Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

just save into a bank account?

  • 05-12-2018 1:43pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭ sdraobs


    Bitcoin, Ryanair, Bank of Ireland.

    These three companies have had share values nosedive.

    Is a rational, non-dreamer, who realises you generally get money from working hard and not betting on the stockmarket. Therefore the best to hope for is a safe investment in a very low interest deposit account over the long term.

    thoughts?


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭ Cute Hoor


    Great questions that could have a myriad of answers.

    If you are happy and comfortable to avail of the interest rate being offered by the bank then that is obviously the thing for a rational non-dreamer to do. Most people who invest in the stock market would consider it investing rather than betting, although of course it is much more of a gamble than sticking it in the bank. Who's to disagree with you that 'the best to hope for is a safe investment in a very low interest deposit account over the long term', that would be predicting the future and unfortunately most of us are unable to do that (despite what you might read here sometimes), so only time will tell. However if past performance is anything to go by then a well balanced portfolio of blue chip stocks (and I certainly wouldn't be including BOI in that) held over a long period of time will very comfortably beat the return you will get from bank interest.

    This is how you would have done with your picks above over the last 5 years (I picked 5 years because that was the oldest price for Bitcoin I could get), a longer period (say 10 years would probably be significantly worse for BOI but significantly better for Ryanair).
    If you put €100 into the bank 5 years ago you would now have €104 (after interest, less tax)
    If you bought €100 worth of Bitcoin 5 years ago you would have roughly €3,800 now
    If you bought €100 worth of Ryanair 5 years ago you would have roughly €190 now (+ 2 dividends probably worth around €20)
    If you bought €100 worth of BOI 5 years ago you would have roughly €60 now.

    You could of course have picked a company like Microsoft (or probably a myriad of other ones), a company whose products most people would be familiar with, where that €100 would now be worth €300 or more

    At the end of the day it's a personal choice and you're attitude to risk/reward. Everybody is right if they are comfortable with what they are doing with their money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭ sdraobs


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Great questions that could have a myriad of answers.

    If you are happy and comfortable to avail of the interest rate being offered by the bank then that is obviously the thing for a rational non-dreamer to do. Most people who invest in the stock market would consider it investing rather than betting, although of course it is much more of a gamble than sticking it in the bank. Who's to disagree with you that 'the best to hope for is a safe investment in a very low interest deposit account over the long term', that would be predicting the future and unfortunately most of us are unable to do that (despite what you might read here sometimes), so only time will tell. However if past performance is anything to go by then a well balanced portfolio of blue chip stocks (and I certainly wouldn't be including BOI in that) held over a long period of time will very comfortably beat the return you will get from bank interest.

    This is how you would have done with your picks above over the last 5 years (I picked 5 years because that was the oldest price for Bitcoin I could get), a longer period (say 10 years would probably be significantly worse for BOI but significantly better for Ryanair).
    If you put €100 into the bank 5 years ago you would now have €104 (after interest, less tax)
    If you bought €100 worth of Bitcoin 5 years ago you would have roughly €3,800 now
    If you bought €100 worth of Ryanair 5 years ago you would have roughly €190 now (+ 2 dividends probably worth around €20)
    If you bought €100 worth of BOI 5 years ago you would have roughly €60 now.

    You could of course have picked a company like Microsoft (or probably a myriad of other ones), a company whose products most people would be familiar with, where that €100 would now be worth €300 or more

    At the end of the day it's a personal choice and you're attitude to risk/reward. Everybody is right if they are comfortable with what they are doing with their money.

    Woah Cute Hoor, thank you very much for doing that for me. i probably owe you some fees for that. i was expecting a usual boards slightly sarcastic answer. And not sure why you would take time to offer some assistance. So I appreciate it. Good deed.

    I'll probably go consider some slightly more risky investments, state bonds or blue chips.

    Thanks again


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭ Cute Hoor


    Ah sure tis Christmas :D

    No great digging needed to come up with that tbh!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,288 ✭✭✭✭ Thargor


    Now might not be the time to be looking at riskier asset classes though, the likes of MS are not going to treble in value again any time soon, most likely heading in the opposite direction for a while anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭ Fol20


    People that work hard potential may have a comfortable life but it will never be truly successful from a monetary aspect unless your a doctor. You have to be willing to make calculated risks to really get ahead even with irelands draconian taxation measures


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,259 alb


    The first thing to realise is that there is no such thing as a safe investment, or no risk. There are just different levels of risk, and even those may be difficult to measure.

    So you are always betting on something. Even leaving your money in the bank is betting on the bank staying solvent (or being bailed out, if it comes to it) and also betting on the Euro maintaining a reasonable value.

    Even in the best case scenario most would probably say you will basically lose value due to inflation, as deposit interest won't be enough to offset it, but having said that losing a little value slowly may still be the safest option.

    There are things that are considered so low risk as to be 'safe', most recently bank shares and property. Ahem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,422 ✭✭✭ valoren


    The key thing you said is 'betting on the stock market'. Betting on the stock market is like renting stocks, you don't have the mindset that you own the stock. Tech enables frequent easy trading in and out.

    All the market presents is an opportunity to own a portion of a business. When you do so then all told it's pretty much your's to keep. A change of mindset where 'ownership' is your guiding principle then when the market inevitably drops then it presents an opportunity to increase your ownership at a lower price. Ryanair and BOI become cheaper to own.

    You buy a stock to own and three things can happen;

    1. The price stays the same. Assuming it pays a dividend, then you get a perpetual stream of income cash so long as the enterprise remains solvent and capable of giving you your cut of the profits. You can even re-invest the cash for more ownership and thus more dividends.
    2. The price increases. You get the Dividends and your net worth increases.
    3. The price drops. You get the dividends and you get to buy more ownership with more bang for your buck.

    Market corrections, crashes and dips are buying opportunities. It is the best businesses on the planet presenting you with an opportunity to own them at bargain prices. Remember, the price is just the price someone is willing to pay you for your ownership of a company. Earnings and revenue are far more important than the asking price. Nobody knows what the future holds but from a risk averse perspective, winning companies will likely continue winning and if you stuff a portfolio with proven winners it should be better in the LONG term, current and future dips becoming blips over the expanse of decades and generations.

    You can only ever lose whatever you put into a stock. The amount the value can go to is 0. (unless you are leveraging which is dangerous). The amount it can potentially go to over decades and through generations is limitless. To sell during a panic might be potentially costing you hundreds of thousands or millions of $$ over a long enough time frame.

    Imagine if your grandmother bought say Boeing around the time Kennedy was assassinated, never sold, gave them to your mother who will plan on leaving them to you. On a 'split' adjusted basis each Boeing stock is something like $0.1190 cents. Today it's around $330. Whatever she invested in the stock is worth 2,773 times what was invested and that is just the capital gain never mind 5 decades of dividends. To build a boeing plane will cost you more than it did in the 60's hence the capital gain.

    $100 invested with no dividend re-investment would be worth $277,300 today. With dividend reinvestment you'd be a millionaire easily. Compounding is that incredible. Even something dull and boring like spices company McCormick (they own the Schwartz brand here, go look through the cupboards at home, bet you there will be one there :)). If the same $100 was invested in 1980 it is now 8 cents on a split adjusted basis. Today at $150 it is 1,875 times more valuable ($187,500). A brilliant business, owned forever.

    Schwarz-Spices.jpg

    Wouldn't you be glad Granny and your mother never got cold feet and sold during market crashes? If she put her $100 in the bank at 2% interest in 1963 and did nothing else it would be worth $297 assuming the bank remained solvent.

    In short, the market is simply a place to buy into a business which you personally don't run but to which you lend some money to run. Some will go bust, some will stagnate, some will explode (not literally!) but all you need is one/two long term thoroughbreds to easily make up for the laggards. So long as you don't need the money, you are free to let it compound for decade after decade.

    We just never had an ownership mentality in Ireland. I lived in an area of Cork City in Knocknaheeny. Apple set up a plant there in 1980, the year I was born. My mother was actually starting a job there as a cleaner but got pregnant with me and couldn't take the job. The company went through boom, bust, recession, near bankruptcy and then boomed again to become the first trillion dollar company. Now with such a famed company, even in the mid-80's, with it's European headquarters on our door step, did it ever occur to me or my parents that we were perfectly free to own a part of the company? I didn't even know you could and neither did they. That mentality was never there. I my mother invested and gifted $100 in "this new company" opening up for me when I was born it would have been 3 cents on a split adjusted basis. When it reached the $1 trillion bench mark in September that $100 would have been worth $333,300. Not a bad return.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 34,624 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AlmightyCushion


    valoren wrote: »
    The key thing you said is 'betting on the stock market'. Betting on the stock market is like renting stocks, you don't have the mindset that you own the stock. Tech enables frequent easy trading in and out.

    All the market presents is an opportunity to own a portion of a business. When you do so then all told it's pretty much your's to keep. A change of mindset where 'ownership' is your guiding principle then when the market inevitably drops then it presents an opportunity to increase your ownership at a lower price. Ryanair and BOI become cheaper to own.

    You buy a stock to own and three things can happen;

    1. The price stays the same. Assuming it pays a dividend, then you get a perpetual stream of income cash so long as the enterprise remains solvent and capable of giving you your cut of the profits. You can even re-invest the cash for more ownership and thus more dividends.
    2. The price increases. You get the Dividends and your net worth increases.
    3. The price drops. You get the dividends and you get to buy more ownership with more bang for your buck.

    Market corrections, crashes and dips are buying opportunities. It is the best businesses on the planet presenting you with an opportunity to own them at bargain prices. Remember, the price is just the price someone is willing to pay you for your ownership of a company. Earnings and revenue are far more important than the asking price. Nobody knows what the future holds but from a risk averse perspective, winning companies will likely continue winning and if you stuff a portfolio with proven winners it should be better in the LONG term, current and future dips becoming blips over the expanse of decades and generations.

    You can only ever lose whatever you put into a stock. The amount the value can go to is 0. (unless you are leveraging which is dangerous). The amount it can potentially go to over decades and through generations is limitless. To sell during a panic might be potentially costing you hundreds of thousands or millions of $$ over a long enough time frame.

    Imagine if your grandmother bought say Boeing around the time Kennedy was assassinated, never sold, gave them to your mother who will plan on leaving them to you. On a 'split' adjusted basis each Boeing stock is something like $0.1190 cents. Today it's around $330. Whatever she invested in the stock is worth 2,773 times what was invested and that is just the capital gain never mind 5 decades of dividends. To build a boeing plane will cost you more than it did in the 60's hence the capital gain.

    $100 invested with no dividend re-investment would be worth $277,300 today. With dividend reinvestment you'd be a millionaire easily. Compounding is that incredible. Even something dull and boring like spices company McCormick (they own the Schwartz brand here, go look through the cupboards at home, bet you there will be one there :)). If the same $100 was invested in 1980 it is now 8 cents on a split adjusted basis. Today at $150 it is 1,875 times more valuable ($187,500). A brilliant business, owned forever.

    Schwarz-Spices.jpg

    Wouldn't you be glad Granny and your mother never got cold feet and sold during market crashes? If she put her $100 in the bank at 2% interest in 1963 and did nothing else it would be worth $297 assuming the bank remained solvent.

    In short, the market is simply a place to buy into a business which you personally don't run but to which you lend some money to run. Some will go bust, some will stagnate, some will explode (not literally!) but all you need is one/two long term thoroughbreds to easily make up for the laggards. So long as you don't need the money, you are free to let it compound for decade after decade.

    We just never had an ownership mentality in Ireland. I lived in an area of Cork City in Knocknaheeny. Apple set up a plant there in 1980, the year I was born. My mother was actually starting a job there as a cleaner but got pregnant with me and couldn't take the job. The company went through boom, bust, recession, near bankruptcy and then boomed again to become the first trillion dollar company. Now with such a famed company, even in the mid-80's, with it's European headquarters on our door step, did it ever occur to me or my parents that we were perfectly free to own a part of the company? I didn't even know you could and neither did they. That mentality was never there. I my mother invested and gifted $100 in "this new company" opening up for me when I was born it would have been 3 cents on a split adjusted basis. When it reached the $1 trillion bench mark in September that $100 would have been worth $333,300. Not a bad return.

    And what if they had picked a loser instead of Boeing or Apple? They would have lost a lot or even all of their money. What if they bought into Eircom when the government sold it off or bought into the banks back before the crash or bought into bitcoin late last year as many people did.

    By cherry picking just one or two companies with the benefit of hindsight you can show that investing is a great idea that will turn you into a millionaire or a bad idea that will lose you every cent you put into it.

    @OP - Investing is risky. More risky than putting money into a bank (which isn't exactly 100% risk free either). One of the keys to minimising risk is to diversify. Invest in many companies and many industries. If one company does poorly or even goes out of business then you haven't lost everything and hopefully the others will make up for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,422 ✭✭✭ valoren


    And what if they had picked a loser instead of Boeing or Apple? They would have lost a lot or even all of their money. What if they bought into Eircom when the government sold it off or bought into the banks back before the crash or bought into bitcoin late last year as many people did.

    By cherry picking just one or two companies with the benefit of hindsight you can show that investing is a great idea that will turn you into a millionaire or a bad idea that will lose you every cent you put into it.

    @OP - Investing is risky. More risky than putting money into a bank (which isn't exactly 100% risk free either). One of the keys to minimising risk is to diversify. Invest in many companies and many industries. If one company does poorly or even goes out of business then you haven't lost everything and hopefully the others will make up for it.

    In the three situations I cherry picked i.e. Boeing, Apple and McCormick they would only lose $100 if those companies went insolvent. If the $100 invested in Apple happened to go to $100,000 and then went to $0, they didn't lose $99,900. They lost $100, the money they initially invested. The $99,900 was paper profit and nothing more. My point is even a relatively small amount invested today (ideally at a fair value) is potentially worth a lot more if given a long enough time frame. Do that over and over with a diversified portfolio and the worst case scenario is that you will only lose the relatively small amount of money you invested.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 34,624 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AlmightyCushion


    valoren wrote: »
    In the three situations I cherry picked i.e. Boeing, Apple and McCormick they would only lost $100 if those companies went insolvent. If the $100 invested in Apple happened to go to $100,000 and then went to $0, they didn't lose $99,900. They lost $100, the money they initially invested. The $99,900 was paper profit and nothing more. My point is even a relatively small amount invested today (ideally at a fair value) is potentially worth a lot more if given a long enough time frame. Do that over and over with a diversified portfolio and the worst case scenario is that you will only lose the relatively small amount of money you invested.

    I know that, never said otherwise. If they had diversified their investment instead of sticking it in one company then they only would have lost a portion of that $100 and the portion they lost could have potentially been made up by the gains on the other investments.

    Edit: I posted this after your edit. I think we're essentially arguing the same point here. Diversification is good. However, I would be wary of investing very small amounts. The fees might mean you need a stock to do extremely well just to break even.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭ sdraobs


    I'm a bit sceptical or the argument that investments, even diversitied over the last 30 years worked out alot better than putting money in a bank. As that stupid ad warning "past performance is no indication of future guarantee (or similar wording, you know what i am referring to)"

    However, if a diversified investment plummets because of a world recession or disaster, well then a drop in value in investments is the least of ones troubles.

    therefore, based on all your helpful views above, i think saving into a bank account is bad advice. its basically paying a premium of convenience of not making the effort of investing appropriately. in effect letting the the deposit account provider do the hard work of taking your money and sharing it out to those that need it. So better to cut out the middle man and invest directly.

    Thanks again all for the helpful opinions. I hope you get rewarded in your career or investment decisions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,211 ✭✭✭✭ dxhound2005


    Just before Christmas 1999 the FTSE 100 Index was at 6806. Today it is 6778.


  • Registered Users Posts: 466 ✭✭ vg88


    I assume most people set aside money every month into bank or credit unions say 400 every month to just sit there, but it's easy. Say is there mechanism to invest similar to pension funds i.e.:


    Invest say 400 every month, out of pay slip or DD, into a platform that continues your invest from say least risky 1 to most risky 7. Say something that involves minimal interaction with for those who don't have much time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭ dickface


    Just before Christmas 1999 the FTSE 100 Index was at 6806. Today it is 6778.

    There is a word that starts with d and ends with d


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,288 ✭✭✭✭ Thargor


    moloner4 wrote: »
    Invest say 400 every month, out of pay slip or DD, into a platform that continues your invest from say least risky 1 to most risky 7. Say something that involves minimal interaction with for those who don't have much time.
    You're describing pretty much every company pension scheme in existence...


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭ sdraobs


    dickface wrote: »
    There is a word that starts with d and ends with d

    diversified?
    da boom and bustd?
    dot com bubbled?
    (an obsenity?)

    Sorry I am a bit of a muppet. starting to realise nature not nurture is more important but thats a separate discussion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 224 ✭✭ sdraobs


    Just before Christmas 1999 the FTSE 100 Index was at 6806. Today it is 6778.


    excuse my ignorance in this area, but are you referring to the fact that timing is everything in investments. And thus i original theory of just saving into a bank account is as good, as at least you dont have to lay awake worrying about the highs and lows.

    maybe the strategy that i read on other subforums on boards investments and markets which seems to be as follows:

    1.Invest a seed amount,

    2. sell once you get over a certain percentage which may be a 1% over deposit account rate.

    3. reinvest original amount, thereby keeping profit and thus reducing risk as profit is ring fenced.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭ RedRochey


    It has to be said that Bitcoin is a very different investment from Ryanair and BOI, I think everyone knew how risky that was when they were investing in it (or that it was a lot riskier than Ryanair or BOI).

    It all depends on your time horizon as well. If you're planning for your retirement you can't go wrong with investing in some broad ETFs that track major indices. Example, invest in the S&P 500, over a 10 year time period you'd easily have made 50%. Even if you invested at the peak just before the 2008 crash, you would be up something like 80% now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,434 ✭✭✭ Austria!


    sdraobs wrote: »
    I'm a bit sceptical or the argument that investments, even diversitied over the last 30 years worked out alot better than putting money in a bank.




    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index#Annual_returns


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭ Lefty Bicek


    I have to highlight a few things here -
    valoren wrote: »
    The key thing you said is 'betting on the stock market'. Betting on the stock market is like renting stocks, you don't have the mindset that you own the stock. Tech enables frequent easy trading in and out.

    All the market presents is an opportunity to own a portion of a business. When you do so then all told it's pretty much your's to keep. A change of mindset where 'ownership' is your guiding principle then when the market inevitably drops then it presents an opportunity to increase your ownership at a lower price. Ryanair and BOI become cheaper to own.

    You can also take the view that as long as the dividend is secure, buying in at a lower price gives a more attractive dividend yield.

    You buy a stock to own and three things can happen;

    1. The price stays the same. Assuming it pays a dividend, then you get a perpetual stream of income cash so long as the enterprise remains solvent and capable of giving you your cut of the profits. You can even re-invest the cash for more ownership and thus more dividends.

    If the yield is attractive enough.

    2. The price increases. You get the Dividends and your net worth increases.

    If the price increases, the issue of the dividend recedes. Net worth increases by either dividend or capital appreciation.

    3. The price drops. You get the dividends and you get to buy more ownership with more bang for your buck.

    Again, assumes the dividend is secure.

    4. Company goes bust. The order of payout bites, and you lose it all.

    Market corrections, crashes and dips are buying opportunities. It is the best businesses on the planet presenting you with an opportunity to own them at bargain prices. Remember, the price is just the price someone is willing to pay you for your ownership of a company. Earnings and revenue are far more important than the asking price.

    Earnings and revenue are absolutely not far more important than price. They are intrinsically linked to the asking price, in a rational/longterm market. In fact, the most basic financial ratio of them all, the P/E ratio tells you that.

    Corrections, crashes, and dips are only buying opportunities if the stock is undervalued. It may not be, that is the risk.


    Nobody knows what the future holds but from a risk averse perspective, winning companies will likely continue winning and if you stuff a portfolio with proven winners it should be better in the LONG term, current and future dips becoming blips over the expanse of decades and generations.

    Why not just buy the market ? Why try to be smarter than those doing it full-time ? It would be interesting to see their strike rate, and in the long term, how many of them have outperformed the market ?

    You can only ever lose whatever you put into a stock. This is just not so. You can lose not only what you put in, but also all the capital appreciation and reinvested dividends that gave you the increase in your net worth you mentioned earlier.

    Which would you prefer - to buy £100 of stock and it tanks, or buy £100 of stock, see it go to £1,000, neglect to take your profits and go in the toilet. Would you treat the two sitations the same ? I wouldn't.
    The amount the value can go to is 0. (unless you are leveraging which is dangerous). The amount it can potentially go to over decades and through generations is limitless. To sell during a panic might be potentially costing you hundreds of thousands or millions of $$ over a long enough time frame.



    Imagine if your grandmother bought say Boeing around the time Kennedy was assassinated, never sold, gave them to your mother who will plan on leaving them to you. On a 'split' adjusted basis each Boeing stock is something like $0.1190 cents. Today it's around $330. Whatever she invested in the stock is worth 2,773 times what was invested and that is just the capital gain never mind 5 decades of dividends. To build a boeing plane will cost you more than it did in the 60's hence the capital gain.

    $100 invested with no dividend re-investment would be worth $277,300 today. With dividend reinvestment you'd be a millionaire easily. Compounding is that incredible. Even something dull and boring like spices company McCormick (they own the Schwartz brand here, go look through the cupboards at home, bet you there will be one there :)). If the same $100 was invested in 1980 it is now 8 cents on a split adjusted basis. Today at $150 it is 1,875 times more valuable ($187,500). A brilliant business, owned forever.

    Schwarz-Spices.jpg

    Wouldn't you be glad Granny and your mother never got cold feet and sold during market crashes? If she put her $100 in the bank at 2% interest in 1963 and did nothing else it would be worth $297 assuming the bank remained solvent.

    In short, the market is simply a place to buy into a business which you personally don't run but to which you lend some money to run.

    This is a misconception. You are not loaning money to the business for it's running. The ordinary day to day trading of stocks on the secondary market has no real bearing on the day to day fortunes of the business. Except in the sense that bursting into the FTSE 100 might bring down it's cost of borrowing. Secondly, as you already pointed out, share ownership is not loaning the money to the company, it is ownership of the company. Some will go bust, some will stagnate, some will explode (not literally!) but all you need is one/two long term thoroughbreds to easily make up for the laggards. So long as you don't need the money, you are free to let it compound for decade after decade.

    We just never had an ownership mentality in Ireland. I lived in an area of Cork City in Knocknaheeny. Apple set up a plant there in 1980, the year I was born. My mother was actually starting a job there as a cleaner but got pregnant with me and couldn't take the job. The company went through boom, bust, recession, near bankruptcy and then boomed again to become the first trillion dollar company. Now with such a famed company, even in the mid-80's, with it's European headquarters on our door step, did it ever occur to me or my parents that we were perfectly free to own a part of the company? I didn't even know you could and neither did they. That mentality was never there. I my mother invested and gifted $100 in "this new company" opening up for me when I was born it would have been 3 cents on a split adjusted basis. When it reached the $1 trillion bench mark in September that $100 would have been worth $333,300. Not a bad return.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭ An_Toirpin


    I have to highlight a few things here -
    Buying the market is a nice elegantly simple approach but it often brings onerous tax implications in Ireland which does push people more towards individual stocks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭✭ f@steddie


    sdraobs wrote: »
    Bitcoin, Ryanair, Bank of Ireland.

    These three companies have had share values nosedive.

    Is a rational, non-dreamer, who realises you generally get money from working hard and not betting on the stockmarket. Therefore the best to hope for is a safe investment in a very low interest deposit account over the long term.

    thoughts?

    You could argue that deposit accounts are more risky over the long term due to inflation.

    For shorter time frames go with the deposit account.

    For long term value go with the stock market.


Advertisement