The Pain Begins

[bdenner]

I, for one, didn’t have a very good week with a total of near to 4.5 percent wiped off my Australian income investments. Someone in the US mentioned the dreaded “R” word, the US stock market sneezed and the rest of the western world is getting pneumonia.

I fully expect a worse week to come. IMO it’s about time the major world markets stop relying on happenings in the USA and starts looking at the overall situation. Let the Americans sort out their own problems.

[GuestHouse]

Let the Americans sort out their own problems.

Well while the temptation to blame to Americans is strong the fault lies elsewhere... and a little closer to home.

If your retirement plan is based on maintaining growth on your capital in the stock market then you are in truth suffering from that all to common failing of retirees to Thailand - ' You are under capitalized'.

Its a bitter pill, so yes blame the Americans if it makes things seem better.

[bdenner]

Let the Americans sort out their own problems.

Well while the temptation to blame to Americans is strong the fault lies elsewhere... and a little closer to home.

If your retirement plan is based on maintaining growth on your capital in the stock market then you are in truth suffering from that all to common failing of retirees to Thailand - ' You are under capitalized'.

Its a bitter pill, so yes blame the Americans if it makes things seem better.

I seem to remember this latest round of financial falls started with the missmanagement of the US Prime Mortgage market and now this:

Market skids on signs of weakening sentiment

Posted 6 hours 14 minutes ago

US stocks tumbled overnight, with both the Dow and Nasdaq losing more than 2 per cent after a warning by American Express Co of mounting credit card defaults and a slowdown in consumer spending sounded the latest recession alarm.

Evidence that individuals reined in their usual holiday spending last year came from SpendingPulse, a private retail data service, which said spending - excluding sales of gasoline and autos - fell 0.7 per cent in December.

New York's Dow Jones index closed down 220 points at 12,634 and the high-tech Nasdaq composite was 39 points lower at 2,449.

The Australian dollar was being quoted at around 89.1 US cents.

Meanwhile London's FT 100 index finished at 6,202, a drop of 21 points.

Your saying the problem is not initiated in the US???

My investments are very wide spread over some 25 different funds etc and I use advisers. Only about 10% directly related to stocks all "Blue Chip". But I also have some in property managers - opps!

[kdvsn]

Let the Americans sort out their own problems.

Well while the temptation to blame to Americans is strong the fault lies elsewhere... and a little closer to home.

If your retirement plan is based on maintaining growth on your capital in the stock market then you are in truth suffering from that all to common failing of retirees to Thailand - ' You are under capitalized'.

Its a bitter pill, so yes blame the Americans if it makes things seem better.

I seem to remember this latest round of financial falls started with the missmanagement of the US Prime Mortgage market and now this:

Market skids on signs of weakening sentiment

Posted 6 hours 14 minutes ago

US stocks tumbled overnight, with both the Dow and Nasdaq losing more than 2 per cent after a warning by American Express Co of mounting credit card defaults and a slowdown in consumer spending sounded the latest recession alarm.

Evidence that individuals reined in their usual holiday spending last year came from SpendingPulse, a private retail data service, which said spending - excluding sales of gasoline and autos - fell 0.7 per cent in December.

New York's Dow Jones index closed down 220 points at 12,634 and the high-tech Nasdaq composite was 39 points lower at 2,449.

The Australian dollar was being quoted at around 89.1 US cents.

Meanwhile London's FT 100 index finished at 6,202, a drop of 21 points.

Your saying the problem is not initiated in the US???

My investments are very wide spread over some 25 different funds etc and I use advisers. Only about 10% directly related to stocks all "Blue Chip". But I also have some in property managers - opps!

Though it might be a bit early to start panicking, maybe some of the blame should be put on your advisers. That might not be as politically correct as whining about being victimized by Americans but it is more likely to benefit your portfolio in the long run.

[Naam]

Let the Americans sort out their own problems.

If your retirement plan is based on maintaining growth on your capital in the stock market then you are in truth suffering from that all to common failing of retirees to Thailand - ' You are under capitalized'.

seconded! i never understood how somebody could rely on (YIKES!) stock markets to finance the most precious years in life. somehow i picture them as gamblers (no offence meant! who put their money on red or white in Vegas, Macau or Monte Carlo. but my lack of understanding is most probably based on the fact that i have no idea as far as finances are concerned.

when i need money i ask my wife to give me some. when she runs out of money she goes to SCB and withdraws some. when the SCB account is running low she asks me to call our bank in Singapore to transfer some money. then when i need money i ask my wife...........

Edited January 12, 2008 by Naam

[britmaveric]

World Economy - its all interrelated, so one market has a bad day - there is a ripple affect across the board. Won't change, so get used to it.

[kdvsn]

Let the Americans sort out their own problems.

If your retirement plan is based on maintaining growth on your capital in the stock market then you are in truth suffering from that all to common failing of retirees to Thailand - ' You are under capitalized'.

seconded! i never understood how somebody could rely on (YIKES!) stock markets to finance the most precious years in life. somehow i picture them as gamblers (no offence meant! who put their money on red or white in Vegas, Macau or Monte Carlo. but my lack of understanding is most probably based on the fact that i have no idea as far as finances are concerned.

when i need money i ask my wife to give me some. when she runs out of money she goes to SCB and withdraws some. when the SCB account is running low she asks me to call our bank in Singapore to transfer some money. then when i need money i ask my wife...........

I know that there's probably not just one answer for this, but to be properly "capitalized" for retirement how much money would one need? The "buy mutual funds and hold them forever crowd" seems to gravitate toward concluding that if you have a nest egg that is equal to 25x your current annual expenditures that you are financially ready to reture. That "4% rule" arises from various data minining studies that analyze historical stock price data. Let's say that instead of stocks that the retiree invested wholly in fixed income investments, do you think that 25x current annual expenses would be sufficient savings for a person to go into retiremement at age 50 or would he be "under capiltized"?

[lannarebirth]

I, for one, didn't have a very good week with a total of near to 4.5 percent wiped off my Australian income investments. Someone in the US mentioned the dreaded "R" word, the US stock market sneezed and the rest of the western world is getting pneumonia.

I fully expect a worse week to come. IMO it's about time the major world markets stop relying on happenings in the USA and starts looking at the overall situation. Let the Americans sort out their own problems.

Can you point me to your post where you were previously thanking the American markets for dragging up your backwater market and thereby your portfolios performance?

[bingobongo]

when i need money i ask my wife to give me some. when she runs out of money she goes to SCB and withdraws some. when the SCB account is running low she asks me to call our bank in Singapore to transfer some money. then when i need money i ask my wife...........

my sympathies on being castrated and henpecked

but back to the topic at hand, US options expiration is this friday (Jan 18) so you may see a short term bounce before friday, so a chance to sell rallies and get ready for the next leg down

Edited January 12, 2008 by bingobongo

[Jingthing]

Historically, over the long term, the US stock market returns 9 to 10 percent per annum. This is not wild gambling. It is a long term investment strategy.

Sure, go ahead, sell when stocks are down, and buy when they are up.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Jingthing

[GuestHouse]

I know that there's probably not just one answer for this, but to be properly "capitalized" for retirement how much money would one need? The "buy mutual funds and hold them forever crowd" seems to gravitate toward concluding that if you have a nest egg that is equal to 25x your current annual expenditures that you are financially ready to reture. That "4% rule" arises from various data minining studies that analyze historical stock price data. Let's say that instead of stocks that the retiree invested wholly in fixed income investments, do you think that 25x current annual expenses would be sufficient savings for a person to go into retiremement at age 50 or would he be "under capiltized"?

Its one of those 'how long is a piece of string?' questions - But there are two significant factors to consider and they both have an impact on 'Current Spending' because the plan is based on 'Current Spending'.

The first is inflation - If you are approaching 50 ask yourself how much you where spending at 40, at 30 and even at 20 - because in reality you can expect to live into your 70s or 80s.

The second issue is life changes - Particularly 'Marriage and Children'. A significant factor in guys wanting to retire to Thailand is the 'availability of young women', well young women come with the needs of young women. I'm working right now with a guy in his late 50s forced out of retirement by the costs of his young family. I had this precise conversation with him this morning, retired at 50 and the pension he thought was adequate is not keeping him and his family.

A third issue, and one that seldom gets mentioned here on TV, is retirement planning for a younger widow - when the expat who moved to Thailand and found love and happiness eventually pops his clogs. So at 50 your retirement plan may need to run your life time + the life time of a younger wife. Not 30 years, but perhaps as much as 50 years.

I don't think there is a single answer to any of that. Pension schemes are one answer in that they often (but not always) offer long term security for pensioner and spouse. Investing in growth funds is another - but then if you are investing (earning money) then you are putting capital you can't afford to loose at risk.

My personal view is that 50 is too young to retire, being as it is for many of us a time when we are in our maximum earning years with falling outlay.

[Jingthing]

I know that there's probably not just one answer for this, but to be properly "capitalized" for retirement how much money would one need? The "buy mutual funds and hold them forever crowd" seems to gravitate toward concluding that if you have a nest egg that is equal to 25x your current annual expenditures that you are financially ready to reture. That "4% rule" arises from various data minining studies that analyze historical stock price data. Let's say that instead of stocks that the retiree invested wholly in fixed income investments, do you think that 25x current annual expenses would be sufficient savings for a person to go into retiremement at age 50 or would he be "under capiltized"?

Not sure about the 25x rule, but if you were fully in fixed income and the return was like 4 or 5 percent, you would alot more capital than if you were more in stocks. This isn't a theory, it is accepted investment fact. You need part of your portfolio to do better than 4 or 5 percent unless your initial pot of money is really huge.

[yorkman]

I don't think there is a single answer to any of that. Pension schemes are one answer in that they often (but not always) offer long term security for pensioner and spouse. Investing in growth funds is another - but then if you are investing (earning money) then you are putting capital you can't afford to loose at risk.

My personal view is that 50 is too young to retire, being as it is for many of us a time when we are in our maximum earning years with falling outlay.

Yes but pension schemes offer spectacularly bad returns for the investment in them, unless they are final salary schemes for somebody who has worked for the same company for years. and then thats only sometimes. The Annuities in the current climate offer a very poor return on the capital.

My view on the 50 age is the same. It would be very very tempting for me to retire right now, I could afford to, just about. But what happens when there is a downturn in markets and I am just too old to get back into work?. I would rather build the buffer against that right now, and suffer another 5 years or so working.

[GuestHouse]

But what happens when there is a downturn in markets and I am just too old to get back into work?.

This is a very significant issue.

I hear what you say about pensions, but the 50 year age group is exactly the age group that has had the widest access to occupational pension schemes. Defined Benefit (Final Salary) Pension schemes are the golden egg, but as you say it depends on years of service. They are certainly a good answer to the question of young wives and dependent children.

Again, investing capital in stocks is a risk, and I recount once more the raft of guys forced out of retirement when the stock market took the hits of 9/11 and Enron.

[kdvsn]

I don't think there is a single answer to any of that. Pension schemes are one answer in that they often (but not always) offer long term security for pensioner and spouse. Investing in growth funds is another - but then if you are investing (earning money) then you are putting capital you can't afford to loose at risk.

My personal view is that 50 is too young to retire, being as it is for many of us a time when we are in our maximum earning years with falling outlay.

Yes but pension schemes offer spectacularly bad returns for the investment in them, unless they are final salary schemes for somebody who has worked for the same company for years. and then thats only sometimes. The Annuities in the current climate offer a very poor return on the capital.

My view on the 50 age is the same. It would be very very tempting for me to retire right now, I could afford to, just about. But what happens when there is a downturn in markets and I am just too old to get back into work?. I would rather build the buffer against that right now, and suffer another 5 years or so working.

My own case is that I'm almost 50 and the odds are high that my company will involuntarily "retire" me before long. My nest egg is slightly larger than that 25x current annual expenditures figure so it occurred to me that when/if my company retires me that maybe I should just stay retired. Those current expenses are what it costs me to live in a area in the US where cost of living is roughly in-line with the US national average and includes a couple of vacation trips to SE Asia each year. Upon retiring, I would likely move to SE Asia, most likely to Thailand.

The 25x figure, or "4% rule" accounts for inflation by assuming that one's annual expenses will increase by an amount equal to the US government's published CPI inflation rates. I think that's the fatal flaw in the 4% theory because even if we accept the premise that CPI does not systemically understate inflation, any individual's personal inflation rate is going to be different depending up what types of things he spends his money on. Aside from that, it also that occurs to me that in presently cheap developing countries like Thailand that the inflation rates (in dollar terms) over the long term may be higher than in developed countries. If one could trust the CPI figures as being an accurate barometer, then the 4% rule would come pretty close to working out (on paper) just by putting 100% of your money in TIPS. It can't be that easy though.

[Naam]

my sympathies on being castrated and henpecked

but back to the topic at hand, US options expiration is this friday (Jan 18) so you may see a short term bounce before friday, so a chance to sell rallies and get ready for the next leg down

poor people need to speculate/gamble when they need money. castrated and henpecked ones just call their bankers when they need money. life is not fair but sucks. isn't it Bingo?

[Jingthing]

If starting with a specific nest egg if invested in the stock market, your success does depend somewhat on timing luck. For example, if you quit the year before a huge ten year bear market, it would be bleak. However, if that bear market happened 10 years after you stopped and you had already experienced a healthy ten year bull market, having your money survive the bull market would usually not be a problem.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Jingthing

[GuestHouse]

Aside from that, it also that occurs to me that in presently cheap developing countries like Thailand that the inflation rates (in dollar terms) over the long term may be higher than in developed countries. If one could trust the CPI figures as being an accurate barometer, then the 4% rule would come pretty close to working out (on paper) just by putting 100% of your money in TIPS. It can't be that easy though.

Indeed I agree and often post on this particular aspect of inflation.

An example, and an important issue, is health care costs, which in Thailand have shot up for foreigners (dual pricing and milking Health Tourism being the chief causes of that extremely high inflation rate).

[torrenova]

I, for one, didn’t have a very good week with a total of near to 4.5 percent wiped off my Australian income investments. Someone in the US mentioned the dreaded “R” word, the US stock market sneezed and the rest of the western world is getting pneumonia.

I fully expect a worse week to come. IMO it’s about time the major world markets stop relying on happenings in the USA and starts looking at the overall situation. Let the Americans sort out their own problems.

Don't have enough time left to star Macro Economics 101 but if you are so devastated by the recent falls, where have you been whilst the market was rolling along to new highs, with the AUD very strong versus other THB exchange rates ? Missed out on the commodities boom did you ?

[bdenner]

Don't have enough time left to star Macro Economics 101 but if you are so devastated by the recent falls, where have you been whilst the market was rolling along to new highs, with the AUD very strong versus other THB exchange rates ? Missed out on the commodities boom did you ?

Having been fully retired for >4 years at the age of 53 and preparing many years prior, the one thing I have enjoyed is seeing the growth in my widely diversified investments and this glitch will certainly not see me to the wall. I still expect to have more invested at the end of June 2008 than I had July 2007 as is my aim every year. The real point to my OP was to raise discussion over the exaggerated effect ecconomic changes in the US has on world markets

[BalthazarBeefheart]

Aside from that, it also that occurs to me that in presently cheap developing countries like Thailand that the inflation rates (in dollar terms) over the long term may be higher than in developed countries. If one could trust the CPI figures as being an accurate barometer, then the 4% rule would come pretty close to working out (on paper) just by putting 100% of your money in TIPS. It can't be that easy though.

Indeed I agree and often post on this particular aspect of inflation.

An example, and an important issue, is health care costs, which in Thailand have shot up for foreigners (dual pricing and milking Health Tourism being the chief causes of that extremely high inflation rate).

I couldn't help but chuckle when watching CNBC this morning they reported that the Saudi inflation rate was running over 5% and was a major concern. Must be to expats there also.

I recall reading yesterday an FX strategist saying that he felt measures in the UK were not an accurate measure of UK citizens living costs. Personally, here in Thailand I have more faith in CPI figures than I do of some punters missus experiences at the supermarket - I recall often hearing similar arguments about pricing in the UK.

From my library I give you a copy of the opening words of the Governor of the Bank of Thailand to a conference a year or so ago. http://www.bis.org/review/r061122d.pdf

I also recall reading the minutes of the MPC's for Thailand and the UK last year - the simple conclusion was that the UK economy had major major problems but my concern with Thailand was did the MPC members have time to finish their coffees.

Thanks for reminding me I must get round to looking at health insurance. I recall an old Economics lecturer of mine repeatedly warning people not to listen to public house economics and politics. I hear what you are saying about health care costs but reason that it is a simple law of supply and demand that with the extra popularity for medical services from overseas increased costs were inevitable. I also believe that some hospitals were taken over by a Singaporean group who imposed new tariffs.

I have restrained myself considerably with this reply - I don't want to prompt more spite and envy arguments - all I can say is I feel duty bound to give a balanced view so others aren't misled.

Cheers BB

[kdvsn]

Aside from that, it also that occurs to me that in presently cheap developing countries like Thailand that the inflation rates (in dollar terms) over the long term may be higher than in developed countries. If one could trust the CPI figures as being an accurate barometer, then the 4% rule would come pretty close to working out (on paper) just by putting 100% of your money in TIPS. It can't be that easy though.

Indeed I agree and often post on this particular aspect of inflation.

An example, and an important issue, is health care costs, which in Thailand have shot up for foreigners (dual pricing and milking Health Tourism being the chief causes of that extremely high inflation rate).

I couldn't help but chuckle when watching CNBC this morning they reported that the Saudi inflation rate was running over 5% and was a major concern. Must be to expats there also.

I recall reading yesterday an FX strategist saying that he felt measures in the UK were not an accurate measure of UK citizens living costs. Personally, here in Thailand I have more faith in CPI figures than I do of some punters missus experiences at the supermarket - I recall often hearing similar arguments about pricing in the UK.

From my library I give you a copy of the opening words of the Governor of the Bank of Thailand to a conference a year or so ago. http://www.bis.org/review/r061122d.pdf

I also recall reading the minutes of the MPC's for Thailand and the UK last year - the simple conclusion was that the UK economy had major major problems but my concern with Thailand was did the MPC members have time to finish their coffees.

Thanks for reminding me I must get round to looking at health insurance. I recall an old Economics lecturer of mine repeatedly warning people not to listen to public house economics and politics. I hear what you are saying about health care costs but reason that it is a simple law of supply and demand that with the extra popularity for medical services from overseas increased costs were inevitable. I also believe that some hospitals were taken over by a Singaporean group who imposed new tariffs.

I have restrained myself considerably with this reply - I don't want to prompt more spite and envy arguments - all I can say is I feel duty bound to give a balanced view so others aren't misled.

Cheers BB

I'm not really getting your point. Are you agreeing with the premise that over the long term inflation with be higher in developing countries than in developed countries or are you disputing it?

Edited January 13, 2008 by kdvsn

[BalthazarBeefheart]

Aside from that, it also that occurs to me that in presently cheap developing countries like Thailand that the inflation rates (in dollar terms) over the long term may be higher than in developed countries. If one could trust the CPI figures as being an accurate barometer, then the 4% rule would come pretty close to working out (on paper) just by putting 100% of your money in TIPS. It can't be that easy though.

Indeed I agree and often post on this particular aspect of inflation.

An example, and an important issue, is health care costs, which in Thailand have shot up for foreigners (dual pricing and milking Health Tourism being the chief causes of that extremely high inflation rate).

I couldn't help but chuckle when watching CNBC this morning they reported that the Saudi inflation rate was running over 5% and was a major concern. Must be to expats there also.

I recall reading yesterday an FX strategist saying that he felt measures in the UK were not an accurate measure of UK citizens living costs. Personally, here in Thailand I have more faith in CPI figures than I do of some punters missus experiences at the supermarket - I recall often hearing similar arguments about pricing in the UK.

From my library I give you a copy of the opening words of the Governor of the Bank of Thailand to a conference a year or so ago. http://www.bis.org/review/r061122d.pdf

I also recall reading the minutes of the MPC's for Thailand and the UK last year - the simple conclusion was that the UK economy had major major problems but my concern with Thailand was did the MPC members have time to finish their coffees.

Thanks for reminding me I must get round to looking at health insurance. I recall an old Economics lecturer of mine repeatedly warning people not to listen to public house economics and politics. I hear what you are saying about health care costs but reason that it is a simple law of supply and demand that with the extra popularity for medical services from overseas increased costs were inevitable. I also believe that some hospitals were taken over by a Singaporean group who imposed new tariffs.

I have restrained myself considerably with this reply - I don't want to prompt more spite and envy arguments - all I can say is I feel duty bound to give a balanced view so others aren't misled.

Cheers BB

I'm not really getting your point. Are you agreeing with the premise that over the long term inflation with be higher in developing countries than in developed countries or are you disputing it?

I am not qualified to answer that question and don't like to speculate. I was trying to reassure the reader that effective measures are in place in Thailand as in other more developed countries.

Personally, inflation is of very little concern to me regards my future here in fact I would welcome higher interest rates.

Cheers BB

[siamamerican]

Don't have enough time left to star Macro Economics 101 but if you are so devastated by the recent falls, where have you been whilst the market was rolling along to new highs, with the AUD very strong versus other THB exchange rates ? Missed out on the commodities boom did you ?

Having been fully retired for >4 years at the age of 53 and preparing many years prior, the one thing I have enjoyed is seeing the growth in my widely diversified investments and this glitch will certainly not see me to the wall. I still expect to have more invested at the end of June 2008 than I had July 2007 as is my aim every year. The real point to my OP was to raise discussion over the exaggerated effect ecconomic changes in the US has on world markets

The world markets are less impacted by the US economy than in the past. The US still accounts for roughly 19% of the world gross product and because of this other countries react to US economic issues. The markets don't like uncertainty and the impact of the subprime debacle is yet to be determined. Many companies and government agencies outside the US, invested in mortgage backed securities. Northern Rock's saga is a good example.

As to exaggerating the impact of the current status of the US economy, I disagree. Americans have been using their homes as income producers. With declining values, most will need to curtail their spending and that will hurt the domestic economy and in turn the global economy.

International investing has been a fun ride the last 4 years, but I decided last Monday to get out and sold all my international equities.

[sonicdragon]

markets are less impacted by the US economy than in the past. The US still accounts for roughly 19% of the world gross product

19% on a PPP basis, but a lot more on a nominal basis. PPP is a worthy leveller when discussing relative incomes and valuations, but a discussion involving trade flows should look at nominal values because trade occurs using todays money. On a nominal basis, the US share is around 27%.

[GuestHouse]

I couldn't help but chuckle when watching CNBC this morning they reported that the Saudi inflation rate was running over 5% and was a major concern. Must be to expats there also.

An inflation rate of 5% for people who are in country for a limited period of time (usually 1 to 3 years) and who are most likely receiving a 'generous' local allowance, is a little different that inflation for people settled long term in a country on a fixed income.

In the case in question there is a possibility of perhaps 30 years or more of inflation impact.

Look back at the cost of living 30 years ago and then consider again.... You don't need to be no expert.

[Naam]

My personal view is that 50 is too young to retire, being as it is for many of us a time when we are in our maximum earning years with falling outlay.

personal views differ. when i was 28 my target was to "retire" (sort of) at age 40. i retired when i was 46 but could have managed at age 40. now, looking back, i regret each and every single day i worked without the necessity to earn money by working although i quite liked my job.

i don't want to give smartassed advice and coax people into retirement if they can't afford it. but everybody should be aware that our lives are neither infinite nor does our last garment have any pockets in which we can stash any earnings when they cremate us or bury us 6 foot below the surface. you can't turn back the time! you can't do at age 60 what you could do at age 50 and you can't do at age 50 what you could have done at age 40. by the way, a severe illness or an accident and a brush with death helps to make up the mind.

p.s. the afore mentioned also applies to those who believe in reincarnation!

[waza]

It seems to me that the sub prime morguages in the US were packaged up as investments and sold around the world to Funds and such. Therefore, exporting this problem and amplifying the effects world wide.

I also wonder what effect a Universal health care system in the US will have on Thai medical cost.

[rgs2001uk]

My personal view is that 50 is too young to retire, being as it is for many of us a time when we are in our maximum earning years with falling outlay.

personal views differ. when i was 28 my target was to "retire" (sort of) at age 40. i retired when i was 46 but could have managed at age 40. now, looking back, i regret each and every single day i worked without the necessity to earn money by working although i quite liked my job.

i don't want to give smartassed advice and coax people into retirement if they can't afford it. but everybody should be aware that our lives are neither infinite nor does our last garment have any pockets in which we can stash any earnings when they cremate us or bury us 6 foot below the surface. you can't turn back the time! you can't do at age 60 what you could do at age 50 and you can't do at age 50 what you could have done at age 40. by the way, a severe illness or an accident and a brush with death helps to make up the mind.

p.s. the afore mentioned also applies to those who believe in reincarnation!

i often wonder what all those people who have scrimped and saved to build an nest egg they will never spend, are going to do as they lie on their death bed and reflect back, you can have all the money in the world, but you cant buy time, the grim reaper doesnt take ious, when he comes knocking at your door its check out time.

something else which hasnt been mentioned, and is applicable only to those who are retired or considering it in thailand, we have no control over the figures set by the thai authorities. i dont suppose its unrealistic to see the figures being raised, somehow i just cant see them giving discounts to those hit by exchange rates.

the only piece of advice i would give anyone on this subject, never burn your bridges back home, many are now finding out the hard way,as they are being squeezed out by exchange rates, always have back up plans.

[Jingthing]

I retired early (under 50) with enough money that I calculate has about a 75 percent of working for me. I am comfortable with these odds. The potential payoff (avoiding another 10 to 20 years of soul killing work) is worth the risk to me. It all comes down to risk tolerance, in investments, and big life decisions, the same. If I had dependents counting on me, I would have made a different decision. But I feel I have accepted the consequences of my decision, whether it works out in the long term or not. Like said above, in the really long term we are all big losers.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Jingthing