News Annual Pass price increases June 2019

MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
Concisely tell me the financial and operational differences between a traditional IRA and 401k.
Click to expand...

Since you're new to the internet, I'll help you out.

Plan rules on 401ks, btw, vary from employer-to-employer .

401ks typically come with some form of employer match (but not all do)

You are typically not able to "invest in practically anything" since your investment options are dictated to you by the plan which is decided by the employer.

There are more but that link up there will address.


Was that nonsense concise enough for you?
 
Last edited:
BoarderPhreak

BoarderPhreak

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
so I confused the nonsense
Click to expand...
dighole.jpg
 
Chef Mickey

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
MrPromey said:
Since you're new to the internet, I'll help you out.

Plan rules on 401ks, btw, vary from employer-to-employer.

Was that nonsense concise enough for you?
Click to expand...
It doesn't dispute that the 2 accounts work essentially the same way for financial purposes including taxation, minimum required distribution, and behavior when markets correct. Losing 90% was the nonsense part.

So the parts I was describing for 401k are the same as for IRA. Anyway, those points are irrelevant from my original point that no one loses 90% in either account if they know what they're doing.
 
Chef Mickey

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
MrPromey said:
Tell that to the people over 65 who lost 90% of the value in their retirement accounts the year they were laid off back in 2007.
Click to expand...
You still haven't backed up why they lost 90% and where you got that number. It certainly isn't because of the 401K or IRA. Makes no sense and you haven't defended it.

You got called out for your own nonsense and refuse to explain it. Get your own shovel.
 
BoarderPhreak

BoarderPhreak

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
...no one loses 90% in either account if they know what they're doing.
Click to expand...
Not everyone is a financial genius such as yourself. 🙄

Too many investors panicked and liquidated their 401k and lost a ton of money (realistically, 40% at most) as a result. It also made a big difference how close they were to retirement, whether or not they could rebound, etc. If you remained calm and left things alone - and weren't retiring any time soon - sure, things sorted themselves (for the most part).

Then there are those that (also) lost their jobs when the recession hit. As an example, I was working for a mortgage company at the time, which was the second (after Countrywide) to fold. Even if you ate the tax and penalties for early withdrawal, you got pennies on the dollar. I wasn't affected by either situation, thankfully... But others sure were. If nothing else, these people were no longer contributing when the rates were ideal.
 
Chef Mickey

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
BoarderPhreak said:
Not everyone is a financial genius such as yourself. 🙄

Too many investors panicked and liquidated their 401k and lost a ton of money (realistically, 40% at most) as a result. It also made a big difference how close they were to retirement, whether or not they could rebound, etc. If you remained calm and left things alone - and weren't retiring any time soon - sure, things sorted themselves (for the most part).

Then there are those that (also) lost their jobs when the recession hit. As an example, I was working for a mortgage company at the time, which was the second (after Countrywide) to fold. Even if you ate the tax and penalties for early withdrawal, you got pennies on the dollar. I wasn't affected by either situation, thankfully... But others sure were. If nothing else, these people were no longer contributing when the rates were ideal.
Click to expand...
OK, now we are getting somewhere. Olive branch time. The 90% was clearly a bad example with all data we have since the market didn't drop even close to 90%. It was a worst case scenario to make a point. I get it. I have both accounts, so I hope I understand them at least partially.

The 401K vs IRA was the distraction you brought up to refute my point on the losing 90% outlier. That didn't happen on a wide scale and was an exaggeration of the norm. If we agree on that, we are friends.

I concede this part: Sure, some more impacted by bankruptcies or near bankruptcies. If your 401K was in those company's stocks, I do feel sorry for you...but it was stupid. If that happened to Cathy, that's unfortunate. I work in the finance industry, so I'm well aware of the banks and institutions that lost everything and many that almost did.

However, that is not an accurate representation of the average scenario or any scenario a person should have been in if they were properly diversified.

Again, not trying to dog you. I took exception to the 90% loss. If there are employers that only offer their own company's stock as an investment vehicle in their 401K, I do not know of it and would not participate in any large capacity. I would go the IRA route and not be able to invest as much tax advantaged dollars, but certainly would avoid the risk of single stock exposure in a panic like 2008-2009.

From Disney's perspective, price increases like this are just a means of managing the long term business. Get all you can while you can get it, so when times are tougher, you can roll it back. It's just good business.
 
Last edited:
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
You still haven't backed up why they lost 90% and where you got that number. It certainly isn't because of the 401K or IRA. Makes no sense and you haven't defended it.

You got called out for your own nonsense and refuse to explain it. Get your own shovel.
Click to expand...

The 90% was a rounded estimate based on my own 401k being worth about 11-13% of what it was less than six months prior.

This is where I point out that some employer sponsored investment plans include funds that individuals cannot hold on their own, at which time money must be moved at current values.*

Then you say that this person could simply reinvest it.

Then I point out that being forced into retirement, she had to start spending some of that money to deal with the sudden loss of income.

Then you say that still doesn't explain the rest.

Then I point out that had she left the work force on her own terms, she might have found a good financial advisor (or not, I really don't know) to help her with everything but that doesn't seem to be what happened.

Then you say that was her own fault victim vs. shark, sorry she couldn't be a part of our American dream, etc.

... To which I respond, what is your point, exactly? You latched on to that one specific thing that was only even a minor part of my whole point and asked me to explain where that came from and I explained. I don't pretend to know everything or manage everyone else's money or lives for them. I was simply pointing out that the GOOD TIMES ARE NOT FOREVER.

Lots of people suffered during that time due to investments, primary real estate (especially here in Florida) and unemployment. Some bounced back. Some didn't.

Saved you the trouble of trying to move the goalpost on this one - you're welcome.

*Updated to more correctly state the issue in response to someone accurately pointing out my mis-statement.
 
Last edited:
Chef Mickey

Chef Mickey

Well-Known Member
MrPromey said:
The 90% was a rounded estimate based on my own 401k being worth about 11-13% of what it was less than six months prior.

This is where I point out that many 401k employers require the 401k account closed when employment is terminated at which time the employee gets the value of their plan at current prices.

Then you say that this person could simply reinvest it.

Then I point out that being forced into retirement, she had to start spending some of that money to deal with the sudden loss of income.

Then you say that still doesn't explain the rest.

Then I point out that had she let the work force on her own terms, she might have found a good financial advisor (or not, I really don't know) to help her with everything but that doens't seem to be what happened.

Then you say that was her own fault victim vs. shark, sorry she couldn't be a part of our American dream, etc.

... To which I respond, what is your point, exactly? You latched on to that one specific thing that was only even a minor part of my whole point and asked me to explain where that came from and I explained. I don't pretend to know everything or manage everyone else's money or lives for them. I was simply pointing out that the GOOD TIMES ARE NOT FOREVER.

Lots of people suffered during that time due to investments, primary real estate (especially here in Florida) and unemployment. Some bounced back. Some didn't.

Saved you the trouble of trying to move the goalpost on this one - you're welcome.
Click to expand...
Genuinely curious...what was your 401K invested in to be worth essentially 10% of what it was worth 6 months prior? Had to be a bank or mortgage company. I genuinely feel for you if you were in that situation.

That said, if your 401K is closed upon termination, the idea would be you could re-invest it at similar prices (quickly) because everything else was down. It's not like you're forced to sell at the bottom and have no chance to re-buy other beaten down funds.

OF COURSE all bets are off if you're talking individual stocks or very specific industries where you lost 90% when the broader market was only down 50%. This is where I said you shouldn't be in that position. Too risky. I've rolled a 401K over to an IRA (Which you could do if you were laid off) and you can move pretty quickly to get that money back into low cost index type funds that you should have been in the first place.

Markets were moving quickly at that time, but even if you were laid off at the lows, you should have been able to re-invest with the S&P below 1,000 and you'd be totally winning now.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
Genuinely curious...what was your 401K invested in to be worth essentially 10% of what it was worth 6 months prior? Had to be a bank or mortgage company. I genuinely feel for you if you were in that situation.

That said, if your 401K is closed upon termination, the idea would be you could re-invest it at similar prices (quickly) because everything else was down. It's not like you're forced to sell at the bottom and have no chance to re-buy other beaten down funds.

OF COURSE all bets are off if you're talking individual stocks or very specific industries where you lost 90% when the broader market was only down 50%. This is where I said you shouldn't be in that position. Too risky. I've rolled a 401K over to an IRA (Which you could do if you were laid off) and you can move pretty quickly to get that money back into low cost index type funds that you should have been in the first place.

Markets were moving quickly at that time, but even if you were laid off at the lows, you should have been able to re-invest with the S&P below 1,000 and you'd be totally winning now.
Click to expand...

If you're genuinely interested in more particulars, feel free to send me a private message. It's way off-topic for this discussion.

As for me, personally, I came out fine but I also had many more years ahead of me until retirement than behind me (still have many - yay) and I didn't lose my job.
 
Last edited:
alphac2005

alphac2005

Well-Known Member
It's interesting that some cling to this notion of reducing the number of passholders, while several of our incredibly accurate inside sources have made it very clear that the objective is to increase the number of APs and simply drive their margins higher. For any who might be new around here, for those of us that have been on the site for two decades or so, these insiders are just that and provide such great information.

For those grounded in reality, it's simply profiteering. That's not how I run my business, but that's how The Walt Disney Company is run today. It all becomes an exercise in what you can tolerate. We had a vacation scheduled for November, which AP increases don't affect our situation, and after all of the news yesterday, it was enough. We stopped going for several years sickened by the endless cost increases across the board and as Kevin Yee's coined it, declining by degrees. We went back to WDW a year and a half ago, visited DL last year, and were set to go again, but this is the proverbial final straw for our household.

My company is on the retail and manufacturing side and the bloated cost for merchandise at WDW is beyond laughable. The majority of the toy and novelty segments have experienced relatively minimal pricing increases on the wholesale side and areas such as plush have seen declines over the past two decades. Coupled with increased purchasing power of large companies and their ability to squeeze suppliers, most product cost is nearly frozen in this category. What do we see in merchandising? An explosion in consumer cost on the retail side at Disney. It's all a joke.

It all comes down to what you will tolerate. I can't tolerate giving thousands of dollars for a six day trip to this company any longer. As @marni1971 has stated, EPCOT is dead. Shelling out the money to visit the corpse of what kept us coming back isn't happening. It almost feels dirty as to the extent of which the company is grotesquely taking our money. And to those who make the excuses, the same old wrap that's been on here for ages, "it's a business," "supply and demand," etc., we get it. There is a difference between profiteering and profiting. They chose a business plan fostered on the former and not the latter. Adults going crazy over the latest WDW cupcake on YouTube encapsulates it all. It's not about the magic of rides and attractions. It's about getting you in the door at a substantially inflated rate to have you purchase ridiculously overpriced merchandise and fast food at multiple star restaurant prices. And for us that go back some time with the company, it's like the Paul Pressler era on steroids. Are we headed to paid bathrooms? What about adding on an E-Ticket style system where you have to pay an additional fee to go on certain attractions? It seems absurd, but they've already proven that they're apt at making the absurd happen.
 
Last edited:
networkpro

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
alphac2005 said:
.
Shelling out the money to visit the corpse of what kept us coming back isn't happening. It almost feels dirty as to the extent of which the company is grotesquely taking our money.
Click to expand...

But they've already removed half of the tombstones at Epcot. Everything is not equal, (ceteris paribus non), there are multiple contenders for the additional revenue aside from your presumed assumption of greed alone.
 
raymusiccity

raymusiccity

Well-Known Member
Chef Mickey said:
Yeah, you're absolutely wrong. Look at markets over time. It's just data. You are totally wrong. Now if you try to time the market and buy junk, you'll get the results you'd expect when you don't know what you're doing.

You don't "lose money" if you don't sell. Who lost 90% of the value in their retirement? Where do you get that number? The markets weren't down 90% and came roaring back with a vengeance. I can't manage your portfolio but if you're exposed to markets at retirement age and have no other means of supporting yourself, that is a personal money management issue and has no relevance to the dominance of financial markets.

No one is immune, but I posted the numbers. Disney still performed well and has since had almost 10 years of record after record at the parks. 2 years of bad doesn't counteract 8 years of recrods.

That's what you people that miss out on stock market gains always miss.

Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.” – Peter Lynch

The corrections happen, give you a buying opportunity and then they are over with people missing out because they sold at the bottom and/or are too scared to buy stocks. That's how you underperform.

Disney stayed the course during that time and they are reaping the benefits today.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. You don't lose a thing until you sell and lock in your losses. You can take any 5 year picture of the stock market, from its inception, and it has always gone up.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom