I was looking at returns of the DOW over the last 30 years and they are not very predictable. Some decades they make a lot of money, some decades not so much. I don't think investing in stocks would've been so popular if not for the 90s boom. DOW still has not recovered from the bubble burst.

Interest savings account with ING earns 4.8% APY. That's not bad. On a good year that's less than the market, but on a bad year it's better. There are no transaction fees and money is easily accessible.

So is it worth it to have money invested in stocks now?

I anticipate using most of this money, this is separate from long term retirement investment funds.

Prosper.com looks very cool. The 0.5%-1% fee can really bite into your return on the loans with good ratings, though.

You get roughly 8.5% so even after the .5% fee you still end up with 8%. Not bad for lending to someone with AA credit.

Very cool. I'm going to look into lending some money there.

I think it's stupid to lend someone money on prosper.com. Continue on.
Also I would not use paypal. Try this instead.

Why wouldn't you use paypal?

Little rule I like to follow:

If the bank you are considering using has an associated www.______sucks.com website, you might want to think twice about using it. ( http://www.paypalsucks.com/ )

I've been using them for years with no problems.

You get roughly 8.5% so even after the .5% fee you still end up with 8%. Not bad for lending to someone with AA credit.

you can go to prosper.com and lend directly to people (I would advise ONLY lending to people with AA credit and a favorable debt-to-income ratio).

Isn't there some sort of halachic issue with that? specifically the lending with interest part?

You can always make sure to lend to Goyim. I find paypal easier because it has seamless next day transfer with my checking account and I buy from ebay often so it's convenient.

Last week, when my friend Jeff came into work, he found numerous emails waiting for him from Paypal, confirming transactions he'd never made. A malicious hacker had gained access to his Paypal account, and used it to buy thousands of dollars worth of video games. In the process, they depleted his entire bank account. Overdrew it, even.

Jeff, a 35 year-old video editor from San Francisco, immediately contacted Paypal, his bank, and the recipients of his hard-earned cash. In the last case, he notified each that it was a fraudulent transaction, and all were canceled. All the money went right back, and Paypal notified Jeff that it would refund his money.

Yay! You might say. Hurray for Paypal! Hurray for Jeff!

But you'd be premature. See, Paypal, as per its policy, won't refund Jeff's money for up to 60 days. In the interim, he's left with a balance of negative $760, plus more than $200 in overdraft fees. Meanwhile, Paypal notes that it is "processing" the fraudulent transaction.

So how did it happen? Probably phishing. Paypal insists that this must have been the case. While Jeff doesn't recall ever responding to a phishing request, and does not think that he has done so; he isn't positive and he does not deny it.

Vox users might scoff at this. Idiot, you may think. How could someone possibly be so dumb as to repond to a phishing scam? To which I reply: would you advise your grandmother to link her savings to Paypal?

You don't matter, Voxie. You are an elitist. A one-percenter. Nobody cares about you. They care about your neighbor. Your accountant. Your childhood friend. Your dry-cleaner. Your maid.

Here's the thing: we are beyond the era of sophisticated and unsophisticated computer users. Or at least we should be. For if you want to be a truly successful online company, you have to not only get my business, but also my father's--an AOL user for 13 years with no plans to switch. It is easy for us, who have used the Internet since its pre-Web days, to forget how much things have changed. Today, more Americans go online than vote.

Computing is ubiquitous, and each of us should be entitled to the same level of security online that we demand in the real world. When a seldom-used account suddenly lights up and goes beserk on a GTA: San Andreas purchasing spree to the tune of a few grand; Paypal should have a built-in system to put the brakes on. Moreover, it should have better protections to prevent fraud in the first place.

(Something along the lines of a site key comes immediately to mind, but I'm not going to offer solutions here, because quite frankly I don't have any. Well, I have one, but it's not one that Paypal is likely to encourage.)

Instead, what Paypal has--aside from Jeff's money--is a 60 day policy for refunds. Got kids who need feeding? Sorry. 60 days. Nor will Paypal agree to help him with any of the overdraft fees he's racked up. That's between you and your bank, says Paypal.

All of which is well within Paypal's rights. They have a policy, and they are abiding by it. But the thing is: the policy stinks.

Jeff has been talking to me about this since the morning it happened, and one common thread has run through it: Paypal has treated him like a criminal rather than a customer.

His bank was great, he says. The merchants, too, all of whom immediately refunded the money. Paypal, on the other hand, has done nothing but grow more beligerant each time he calls, he says, and extend the waiting time "processing" will take. What was once 10-15 days is now 60 30.

I've been a credit card fraud victim before, and I came away from the experience completely impressed with how well my bank took care of me, despite the fact that it was my fault. (I left my debit card on a store counter once.) I was never on the hook for the money, and it held my hand throughout the entire process. Similarly, when I was mugged a few years ago, my bank and credit card companies not only assured me that I would never be held responsible for any fraudulent charges or bad checks, but also inquired to make sure that I had the money I needed to get by on a day to day basis while my accounts were all closed and re-opened.

Now, I like Paypal, and I use Paypal. A lot. It's very convenient. But Jeff's experience scared the hell out of me. I had not read its policy before, quite frankly, and upon doing so, I took what I deemed to be a neccessary step to protect myself: I transferred some money to my Paypal account from my bank so I can continue to easily make purchases online, and then I de-authorized my bank account.

This might be overkill on my part. I'm not going to respond to a phishing message. Hell, I don't even repond to legitimate emails from friends and employers. But until Paypal comes up with a better way to protect my bank account from fraud, I'm not letting them touch it again.

You can always make sure to lend to Goyim.

The easiest way is to use Paypal, they give 5.05% and the account has zero fees or minimums balances. If you put a little effort into it you can find Munis that will pay you a much higher rate and it's still very low risk. If you want to have fun with your money and make a decent return as well you can go to prosper.com and lend directly to people (I would advise ONLY lending to people with AA credit and a favorable debt-to-income ratio).

If you're in the highest tax bracket it may make sense to buy tax free bonds.

Back to topic: the stock market has returned about 8% in any given 20 year period.

Thank you.

This is my question. 8% > 5%, clearly. However, is "any given 20 year period" a good measure? Are there enough 20 year periods to make a reliable sample? Also, is the 3% difference worth the risks, especially if you are not saving for retirement but are just building up your savings?

But it's not guaranteed 8%. Big factor. What has been the market return in the last 5 years?

what is the average APY, though. Total return is not very helpful. Also the last 5 years may not be a good period to measure as it includes rallying after the 2001 crash.

So are you guys saying there is no reason to keep money in a 5% savings account? I should empty it out into an index fund?