Return in 4% ? Or 6% ?

2006 August 12
by Penguin

Now days, our fixed deposit (FD) rate only around 4% and lot of opinion out there said that we should look for higher return in order to overcome the inflation.

I always told my friends we should take more risk to get higher return to protect our asset not depreciate cause by inflation. Normally I told them the potential return will be 6% yearly even though some of the historical data show that 10% return per year is possible. So now come the question, is it worth to take the risk just try to get additional that little 2% extra return?


If investor just park the money in the FD and enjoy the 4% yearly return, they won’t loss any single cents because the fixed deposit is consider risk free and save. Compare with other investment tools which might cause them to lose money, and potential give the 6% return. The different is only that little 2%!! So the argue out whether worth to take the risk in order to earn that little 2% extra…

I don’t know how to measure the value of that 2% to them and should they take the risk or not. What I can do is analyze the impact of that 2% to their saving and let them to make their own decision.

Assume you have 100,000, how long you need to double up your saving with current return rate which is 4% yearly?

From the rule of 72, we can know that investor need 18 years to double up his saving from 100,000 to 200,000 with the 4% return. And you only take 12 years to do the same thing if the return rate is 6%. Because of that little 2% extra every year, you eventually save up 6 years!!! And what if the average return is more than 6%? How about 7%? With this additional 3% extra every years, you almost save up 8 years to get the same result compare with others which need 18 years.

Wonderful, isn’t it? So please don’t try to ignore the additional little 2-3 %, they might help you with save up your several years in future. So at this stage, most people can decide on their own whether worth to take the risk to earn that extra little %.

Share with others:
  • BlinkList
  • blogmarks
  • co.mments
  • del.icio.us
  • De.lirio.us
  • Fark
  • Netvouz
  • description
  • Shadows
  • Simpy
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Digg
  • Haohao
  • MyShare
  • Netscape
  • Technorati
  • Fleck
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Furl
  • Google
  • Live
  • Print this article!
  • Webnews.de
  • Bumpzee
  • Design Float
  • description
  • description
  • eKudos
  • Gwar
  • Mixx
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • Slashdot
  • Webride
  • Yigg
  • BlogMemes Cn
  • Blogsvine
  • blogtercimlap
  • Blue Dot
  • connotea
  • Internetmedia
  • kick.ie
  • muti
  • Smarking
  • Wikio
  • Wists
  • Linkter
  • Meneame
  • N4G
  • NewsVine
  • Sphinn

Random Posts

3 Comments leave one →
2006 August 17

Thanks, friend. If my saving is below 100,000, then it is not worth for the risk of 2% percentage. If I am millionaire, then even 0.5% has to take into account.

2006 August 18

Actually what i want to share here is the idea, the amount is doesnt matter. Maybe lot people will think if got big capital then only worth to try, but remember when the capital is huge, the figure also will become huge, cause it count by percentage. 2% of 10,000 will be 200, but 2% of 100,000 will be 2,000. Fron one of the point, both are the same.

2006 August 21

When your saving is low 2% is 2%, when you are a millionaire, 2% is also 2%. The key is the percentage and not the amount. :)

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS