Money "saved" is not the same as money "invested". All investments by nature are risky - and often the greater the return, the greater the risk. But I do understand that younger people need to protect the value of their assets - often the safest is in property (but I would avoid commercial currently) and the least safe is sending to a Nigerian 'prince' so he will send back $5 million in gold! Money saved for medical requirements needs to be very liquid, not all investments are. It needs to be in a bank with easy access - but it definitely will be deflating in value as hardly any easy-access accounts give above inflation rates. That is not to say it is safe as there is no 'absolute safety' - banks go bust, governments may not have the money to replace it (unless they keep printing, but that trick will one day lead to a meltdown), money under the mattress is lost in a fire or by governments eliminating certain currency overnight. Life is risk, of course. But for anyone thinking of having 'safe' liquid cash, then stocks and shares are too risky, property is too illiquid (and subject to value crashes). I hold cash in the home, cash in various banks, gold in a vault, one property and no shares or stocks (I am too old to do that). As most members here are elderly (SORRY!) then they need to think safe - but I accept younger people can think 'risk', as we know they do.
There are low risk income focused stocks and bonds to invest in. The older you are the less risk and more income driven your portfolio should be. I strongly disagree that having a well balanced and thought out portfolio is much riskier than the stock market. Having cash in the house in the Philippines, especially enough to cover any medical expenses, is a pretty bad idea and is FAR riskier than stocks. To say that older people shouldn't invest (or stay invested) is just bad financial advice.
"I strongly disagree that having a well balanced and thought out portfolio is much riskier than the stock market." So do I. "Having cash in the house in the Philippines, especially enough to cover any medical expenses, is a pretty bad idea." I agree. Just enough to have some for emergencies. "To say that older people shouldn't invest (or stay invested) is just bad financial advice" I disagree. Pension funds move older people's investments to cash - why?
There are laws in States and Federal that protect seniors on investments. In many cases it is illegal to have their money invested into less than AAA investment options unless they have agreed to it in writing. Of course this would not apply to large pension funds from City, County, State and some Unions.
This is an excellent piece of information in this truly stupendous posting Your Excellence Sir Happy Camper (Marksman Grade 1).
Agree totally, I don't gamble with my health concerns, that's why I remain a visitor not an Expat. Anybody with on going medical problems or previous major health issues would be advised to have a back-up plan. Chances are that anything major goes wrong, it would be a further risk, just to travel back home for treatment. Stay healthy folks.
True. Too bad there is almost no insurance company offering a cover for accidents ONLY. Because these premiums are usually very cheap. Instead they all want to sell their full package. I don't need this really. Because normally when you get a serious illness you can still travel to your home country. OK, not in every case. This I would cosider as residual risk... Gesendet von meinem SM-N950F mit Tapatalk
Better hope things don't go south quickly. Depending on the problem you might not be able to fly anywhere (at least cheaply) and may be forced to rely on local treatment.