Howard

Well Mikey you are right and wrong at the same time, it all has to do with what you think the future will bring. If you go all in at once you will lose more if it goes down than if you bought in a few times as it was going down. But again, I am not saying to just buy more of something because it went down. Think of it this way, if you like company "X" and would buy say 1,000 shares of it at $20 now, you might be better off buying 500 shares now and if it drops picking up more to get to your target of 1,000. We all know the stock market zigs and zags and never move in a straight line over a period of time. Bottom line, if there was any one method that was the "right" way to do it, well it would be the wrong way as everyone would pick it up and it would not work. I have done very well over time with dollar cost averaging, while it might not be good for all people or all investments, it works very well for me. All of that said, going back to the OP, what to do all hinges on his risk:reward tolerance. I tend to be less risk adverse than many. When people are afraid and selling is when I do most of my buying. I was a big buyer during the 2008 crash, and in the 1987 crash as well. The way I see it is that in the long-run the US economy will do well, if it doesn't, well not much else matters. Thus, when quality companies drop due to overall economic activity I step in and buy.

Actually its a very good piece of advice if you are investing in quality companies for the long-haul as opposed to short-term trading. If the fundamentals of a company are such that you still want to hold it if it goes down, then there is no reason not to buy more of it at a lower cost if you can. If the company is crap and you should be selling and taking a loss that is a different story. But quality companies go on sale (ie their stock price is lower today than yesterday) due to macro economic issues and that is the time to buy.

They are highly reliable even if you don't clean them as often as you shoot. There are many many aftermarket parts you can get for them. You could buy a .45cal version and for around $125 get a conversion barrel that would let you fire either .40cal or 9mm from the same gun with a magazine for that size ammo. All food for thought.

Yes you could pick periods to show almost any trend, I agree. But I was just showing how it has done this year as an example not to say that will happen all the time. The larger point was that with monthly contributions, dollar cost averaging, and reinvestment of dividend in a tax free account that even if the market is down some you will probably still be ahead. Further while the OP has some need for funds next year, other funds won't be needed for four more years. Those funds for four years out should be invested where they will hopefully provide more return. But, everyone has their own risk:reward trade-offs they feel comfortable with.

All well said. Being a fairly new shooter I panicked the first time someone said I should try this. My first thought was what if I miss the broad side of the barn, boy would that be embarrassing. But after thinking about it I said what the heck. Really all you need is ammo and probably your own gun. I say that as the first match I went to one of the people on the board lent me a belt, holster and mag pouches and even offered extra magazine if I needed them and a gun if I wanted. That is the type people you will find here. Actually the first match I went to I only shot my camera, just observed what was involved. Not only is this a lot of fun, but it really improves your shooting. It is one thing to stand at the line and take time to line up on static shot at a stationary target; it totally another thing to run around and shoot at multiple targets, some that move. You really improve your skills. And so what if you suck, I can proudly say that I have competed and finished dead last - but each time I do get better. You will meet lots of new people and find that you will probably get addicted. Dive in and try it.

"Investing" if you can call it that, in CD's is a fools game. If you are lucky you might barely keep up with inflation, but even that is unlikely. The only way to grow principal is to invest in equities. That means some risk, but with a well balanced portfolio of quality companies there is not that much risk. On Jan 2nd the Dow was at about 12,950, right this moment it sits at 15,320, that is an increase of better than 18%. Sure it could go down, but over time it will go up. True for someone like the OP, with a one to four year time horizon you can't be all into equities, but even with four years out it would be prudent to put perhaps 20-25% into quality equities, that will probably yield 2.5% in dividends plus a chance for growth. Further in a 529 account that compounds without a tax bite and even the income is not taxable if used for educational expenses. If you dig a hole and put it in the backyard you are not much worse off than placing it in a taxable CD at the bank with the rates as low as they are Here is an example, a company like AT&T which currently trades at about $34 has a 5.25% dividend yield. The high before the crash in 2008 was about $42, the low during the crash was about $22. Even if you had bought it at the high with the tax free compound growth of the dividends you would be OK today. You would be even better off if you had continuously reinvested those dividends. The key is dollar cost averaging. Had you continued to buy a little each quarter from the high in 2008 through the lows and continued till today you would be a very happy camper. The same goes for almost any quality company. Over time this is about the only was to outpace inflation.

Probably three weeks

I find it very interesting that a participants first post is to trash a company that caters to many members. Very interesting.

You don't have to invest 529 funds in stocks, you can put it into bonds or CD's or other less volatile instruments. While you need some of the money next year, the rest you don't need for four years. It makes more sense for the accumulated returns to be non-taxable than taxable as you are suggesting.

Thanks. For those that might want to see more of the swans, the complete set of about 60 shots may be seen at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirbinster/sets/72157635854141823/

While the booklet might be handy, don't rely on it - laws change quickly these days and the booklet is probably obsolete before the ink is dry. Before you travel check the current information online so you don't end up in trouble.

Thanks everyone. I took these with some of my lessor gear. Camera was my Nikon D300 and the lens was a higher quality super zoom not a really good lens. The lens is a Nikon 28-300 lens.

Ok, I took some head shots of the teenage Swans at my lake today - here they are for your viewing pleasure:

But don't they have to access the Fed's system to complete their checks?

I think what is being said is you have to watch out because of technicalities in the law. While John Smith may own all the shares in ABC it is ABC that holds the lease or owns the land, not John Smith directly. If John Smith owned the business in his name it would be different. This is similar that even though you may have bought your hand gun with a joint credit card in your and your wife's name as far as NJ is concerned there is only one legal owner of that gun, the one who filled out the P2P and has the FID. Our laws are designed to make lawyers rich and the rest of us pay.

AND THIS ^^^^^ is just why our laws are so messed up. When fairly intelligent people read the same thing in the above post and come to different conclusions. Why can't we get our law makers to spell this crap out in plain English so that people don't break the law based on otherwise logical reading of the statute.

That does not make any sense. When I go to the range, which is in leased quarters in a light industrial business complex does that mean it is not legal to carry the weapon to and from your car since they don't own the outside property? Same basic situation you describe with a rented quarters for a retail business.

Thanks, guess I have you fooled then as I am just a hobby photographer.

Well that is what I was guessing. Keep in mind I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and have not even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express - so here goes. I don't see this as being much different than someone that owns a home in Northern NJ and also owns a summer home at the shore. Since you can only have one FID afaik, I think there is nothing that prohibits you from having your gun at either residence, but I am sure others will chime in.

I guess it all comes down to the definition of "is" What do you mean by temporary? Are you living there but still have a residence at say your parent's home? Obviously you could have two residences. You need to be a little more specific to your unique situation.

Shot at the IDPA match in Easton today, thought I would share my best shot of the day, unfortunately it came before the match started:

I agree with you 100% alec, that is why I did this - glad I did.

Did my training with Aaron today, and millsan1 nailed it on his comments. Boy did I learn a lot about shooting in general and tactics for competition. When we were all done he had me shooting "worse" which was actually great. My biggest problem was being too slow and trying to be perfect. When we started out I had all alphas, but my time really sucked. By the time we were done I had a couple of Charlies, but my hit factor was better by two full points having taken six seconds off my time. I really have a much better understanding of how to continue to improve now and can't wait to continue practicing what I learned. I would highly recommend this to anyone out there.

Noticed they are breaking Glock's rules as they list that Gen4 with only two mags, yet Glock supplies them with three. So they are stripping one mag from the kit as it comes from the factory.

Thanks everyone.