to reaching retirement age. That means you can withdraw about 1/50th of your fund as normal income every year starting in your 30's. As bitcoin appreciates, the purchasing power of those withdrawals increases.
reply
in your 30s already?!
Yeah, that makes a huge difference.
My mafia bosses allow me to use my pretax contribution, which grow without tax btw, and withdrawal tax free for buying certified shitcoins (i.e., real estate), including financing mortgage . That makes me somewhat OK with shoving fiat in there
reply
I didn't say I'm in my 30's. That's just an example of how it works. It would be about 1/60th from your 20's and 1/40th from your 40's.
reply
Didn't mean you-you... Just that it changes the calculus a bit of you (= a person!) have access to some income stream from the locked-up funds
reply
I was pretty excited when I discovered this rule. It's called a Sufficiently Equitable Payment Plan.
If we're right about where bitcoin's going, then I'll have far more retirement savings than I'll need and I'd rather tap into it early to enjoy more leisure at a younger age.
reply
Sufficiently Equitable Payment Plan
reply
Yes but life in the USA/west might not be so wonderful once the petrodollar is bust.
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @Sandman 11h
Bitcoin is the real future currency, just that many people doesn't realise that.
In a good approach to building wealth with retirement funds, 70% will go to BTC, 30% to gold. Both are volatile asset yes! But this two assets have the potential to only increase in value over time.
Bitcoin always gets stronger no matter the economic situation or fight against it. The secret to that, I don't know. But am pretty sure that nearly everyone on earth one day will transact using BTC and by then, prices will be 20x of what we know now.
reply
If China/BRICS are the dominant power/s in the future then Bitcoin may be somewhat marginalised. Your government and its functional status has a huge effect on the wealth of nations and their citizens. Bitcoin only provides partial hedging against a major change in the world economic order. If you cannot see this as a possibility then you are not reading the news. Rare Earths for example.
reply
Definitely gold and bitcoin would be my choice if you liver anywhere in the western world under US hegemony. The petrodollar is going bust in the next decade and you do not want to leave your life savings tied up with any fiat based parasites. There will be nothing left in 30 years- the dollar will be worthless.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 7h
This perfectly highlights the disconnect between TradFi thinking and the new monetary reality. Locking funds for 30 years in hopes of a 4–5x return feels outdated when we have assets like Bitcoin that have already proven themselves over a similar timeframe. The system keeps telling ordinary people to save harder within a broken framework instead of rethinking money itself. Stack sats don’t get trapped.
reply
Yes sats are probably a better bet than trusting these fiat debt slavery touts but Bitcoins future trajectory is not guaranteed to continue following its past performance.
If China comes to be the dominant global economic power then Bitcoin could be somewhat even significantly marginalised.
For example look at what has happened to the financial assets of past empires when they declined/collapsed.
reply