Save The Date Golf Tournament 2013 8-16: Fill & Download for Free

The first Tennis match I ever saw was Federer vs Nadal, 2005 French Open semifinal. I did not understand anything about Tennis back then - neither the rules, nor the players nor the tournaments. My dad, a sports journalist, said that Federer was likely to win - winner of 4 grand slams, the then world no.1, he had a lot of skills & experience under his belt as compared to his teenager opponent who was in his first ever grand slam semifinal. But Nadal was no ordinary teenager. He had completely dominated the clay court season winning titles in Monte Carlo, Barcelona & Rome before entering the French Open. Rafa won that encounter with Federer & went on to seal the title 2 days later. Needless to say, he became my favourite player, clay became my favourite surface & French Open became my favourite grand slam. I have seen all 27 grand slam finals Rafa has played till date & closely followed his development, his ascension to the top of the men’s game, his “supposed” decline & his comeback. I have seen it all.Right now, Rafa has 19 slams as compared to 20 of Federer. Roger probably looks in a good condition to add another Wimbledon, may be another hard court slam as well. Rafa’s chances of winning non-clay grand slams are comparatively slim due to his fitness issues. If he is well rested, playing in good form & is fit, he can reach finals & even win them as we saw in 2019 (AO final, US open champion).Roger has a few unique records that are unlikely to be broken anytime soon (caps indicate very special ones) -310 weeks as World No.1WINNING 2 DIFFERENT SLAMS 5 TIMES IN A ROW (W, US)WINNING 3 DIFFERENT SLAMS AT LEAST 5 TIMES (AO, W, US)Most slam finals (31), most consecutive slam finals (10), most slam semifinals (45) and quarterfinals (56), most consecutive slam semifinals (23) and quarterfinals (36)Most WTF titles (6)Most number of hard court titles - 70Most number of grass court titles - 1956 consecutive matches won on hard courts (highest ever)65 consecutive matches won on grass courts (highest ever)Oldest world number One (36y 10m in 2018)Most appearance in grand slamsNotable mentions are - 2nd most year ending world no.1 titles ( 5 tied with Jimmy Connors, Novak Djokovic & Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras has 6 ) & 100+ matches won in Wimbledon (only man to win 100 matches in any grand slam),Rafa has a few unique achievements as well.1ST AND ONLY MAN IN THE HISTORY OF TENNIS TO WIN GRAND SLAMS ON ALL 3 SURFACES IN THE SAME YEAR ( 2010 ) ( Best described as the "Surface Slam", the notion of adapting and mastering grass, clay and hard courts in the same calendar year is mind boggling. To think only a single male player has achieved this result in the entire history of tennis is a tribute to the difficulty involved )Olympic gold medal in both singles (2008 Beijing) & doubles (2016 Rio)WINNING AT LEAST ONE ATP MASTERS 1000 EVENT & ONE GRAND SLAM EACH FOR 10 YEARS CONSECUTIVELY (2005–14, the longest streak ever )5 CONSECUTIVE ROLAND GARROS (only player in History to have achieved it)12 TITLES IN A SINGLE SLAM (RG) (most by any player male or female)ONLY PLAYER TO WIN 400+ MATCHES ON 2 DIFFERENT SURFACES (HARD COURTS & CLAY)11 titles in a single masters 1000 event (Monte Carlo) and in an ATP 500 event (Barcelona)Longest streak of winning at least one ATP 500 event a year - 14 years (2005–18)Youngest player in open era to complete career slam - 24 years 101 daysMost slams won without conceding a set ( 3 - tied with Borg )81 - longest single surface match win streak on any surface (Rafa achieved it on clay)50 - most number of consecutive sets won on a single surface (Rafa achieved it on clay, McEnroe is 2nd with 49 sets won on carpet)Longest streak of winning at least one ATP title a year - 16 years ( Federer is second having won a title a year for 15 years before his streak got broken in 2016 )8 - the most consecutive times a title has been won (Monte Carlo)Most grand slams won after passing the age of 30 - 5 (3 RG, 2 US)Most number of weeks spent in the top 2 rankingsNotable mention are second most ATP titles as a teenager (16, Borg has 17) & 300+ weeks spent as World No. 2 (highest ever) - with Federer & Djokovic better than Rafa in 2 of the 3 surfaces, its a huge testament of Rafa’s supremacy & dominance across all surfaces, not to mention his consistency despite the numerous injuries.Nadal & Federer share a very unique record together - they are the only 2 players to have reached the finals of all 4 grand slams at least 5 times (Federer achieved it in RG 2011, Nadal achieved it in US Open 2019). They both have career grand slams, 5 year ending number 1 rank, 11 year ending top 2 ranks.Nadal’s head to head is superior, even in slam finals against Roger (6–3). And let’s not forget, Roger is a fast court specialist which means he is dominant on hard courts and grass making 75% of all slam tournaments and has been the fittest player on the tour, hardly ever missing major tournaments due to injury ( before 2016 ). As a result his slam tally is 20. Meanwhile Rafa, a slow court specialist, had an injury prone career and has already missed a lot of slams - 2004 French Open, 2006 and 2013 Australian Open, 2009 and 2016 Wimbledon, 2012 and 2014 US Open or lost/retired in slams due to injuries - 2009 and 2016 French Open, US Open 2018, 2010, 2011, 2014 & 2018 Australian Open ( where he got injured during his match ). But still his slam tally is 19, just 1 short of the consistent and forever fit Federer. Just imagine how many slams he would have won had he been blessed with a fitness like Roger’s.Rafa has been super unlucky because he was born with Kohler’s feet birth defect. It is a rare bone disorder of the foot where sufferers experience pain and swelling in the middle part of the foot and usually limp as a result. It nearly caused him to consider a career in professional Golf because playing Tennis was always a painful experience for him. By the time he turned 17, in 2004, Rafa and his team discovered that the navicular bone in his left foot had not completely ossified when he was a baby, and was causing pain and swelling during playing sessions. After a negative opinion by the doctors who he consulted with, his family and team were considering retirement so that Rafa would not aggravate that brittle navicular and risk its fracture. Rafa's father consulted another scientist/doctor who came to the conclusion that with reasonable scheduling and a custom-built shoe, Rafa could still play the physical sport of tennis, and eke out a decent career out of it. In the same year, Rafa and his team experimented with this new shoe and created a schedule in such a way that he could play more matches on the softer, easy-on-the-feet clay courts, rather than on the hard courts. However, Rafa's knees had developed an unexpected complication.The peculiar angle of the custom-built shoe, while saving his navicular with smart angling, had transferred more stress on those tendons in his left knee. As a result, he suffered multiple tendinitis injuries throughout his career but as we all know, he came back strongly each time to win more.Here is a comparison of their career statistics when they both were around 32 years and 9 days old:-The above stat shows Rafa is far ahead of Roger at the same age in terms of better win-loss ratio and more masters 1000 titles while Roger is ahead at the same age in terms of more WTF titles and weeks as number one ( due to having a less competitive field between 2004–2009 as compared to this decade mainly 2011–2016 where Djokovic has dominated and still players like Murray and Stan have won 3 titles each while Cilic has already reached 3 different slam finals winning one of them. There is no doubt that Rafa had to endure a more competitive era when he matured and reached his peak as compared to the players Roger faced in slam finals during his peak, missed a lot more tournaments as compared to Roger and is still just as good if not better at 33. Nadal has won 13 slams in 19 finals in a decade (2010–19) which has been heavily dominated by Djokovic (15 slams in 23 finals) - pretty close. Compared to that, Federer has just won 5 slams in 10 finals. Federer has been clearly 3rd fiddle in this decade & he will likely end as the 3rd best player in History when they all retire. His career stats are heavily boosted by the weak eraAs of September 2019, Roger has won 20/78=25.6% of the slams he has played while Nadal has won 19/58=32.76% of all the slams that he has played. Let us take the debate on 2 common grounds.Same Age (33 years 3 months)Nadal has more slams & masters in more finals, more titles & more big titles. The difference in Masters events in all departments is huge. However, Federer only has a slight edge in grand slam semifinals & quarterfinals because of the weak era domination coupled with Nadal’s injuries. If Nadal was not so injury prone & had not missed/retired from so many grand slams during his peak, his semifinals & quarterfinal count would have been better than Roger. It’s pretty close despite the injuries.2. Same number of Grand Slams played (58)Nadal has more slams in more finals. They both have the exact same grand slam semifinals & quarterfinals appearances inspite of Roger’s weak era dominance & Nadal’s consistent injuries.Even if you try to neutralize by considering only the first 27 grand slam finals that Federer played (the same number as Nadal), he won 17 slams out of it while Nadal has 19. So Nadal clearly has a better win % in slam finals. Nadal is ahead in the slam department no matter how you twist your data.One of my favourite data is comparing the quality of opponent faced in slam finals. Let’s take a look.Look at the comparison when opponents have only 1 slam vs >2 slams. Do you have any more doubt that most of Federer’s slams came against weaker competition as compared to Nadal?Now let’s talk about the h2h. Since both their careers have overlapped over a period of 15+ years, its acceptable to discuss the h2h despite the age difference. They have played each other 40 times, with Nadal leading the head to head 24–16. Federer leads on hard court (11–9), grass (3–1), and indoor hard court (5–1). Nadal leads on clay (14–2) and outdoor hard court (8–6). A total of 14 matches have been in Grand Slams with Nadal leading 10–4. Their non clay h2h in slams is 4–4, a huge credit for Rafa & discredit for Roger considering that Roger is undoubtedly the greatest player ever on grass+hardcourts.Now many people have a shortsightedness of claiming that Rafa leads the h2h because most of their matches were on clay. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. They have played 16 times on clay & 20 times on hard courts at the end of Shanghai 2017.Federer leads on hard courts 11-9 (a small margin) after dominating Rafa on that surface in 2017 - 4 out of 4 wins. Deduct that & till 2016, apart from clay, Rafa also led the h2h on hard courts 9-7 (still a small margin). Federer is still hailed as the greatest hard court player ever & to see him rivaled, even outmatched on his dominant surface shows the difference between them. I need not talk about the clay h2h since it’s super lopsided.As mentioned above, Rafa leads their outdoor hardcourts h2h 8-6 (a small margin). Deduct the domination of Roger in 2017 & it becomes 8-2 (a huge margin!) over a span of 13 seasons (2004-2016) since their first encounter in Miami. Shocking, humbling & as lopsided as the h2h on clay.Rafa does not need to equal Roger’s slam tally to be considered his equal or better. He can take a SHORTCUT which will nullify all the other records where Roger is superior to Rafa and make them at par. And he came close to achieving that shortcut 3 times in his career but failed every time. Can you guess what it is?RAFA NEEDS TO WIN A SECOND AUSTRALIAN OPEN.Yes, this is the key to becoming a GOAT for Rafa. A second Australian Open will mean Rafa will become the only player in the Open Era to win 2 CAREER GRAND SLAMS and only the second player in History after Rod Laver to do so. He will also become the only player in History to win 2 career grand slams across 3 surfaces (During Laver’s time, apart from French Open, all the other slams were played on grass). And let’s be honest, it doesn't look like Roger is in any condition to win another French Open; he rarely participates in the French Open & even if he did, his body will not allow him to win 21 grueling sets across 2 weeks against all those teenagers, clay court specialists, Djokovic, Thiem & ultimately Nadal himself. So Roger has hardly any chance of completing a double career grand slam.Meanwhile, Australian Open is within Rafa’s reach. How it pains me and all other Rafans when we think he was a break up in the final set in both 2012 and 2017 AO finals & went on to lose the match on both occasions. Stan Wawrinka had never beaten Nadal before the AO 14 final & hence Rafa was the heavy favourite going into the final. But he injured his back during the warm up & went on to lose the match. Nadal reached the 2019 AO final without losing a set. On 6 previous occasions (RG 2007, 08, 10, 12, 17, US 10), Nadal had reached a grand slam final without dropping a set. He went on to win all 6 of those finals. Djokovic meanwhile, had won all 6 AO finals he had played till that point. Nadal had an easier time in the semifinal because he obliterated Tsitsipas in straight sets & had an additional day’s rest. So the match was 50–50 despite Djokovic being the better hard court player. But Novak demolished Nadal in the final winning in straight sets, the first time Nadal had ever lost a grand slam final in straight sets.Rafa’s improved serve & net game & ability to fire winners & win a lot of cheap points with the serve ensures he is a threat on hard courts unlike his former self a decade ago who played the same way on hard courts like he did on clay-passive Tennis, long rallies, forcing his opponents to make errors, grinding matches while relying on his stamina & fitness to win matches & getting exhausted by the time he reached the quarterfinals. He hits a much flatter backhand these days & uses it as an attacking shot, even on clay, rather than using it as a defensive shot to continue rallies like he did in the past decade. If his knees support him & he remains fit, motivated, confident & well rested, another Australian Open is just around the corner & a DOUBLE CAREER GRAND SLAM will be the greatest achievement ever in the Open Era. Such is the significance of it that it will nullify all the other amazing achievements of Roger making Rafa and Roger equal contenders for the GOAT status. And if Rafa wins one more slam along with that ( taking his count to 21 including 2 Australian Opens ) while Roger has 20–22 slams, Rafa will be hands down considered the best ever to have graced this sport. But without that 2nd Australian Open Rafa can equal Roger’s slam tally or even win a couple more slams than Roger & still hardcore Rafans like me & the general public as a whole, will consider Roger to be better. A 3rd Wimbledon will be the ultimate icing on the cake if Rafa manages to win a 2nd Australian Open along with it. A 3rd Wimbledon will ensure that RAFA BECOMES THE ONLY MAN IN THE HISTORY OF TENNIS TO WIN AT LEAST 3 SLAMS ON ALL 3 SURFACES. NO OTHER MAN HAS EVEN WON 2 SLAMS ON ALL 3 SURFACES.Rafa’s best bet to win another Australian Open is to end his season possibly after Beijing & Shanghai & skip the entire indoor hard court season. That way, he will get decent rest from mid October to end of November, 7 full weeks to get over the hangover of a long and grueling season & then start preparing for the Australian Open from first week of December. That way he will get 6 weeks to prepare for the first slam of the year alongside playing a 250 level tournament in the first week of January in either Doha or Brisbane. Without skipping that indoor hard court season, Rafa will end his year during mid November & then there is not much time to rest & prepare for the Australian Open while also playing in Brisbane/Doha. As a result, Rafa always carries over his fatigue of the previous season to the Australian Open & struggles there in the summer heat, often getting injured (its his most injury prone slam - now you know why), since hard courts are not his natural surface where he reaches his peak form with little practice. Rafa struggles in indoor hard court conditions every year & has never won any title post the 8th masters 1000 event (that too occurred a long time ago in 2005 when Nadal had more stamina in his legs). But Rafa is determined to win at least 1 WTF in his career & has never won Shanghai or Paris masters, so his chances of skipping the indoor hard court season is non-existent if he remains fit. Since Federer & Djokovic both dominate the tournaments post US Open, including the indoor tournaments, they can gather a lot of points during that time & end the year as world number one leapfrogging Rafa. Rafa obviously wouldn’t want that, specially after a decent season, so he is forced to play the indoor hard court season every year. I am really not sure if Rafa has a likelihood of winning another Australian Open unless he gets injured post the US Open & misses the remainder of the year to rest, work on his techniques, attain new skills & prepare properly for the Australian Open like he did in the end of 2016 & 2018. The result? He reached the finals in both 2017 & 2019.Just for your reference, Djokovic is a heavy contender for the GOAT status because he has more weeks as no.1 than Nadal & almost on the verge of surpassing Federer, won 4 slams in a row (2015 W - 2016 RG) - cited as the non-calendar Grand Slam, has Golden Masters (won all 9 Masters 1000 events), more WTF than Nadal, has a more balanced grand slam portfolio having won 2 different slams at least 5 times (AO & W) & needs 2 more US Open to equal Roger’s record of atleast 5 titles in 3 slams. Nadal needs to win 3 W or 4 AO alongside another US Open to achieve this - an unlikely situation. Except his first slam - AO title in 2008, Djokovic has won all his slams in the competitive era. He is the youngest of the 3 GOAT contenders, less injury prone & more consistent than Nadal & is likely to retire as having the most grand slams ever. If he completes a double career grand slam by winning a second French Open, he will become hands down the undisputed GOAT even if Nadal wins another Australian Open.Edit 1:Federer fans always points out that Roger would have more M1000 titles if there were 1–2 Masters events on grass. Obviously the number of total M1000 events cannot be increased beyond 9 since that would make the season longer & more hectic. They assume something like 6 on hard courts, 1 on clay, 2 on grass - the sheer arrogance. By applying the logic of similar number of fast & slow court Masters events, I always argue that they would have to reduce the number of hard court Masters instead to 4 to increase Masters of grass to 2 (or 5 HC, 1 Grass) (ignoring the fact that it is super expensive to maintain grass courts & they would have to increase the grass court season). They need an Asian swing after the US Open so Shanghai would most certainly remain a hard courts event. Paris indoor hard court masters leads up to the WTF so it cannot be changed either.If that holds true, Roger’s Masters count would not increase significantly but Rafa’s would definitely increase even more leaving Roger at a much disadvantaged position than now, when it came to a comparison of their M1000 titles. Rafa has been a fairly decent player on grass & I totally see him winning 3–5 Masters events on grass between 2006–2011 & even a few in 2017–19 when he started hitting flatter serves & shots. Imagine if they replaced any 2 of IW, Miami & Cincinnati for Grass. Roger has a total of 16 titles in these 3 tournaments alone while Rafa only has 4 titles. His fans expect him to win both Grass court masters for 15 years straight (such arrogance). It’s just not possible considering form, fitness & injuries. Even Rafa won all 3 clay Masters only once in his career & he has dominated clay better than Roger has dominated grass. The tour would most probably have to replace Miami & Canada into Grass events or schedule Cincinnati earlier than Canada & have it as a grass court event, probably after Wimbledon while Canada will be the only hard court Masters event leading up to the US Open. In order to have both grass Masters before Wimbledon reducing the 2 weeks in March occupied by Miami, the calendar will be altered a lot leading to complications. Most probably, the Masters will be held after Wimbledon & even then the calendar will be altered a lot. None of the scenarios favour Roger’s tally much but significantly boost Rafa’s numbers making the difference even more lop sided.Good luck trying to convince Roger fans into admitting this.Hope this answers the question. Do not forget to upvote. Thanks.P.S. - The Earth is 70% covered by water & rest by Federer fans. They are going to be flabbergasted that their demigod Roger’s legendary records can be equaled by any shortcut :P Hence I do not expect many upvotes in this answer. I do expect a lot of backlash & the comments prove that. Bring it on. I will counter you down with raw data. However, neutral fans will understand the significance of this shortcut.

★★★★This is a follow up to my post from last week Phil Lesh & Friends at Rumsey Field in Central Park, NYC 2014-05-31 (Review).Aside: I still haven't figured out the best way to write concert reviews on here. I first made as a blog post (as linked above) but then I discovered there is a built in feature for writing reviews on Quora so I reposted that PAF review at Matt Hodel's review of Phil Lesh & Friends. The problem is it seems the only way to do this is to write a review of the whole topic (that is, the band Phil Lesh & Friends), rather than of a particular performance. I'm afraid this may prohibit me from submitting reviews of other shows in the future. Also, I'm posting both of these on my radio show's Facebook page, Folk is Dead.I made the 2 hr trip up to the Catskills from Southern CT on Friday (6/6/14) to see Bob Weir & Ratdog perform as the headlining act for the day at Warren Haynes's Mountain Jam music festival (this year is the 10th anniversary!).On the way I listened to a recording of the 1977-03-20 Grateful Dead show at the Winterland Arena in San Francisco, the third show of a three night run at the venue. Almost fit in the whole concert...ended up having to cut it short in the middle of Stella Blue near the end of the second set.I arrived at the mountain at 3pm after driving for the first time on I-87, the New York State Thruway (which brought to mind the scene in the Woodstock documentary where a young Arlo Gutherie is telling the guy interviewing him "the New York State Thruway is closed, man! There's an 8 hour backup. Isn't that far out?")After waiting around for the shuttle to take me from the parking lot to the festival grounds, I made my way through security and walked around through the vendors for a while (or the "shakedown", as members of the tribe affectionately refer to it). Saw some cool stuff, and decided I wanted to get a t-shirt. Was considering getting one of the official festival ones but ended up getting a Grateful Dead shirt from a vendor called "Sunshine Octopus." Has the date and venue written on it from the 1975-08-13 show at the Great American Music Hall in San Francisco, though obviously it wasn't from the concert itself.Soon after I noticed someone had a portable disc golf hole set up in the middle of all the vendors and I asked him what the deal was. Turns out Hunter Mountain has a disc golf course in the summer and they were having tournaments for festival-goers ever morning at 11am. I couldn't compete because I was just there for the day, but I did head down to the pro shop to check it out, and ended up buying a driver and putter to replace two of my go-to discs that I had lost (a Champion TeeBird and DX Aviar, for those in the know). Met a guy down there named Dan who was new to the game, helped him pick out a few discs to get started woth, and we headed up to play the course.We ran into two others once we found the course and joined them to all play together. Par on each hole was pretty generous (I scored 2 on two separate holes that were both marked par 4), but some of them were pretty challenging. The last hole was 800 ft long, but I managed to overthrow it anyway because it was straight down the mountain slope!After hanging out outside Dan's tent for a while and meeting a few of his friends I finally headed back down to the stage area at 8pm to get dinner before Ratdog came on at 9.Here's the setlist from the show:Bob Weir & RatdogMountain Jam 2014Hunter Mountain, Hunter, NY2014-06-06Bob WeirSteve KimockJay LaneJeff ChimentiRob WassermanRobin Sylvester1: Jam>The Music Never Stopped>Easy AnswersWest LA Fadeaway*>Don't Let Go*Ashes & Glass tease[1]Me & My UncleDeal2: Jam^>Playin' in the Band^>Dark Star^>Space^>Milestones>Lady With a Fan>Terrapin Station>Stuff>[2]Terrapin Station>Standing On The Moon>Dark Star v2>Sugar MagnoliaE: Johnny B. Goode^* w/ Jonathan Wilson^ w/ Warren Haynes[1] Bobby: "That one sounds too much like the one we just played. We're gonna do something else."[2] Wasserman's bass solo and Jay Lane's "cell phone video" rapRight off the bat in TMNS (The Music Never Stopped) Kimock was on fire, really adding a lot to the sounds with his noodling high up on the neck of his guitar. He would continue doing so throughout the night.Aside: I've seen the current instatiation of Ratdog 5 times now--twice at the Peach Music Festival last summer on 2013-08-16/17, up in Boston in Febrauary on 2014-02-24, at the Capitol Theatre the same week on 2014-03-01, and now at Mountain Jam--and a big part of why I keep coming back is what Steve Kimock brings to the table. I first discovered him at the Gathering of the Vibes last summer, which I attended for the day on Saturday to see Phil Lesh & Friends play at night. He was performing as Steve Kimock & Friends feat. Bernie Worrell on the secondary stage (The Roots were on the main stage and I couldn't take more than a few minutes of that...rap doesn't tend to do it for me, unfortunately), and they absolutely blew it out of the park. There's a great recording of the show up on the archive, which I'll link to if I remember later tonight (currently on my phone so I can't get the URL). He had this girl Camille Armstong singing with him who was really incredible. Did an awesome reggae cover of Come Together, which was probably the highlight for me. Anyway, I went to see him play as Steve Kimock & Friends with my father later that summer at the City Winery in Manhattan, and was very excited to hear he'd be sharing the stage with Bob Weir for the two Ratdog shows at the Peach in August, which I already had tickets for.Easy Answers was pretty standard Ratdog fare. I think at this point or during the next song some of the people in the audience thought the set was starting to feel pretty weak. I'm not decided myself, and no matter what I was enjoying myself just being there.Jonathan Wilson, a younger jam band musician from San Francisco who has shared the stage with Bob Weir a number of times (and is also a frequent guest of Weir's online show, Weir Here) came out on stage for the next two songs: West LA Fadeaway and Don't Let Go. Bob flubbed the lyrics at one point during LA Fadeaway and Wilson tried to fill in for him but ended up not knowing all the words himself (Bobby looked like he was dealing with something with his amp...itms also entirely possible that Wilson was supposed to sing those lines himself in the first place). I will admit that something felt a little off around this point in the set.Though I'm not familiar with the song myself (I assume it's a Brent-era tune?), from what I hear it was a big surprise that Ratdog played Don't Let Go. I guess it's the first time they've done that one.After a false start to Ashes & Glass the band opted to play a standard rendition of Me & My Uncle instead. (Fun fact: that was the song played the most times by the Grateful Dead).Deal was played a lot slower than normal, but I enjoyed it. The pace of the first set was pretty slow overall, in fact, with a lot of songs getting played at a slower tempo than usual (think 1976 versions of TLEO and FOTD compared to their 1973 renditions (that is, They Love Each Other and Friend Of The Devil)). At various points it seemed like Jeff was trying to get the rest of the band to pick up the pace. Though it may have lacked some energy, hearing some of those songs all slowed down was nice, and no doubt intentional on Bobby's part.During the set break I chatted up a few people near the food vendors (I treated myself to a fried dough from Angelo's, a food stand run by three very Italian men). They thought the first set was seriously lacking. "If he comes out with a Corrina opener, I'm out of here," one of the guys declared. While there were some flubs, I'm inclined to say that it was just a different feel than usual. I was definitely ready for some more energy in the second set though, and they sure did not dissapoint.The band came back out on stage after 40 minutes (a "really short break" on Bobby-time). They started jamming, similar to the opening of the first set that Phil Lesh & Friends played in Central Park on 5/31, only to welcome another guest to the stage after 5 minutes or so: Warren Haynes.The jam went on for another few minutes before they transitioned into Playin' I the Band, a song that lends itself to extended jam sequences as it is, which itself was followed by Dark Star, the Grateful Dead's primary vehicle for free-form improvisation from 1968 to 1974. The trend did not stop as Dark Star evolved into "Space," the all-encompassing title for the caucophonous noises the Dead played after Bill Kreutzmann's and Mickey Hart's drum "duets" in every show from 1980 on (give or take). Jeff Chimenti was experimenting quite liberally with the synthesizer at this point. After that they played the Miles Davis riff "Milestones," which from what I hear makes regular appearances in Ratdog sets. Suffice it to say the second set was extremely jam heavy, as is only to be expected from a Grateful Dead show.What came next was perhaps the strangest ending to a Terrapin I've ever heard. Lady With a Fan, by the way, is the name for the first "movement" of the Terrapin Station "suite" (and is marked as such on the track listing for the 1977 record). After they played the second "movement" (simply, and perhaps confusingly, called Terrapin Station) Bobby walked off stage and let the rest of the band entertain the audience for a while in a segment typically labeled "Stuff" on the official recordings of Ratdog shows (to be contrasted with Space). Rob Wasserman did a bass solo, and Jay Lane did a something that I can only liken to Pigpen's raps at the end of Lovelight or Good Lovin' from way back in the early days of the Grateful Dead, though even that's probably not a fair parallel to make. Basically he started shouting into the microphone "OOO OO OOO OO" promptly followed by "CELL PHONE VIDEO." Perhaps he was trying to make a commentary on the practices of a modern audience at shows...hard to say. In any event, the band eventually went back into the ending riffs of Terrapin Station, all the while Jay Lane kept shouting "CELL PHONE VIDEO." If nothing else it was unique.The set ending on a high note as Bobby sang a soulful rendition of Standing On The Moon, a Jerry ballad from the Grateful Dead's last album, Built to Last, before revisiting Dark Star, leaving ample time for more jamming, and finally finishing off the set with an rocking version of Sugar Magnolia that brought to mind the opening of the New Years show in 1978 (released on DVD as The Closing of Winterland). Finally found the energy that they were lacking in the first set!I made my way over to the exit as the band came out for the encore. Warren joined Bobby and Kimock again for an equally energetic version of the Chuck Berry song Johnny B. Goode, which was used very often as an encore by the Grateful Dead.Some in attendance would probably argue that Warren saved that show; his energy on stage was the perfect remedy to the slow pace of the first set. As Bob said twice when Warren left the stage, "everybody say 'thank you, Uncle Warren!'"I got on the road at 1am to make the trip back home, equipped with Sirius XM in my father's car. I listened to a bunch of stuff, including but not limited to a sizable chunk of the Phish show from 1997-12-27 (first time I'd ever listened to anything by them!), the first set of the Grateful Dead show from 1976-06-09 (which marked their return to touring after going on hiatus for nearly two year starting on October 20, 1974), and The Circle Game, by Joni Mitchell (which I'd never heard before, and inspired me to listen to her album Ladies of the Canyon, which I've been listening to non-stop all weekend--allegedly The Circle Game was a response to Neil Young's song Sugar Mountain, and it features back up vocals by Crosby, Still, Nash, and Young!)It was a smooth ride home. Got back at 3:30am still riding the high from hearing that second set. Somehow I never trouble driving back late at night after a show--I like to think the energy from the concert keeps me going.I only made the decision to name the trip up there a few days before the show, but I'm sure glad I did. My plans this summer will prohibit me from indulging in all the other fantastic shows that will be happening on the East Coast (I'm particularly bummed to be missing the Vibes, as well as the CSN tour), but I'm excited to go to Jerry Day in Golden Gate Park on August 1st and to see Ratdog and the Allman Brothers at Peach (among many other great acts). With any luck I'll even make it up to Terrapin Crossroads to see Phil while I'm in the area.

I like the following story for this answer, because it shows you, not just how to invest, but also how to live. It sounds like excellent plan-Minimize expenses, maximize earnings, and let time do the rest!5 Financial Principles from a 34 Year Old Millionaire InvestorBy Guest Blogger | October 3, 2013, | 84I asked regular reader Philip to share his story of how he grew his net worth to over $1M before the age of 35. Enjoy![I was recently with a group of good friends out for a charity golf tournament, enjoying a nice day on the links instead of being at work. As usual, I had a few amazing shots, but many more horrible ones that I just wanted to get out of my mind. Despite my mediocre golf play, it was a great day to have fun and relax. At the end of the round, we grabbed dinner at the clubhouse and chatted about various things.At one point during dinner, the conversation somehow turned to finances, where the majority of my friends were unified in complaining about taxes, the cost of living and the stress of debt. Most of them are in the same stage of life I am the mid-30s, living in suburbia, 10 years into their careers and married with kids. From what I know of their careers, some of them make very good money, some of them have more modest incomes. Regardless of their incomes, they all seemed to give me the impression that things were tight and saving was a luxury most don’t have right now due to young children, daily expenses and big mortgages.On the way out of the clubhouse and back to our cars, I couldn’t help but notice that most of them had really nice golf bags, filled with the newest and hottest wedges and drivers. To match that, many of them headed back to newer SUVs and higher-end sedans. My walk back to the car was no different, with the exception of my old set of golf clubs and my 7-year-old car.I have been teased a few times about my old set of “executive OSI” bi-metal technology wedges. Yes, my golf clubs are 16 years old. While I might play a bit better with a new set, but for me, my set works just fine. I don’t seem to play golf much worse than my friends who buy a new set every year, so I figure it isn’t worth spending a ton of money just to buy something new.My old golf clubs are a good representation of how I manage many things in my life. I’m careful with my money, and I’m usually pretty happy with the material possessions I have. I’m in a really good position, where I don’t have a lot of the financial stresses that my friends are facing right now. I was lucky to get really good financial advice early in life, and I’ve followed it religiously through the years.At this point, I’m 34 years old, married for 7 years and have a 4-year-old child. Our net worth is now $1.35M. Our home is worth about $350K with no mortgage, and our other assets (RRSPs, TFSAs, and Non-Registered portfolios worth approximately $1M) I manage myself. Both my wife and I work full time. We both earn about 100K per year individually which has been a big contributor to our savings success (note though that our salaries weren’t always as high as they are today). We also have never inherited anything, so we started from scratch early on and made it from there.I think the biggest contributor to our savings and future savings is in our lifestyle, that’s essentially where we save the most money.Our financial strategy has been fairly simple, almost boring, but it has paid off for our family. Yes, it means I play golf with older clubs and drive an older car. But that’s a choice that I’m comfortable with and I’m happy with what I have.The financial and lifestyle management strategy we follow is based on five really basic principles. We don’t get much more complicated than this in our financial planning, and it works for us.1. GeographyI am well diversified by geography, with no more than 10%-15% of my portfolio in Canada.My rationale for this is:Canada is less than 3% of the total world stock market;In the past 10 years, the Canadian market has only been the top world performer once; and,Only 10 companies make up 41% of TSX exchange, so it’s pretty small:5 banks. 4 energy stocks. 1 rail stock. More info: http://www.world-stock-exchanges.net/top10.html.2. Asset ClassI carefully track what asset classes I invest in, with an overweight on stocks (instead of real estate bonds, etc).My rationale for this is:Generally, since 1926 stocks have outperformed bonds and other investments by a factor of about 30:1 More info: http://www.investorsfriend.com/asset_performance.htmIn Canada, the 25-year average house price gain is 5.3%. Meanwhile, inflation was running at 3.03% over the same period.Over the same period, the TSX composite would have returned 10.75% annually, bonds 10.9% and the S&P 500 13.5%.3. Portfolio costsI’m very careful about my portfolio costs. I do most things myself through self-directed accounts, buying ETFs or low-cost mutual funds.My rationale for this is:The “average” investor (like me) expects to earn (before fees) 6% per year on their portfolio of stocks/bonds/real estate – over a 25 year period.If I am paying a 2% fee to someone who is managing this portfolio for me, it can cost me a large portion of my overall portfolio growth.I also think most mutual funds are just enriching themselves and not their clients. Therefore I stay away from most of these financial products.4. TaxI think pro-actively about tax and what it means in my investment choices. I always think about how to best structure myself for tax efficiency (see portfolio allocation).My rationale for this is:Capital Gains tax: Basically, you’ll pay a max of 23% tax on these in most cases.Canadian Dividends tax: you’ll pay a max of 30% tax on these.Income / Interest / Bonds tax: you’ll pay a tax of 46% of these.5. Lifestyle managementI enjoy my life. I invest in hobbies, annual vacations, and luxuries. However, I do this within the context of what I earn, so that I always can save a good portion of my income, aiming for 20% per year.I learn how to do things myself (renovations, car maintenance, home maintenance). If I need a new deck, new driveway, new bathroom, new flooring: my first question is how can I learn to do this myself and get it done.For any new purchase, the first thing I consider is if I can buy it used. Most times I can and do. This saves me an incredible amount of money. I rarely buy things new.I really take care of my things. I’ve had my golf clubs for 16 years; I’ve had my BBQ for 12 years, etc. I basically just take care of things and give them the maintenance they need to avoid issues. Overall I tend to save a lot of money here – I just don’t often find I need to “buy stuff”.I have a wife who shares my values and we are both happy and comfortable with our lives.So that’s my financial story in a nutshell. It’s a bit boring, but somehow it’s working and we really find ourselves in a fortunate position. We have a great life, we’re happy, and we have what I think is a good financial plan.]501,009 viewsDec 27, 2018, 01:34pm7 Best Investments To Make In 2019Jeff RoseContributorPersonal FinanceI'll show you a new way to accelerate your wealth building.Peer-to-Peer Lending[Another place to invest your excess funds this year is one that has been around for a while — peer-to-peer lending. Platforms like Lending Club and Prosper allow you to loan money to individuals as a bank does, and you get to receive the interest they pay in. While returns can vary depending on how risky the loans you choose to fund are, they can be upward of 6% or more.If you’re worried about loaning money to one person and having them ghost you, don’t be. Lending Club allows you to spread your investment over hundreds or even thousands of loans in increments as small as $25. That way, you’re not betting the farm on one person you don’t even know.Both Lending Club and Prosper also make it easy to get started. The minimum investment amount for Prosper is now only $25, but you’ll need at least $1,000 to get started investing with Lending Club. Keep in mind, however, that each platform only offers investments on its primary markets in certain states. For example, investors in Alaska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania cannot invest in Lending Club’s primary investing platform. Investors in these states can only invest in a secondary trading market known as FolioFN.]15 best investments in 2019JAMES ROYAL@JIMROYALPHDNOVEMBER 1, 2019 in INVESTING[To enjoy a comfortable future, investing is absolutely essential for most people.Why invest? Investing can provide you with another source of income, help fund your retirement or even get you out of a financial jam in the future. Above all, investing helps you grow your wealth — allowing your financial goals to be met and increasing your purchasing power over time.Or maybe you’ve recently sold your home or come into some money, then it’s a wise decision to let that money work for you and grow over time.You have many ways to invest — from very safe choices such as CDs and money market accounts to medium-risk options such as corporate bonds, and even higher-risk picks such as growth stocks, S&P 500 index funds and REITs. That’s great news because it means you can find investments that offer a variety of returns and fit your risk profile. It also means that you can combine investments to create a well-rounded and diverse – that is, a safer – portfolio.What to considerRisk tolerance and time horizon each play a big role in deciding how to allocate your investments.Conservative investors or those nearing retirement may be more comfortable allocating a larger percentage of their portfolios to less-risky investments. These are also great for people saving for both short- and intermediate-term goals.Those with stronger stomachs and workers still accumulating a retirement nest egg are likely to fare better with riskier portfolios, as long as they diversify. Be prepared to do your homework and shop around for the types of accounts that fit both your short- and long-term goals.If you’re looking to grow your wealth, you can opt for lower-risk investments that pay a modest return or you can take on more risk and aim for a higher return. Below is a range of investments with varying levels of risk and potential return.[BROKER REVIEWS: Charles Schwab | Fidelity | Robinhood | Vanguard | More]Here are the best investments in 2019:Certificates of depositMoney market accountsTreasury securitiesGovernment bond fundsMunicipal bond fundsShort-term corporate bond fundsDividend-paying stocksHigh-yield savings accountGrowth stocksGrowth stock fundsS&P 500 index fundREITsRental housingNasdaq 100 index fundIndustry-specific index fundOverview: Best investments in 2019:1. Certificates of depositCertificates of deposit, or CDs, are issued by banks and generally offer a higher interest rate than savings accounts.These federally insured time deposits have specific maturity dates that can range from several weeks to several years. Because these are “time deposits,” you cannot withdraw the money for a specified period of time without penalty.With a CD, the financial institution pays you interest at regular intervals. Once it matures, you get your original principal back plus any accrued interest. You may be able to earn up to nearly 2.4 percent interest on these types of investments, as of Nov. 2019.Because of their safety and higher payouts, CDs can be a good choice for retirees who don’t need immediate income and are able to lock up their money for a little bit. But there are many kinds of CDs to fit your needs, and so you can still take advantage of the higher rates on CDs.Risk: CDs are considered safe investments. However, they do carry reinvestment risk — the risk that when interest rates fall, investors will earn less when they reinvest principal and interest in new CDs with lower rates. The opposite risk is that rates will rise and investors won’t be able to take advantage because they’ve already locked their money into a CD.Consider laddering CDs — investing money in CDs of varying terms — so that all your money isn’t tied up in one instrument for a long time. It’s important to note that inflation and taxes could significantly erode the purchasing power of your investment.Liquidity: CDs aren’t as liquid as savings accounts or money market accounts because you tie up your money until the CD reaches maturity — often for months or years. It’s possible to get at your money sooner, but you’ll often pay a penalty to do so.2. Money market accountsA money market account is an FDIC-insured, interest-bearing deposit account.Money market accounts typically earn higher interest than savings accounts and require higher minimum balances. Because they’re relatively liquid and earn higher yields, money market accounts are a great option for your emergency savings.In exchange for better interest earnings, consumers usually have to accept more restrictions on withdrawals, such as limits on how often you can access your money.These are a great option for beginning investors who need to build up a little cash flow and set up an emergency fund.Risk: Inflation is the main threat. If inflation rates exceed the interest rate earned on the account, your purchasing power could be diminished. In addition, you could lose some or all of your principal if your account is not FDIC-insured (though the vast majority are) or if you have more than the $250,000 FDIC-insured maximum in any one account.Liquidity: Money market accounts are considered liquid, especially because they come with the option to write checks from the account. However, federal regulations limit withdrawals to six per month (or statement cycle), of which no more than three can be check transactions.[READ: How to determine your net worth]3. Treasury securitiesThe U.S. government issues various types of securities to raise money to pay for projects and pay its debts.These are some of the safest investments to guarantee against the loss of your principal.Treasury bills or T-bills have a maturity of one year or less and are not technically interest-bearing. They are sold at a discount from their face value, but when they mature, the government pays you full face value. For example, if you buy a $1,000 T-bill for $980, you would earn $20 on your investment.Treasury notes, or T-notes, are issued in terms of two, three, five, seven and 10 years. Holders earn fixed interest every six months and then face value upon maturity. The price of a T-note may be greater than, less than or equal to the face value of the note, depending on demand. If demand by investors is high, the notes will trade at a premium, which reduces investor return.Treasury bonds or T-bonds are issued with 30-year maturities, pay interest every six months and face value upon maturity. They are sold at auction throughout the year. The price and yield are determined at auction.All three types of Treasury securities are offered in increments of $100. Treasury securities are a better option for more advanced investors looking to reduce their risk.Risk: Treasury securities are considered virtually risk-free because they are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. You can count on getting interested and you're principal back at maturity. However, the value of the securities fluctuates, depending on whether interest rates are up or down. In a rising rate environment, existing bonds lose their allure because investors can get a higher return from newly issued bonds. If you try to sell your bond before maturity, you may experience a capital loss.Treasuries are also subject to inflation pressures. If the interest rate of the security is not as high as inflation, investors lose purchasing power.Because they mature quickly, T-bills may be the safest treasury security investment, as the risk of holding them is not as great as with longer-term T-notes or T-bonds. Just remember, the shorter your investment, the less your securities will generally return.Liquidity: All Treasury securities are very liquid, but if you sell prior to maturity you may experience gains or losses, depending on the interest rate environment. A T-bill is automatically redeemed at maturity, as is a T-note. When a bond matures, you can redeem it directly with the U.S. Treasury (if the bond is held there) or with a financial institution, such as a bank or broker.4. Government bond fundsGovernment bond funds are mutual funds that invest in debt securities issued by the U.S. government and its agencies.The funds invest in debt instruments such as T-bills, T-notes, T-bonds and mortgage-backed securities issued by government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.These government bond funds are well-suited for low-risk investors.These funds can also be a good choice for beginning investors and those looking for cash flow.Risk: Funds that invest in government debt instruments are considered to be among the safest investments because the securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.However, like other mutual funds, the fund itself is not government-backed and is subject to risks like interest rate fluctuations and inflation. If inflation rises, purchasing power can be diminished. If interest rates rise, prices of existing bonds decline; and if interest rates decline, prices of existing bonds rise. Interest rate risk is greater for long-term bonds.Liquidity: Bond fund shares are highly liquid, but their values fluctuate depending on the interest rate environment.5. Municipal bond fundsMunicipal bond funds invest in a number of different municipal bonds, or munis, issued by state and local governments.Earned interest is generally free of federal income taxes and may also be exempt from state and local taxes.According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), muni bonds may be bought individually, through a mutual fund or an exchange-traded fund (ETF). You can consult with a financial adviser to find the right investment type for you, but you may want to stick with those in your state or locality for additional tax advantages.Municipal bond funds are great for beginning investors because they provide diversified exposure without the investor having to analyze individual bonds. They’re also good for investors looking for cash flow.Risk: Individual bonds carry default risk, meaning the issuer becomes unable to make further income or principal payments. Cities and states don’t go bankrupt often, but it can happen. Bonds may also be callable, meaning the issuer returns the principal and retires the bond before the bond’s maturity date. This results in a loss of future interest payments to the investor.Choosing a bond fund allows you to spread out potential default and prepayment risks by owning a large number of bonds, thus cushioning the blow of negative surprises from a small part of the portfolio.Liquidity: You can buy or sell your fund shares every business day. In addition, you can typically reinvest income dividends or make additional investments at any time.6. Short-term corporate bond fundsCorporations sometimes raise money by issuing bonds to investors.Small investors can get exposure by buying shares of short-term corporate bond funds. Short-term bonds have an average maturity of one-to-five years, which makes them less susceptible to interest rate fluctuations than intermediate- or long-term.Corporate bond funds can be an excellent choice for investors looking for cash flow, such as retirees, or those who want to reduce their overall portfolio risk but still earn a return.Risk: As is the case with other bond funds, short-term corporate bond funds are not FDIC-insured. Investment-grade short-term bond funds often reward investors with higher returns than government and municipal bond funds.But the greater rewards come with added risk. There is always the chance that companies will have their credit rating downgraded or run into financial trouble and default on the bonds. Make sure your fund is made up of high-quality corporate bonds.Liquidity: You can buy or sell your fund shares every business day. In addition, you can usually reinvest income dividends or make additional investments at any time. Just keep in mind that capital losses are a possibility.7. Dividend-paying stocksEven your stock market investments can become a little safer with stocks that pay dividends.Dividends are portions of a company’s profit that can be paid out to shareholders, usually on a quarterly basis. With a dividend stock, not only can you earn on your investment through long-term market appreciation, but you’ll also earn cash in the short term.Buying individual stocks, whether they pay dividends or not, is better suited for intermediate and advanced investors.Risk: As with any stock investments, dividend stocks come with risk. They’re generally considered safer than growth stocks or other non-dividend stocks, but you should choose your portfolio carefully. Make sure you invest in companies with a solid history of dividend increases rather than selecting those with the highest current yield. That could be a sign of upcoming trouble.Liquidity: Quarterly payouts, especially if the dividends are paid in cash, are relatively liquid. Still, in order to see the highest performance on your dividend stock investment, long-term investment is key. You should look to reinvest your dividends for the best possible returns.8. High-yield savings accountJust like a savings account earning pennies at your brick-and-mortar bank, high-yield online savings accounts are accessible vehicles for your cash.With fewer overhead costs, you can earn much higher interest rates at online banks. As of Nov. 2019, you can find accounts paying above 2 percent.A savings account is a good vehicle for those who need to access cash in the near future.Risk: The banks that offer these accounts are FDIC-insured, so you don’t have to worry about losing your deposit. While high-yield savings accounts are considered safe investments, like CDs, you do run the risk of earning less upon reinvestment due to inflation.Liquidity: Savings accounts are about as liquid as your money gets. You can add or remove the funds at any time, but like money market accounts, federal regulations limit most withdrawal transactions to six per month.[READ: These are the best and worst states for retirement]9. Growth stocksGrowth stocks are one segment of the stock market that has performed well over time.These stocks tend to be made up of tech companies that are growing sales and profits very quickly, such as Alphabet (parent of Google), Amazon and Apple. Unlike dividend stocks, growth stocks rarely make cash distributions, preferring instead to reinvest that cash in their business to grow even faster.These types of stocks are among the most popular for an obvious reason: The best of them can return 20 percent or more for many years. But you’ll have to analyze them for yourself to try and figure out which ones are poised to do well.Buying individual growth stocks is better-suited for intermediate and advanced investors because of the stocks’ volatility and the need to carefully analyze them before buying.Risk: Growth stocks are some of the highest-flying stocks in the market, but they’re also highly volatile. When investor sentiment turns – when the market declines, for example – growth stocks tend to fall even more than most stocks. Plus, unlike government-backed banking products, there’s no guarantee against losing your money. So if you pick the wrong stock, it could become worthless.Liquidity: Growth stocks — like many stocks trading on a major U.S. exchange — are highly liquid, so you can buy or sell them on any day the stock market is open.10. Growth stock fundsFor investors who don’t want the hassle of analyzing and selecting individual growth stocks, an alternative is buying a fund of growth stocks.Growth-stock funds can be good for beginners and even advanced investors who want a broadly diversified portfolio. Investors can select an actively managed fund where professional fund managers select growth stocks to beat the market, or they can choose passively managed funds based on a pre-selected index of growth stocks.Either way, funds allow investors to access a diversified set of growth stocks, reducing the risks of any single stock doing poorly and ruining their portfolio. The result is an average of the performance of all the stocks in the fund — and over time, that’s likely to be good.Risk: Investing in a growth-stock fund is less risky than selecting and owning a few individual growth stocks. With a fund, the professionals do all the stock selection and management, minimizing the risk that you might select the wrong investments. However, while diversification prevents any single stock from hurting your portfolio much, if the market as a whole drop, the fund is likely to decline, too. And stocks are well-known for their volatility.Liquidity: Growth-stock funds are highly liquid, much like the stocks they invest in. You’ll be able to move in and out of the investment on any day that the market is open.11. S&P 500 index fundIf you don’t want a growth stock fund but still want higher returns than more traditional banking products, a good alternative is an S&P 500 index fund.The fund is based on the 500 largest American companies, meaning it is comprised of many of the most successful companies in the world.Like nearly any fund, an S&P 500 index fund offers immediate diversification, allowing you to own a piece of all of those companies. The fund includes companies from every industry, making it more resilient than many investments. Over time, the index has returned about 10 percent annually. These funds can be purchased with very low expense ratios (how much the management company charges to run the fund) and they’re some of the best index funds to buy.An S&P 500 index fund is an excellent choice for beginning investors because it provides broad, diversified exposure to the stock market.Risk: An S&P 500 fund is one of the least risky ways to invest in stocks because it’s made up of the market’s top companies. Of course, it still includes stocks, so it’s going to be more volatile than bonds or any bank products. It’s also not insured by the government, so you can lose money based upon fluctuations in value. However, the index has done quite well over time.Liquidity: An S&P 500 index fund is highly liquid, and investors will be able to buy or sell them on any day the market is open.12. REITsREIT stands for real estate investment trust, which is a fancy term for a company that owns and manages real estate.REITs generally don’t pay taxes as long as they pass along most of their income as dividends to their shareholders.These companies can be a good option for investors who are looking for an easy way to own real estate without the hassle of actually managing it. So those looking for passive income or cash flow, such as retirees, may find REITs especially attractive.REITs are usually divided into subsectors, so investors can own the type that they like. For example, popular subsectors include housing REITs, hotel REITs, data center REITs, retail REITS and even tower REITs (for all those mobile communication towers.)Risk: Investors should stick with publicly-traded REITs, which are traded on major exchanges, and stay away from private or non-public REITs that have lesser protections and higher expenses. Like all publicly traded stocks, a REIT’s value can decline, though the best-managed REITs should move higher over time.As with other dividend stocks, look for REITs that have a history of steadily raising their dividend over time, rather than selecting the REIT that has the highest current yield.Liquidity: Like other publicly traded stocks, REITs can be converted to cash whenever the stock market is open. However, you’ll have to take whatever price the market is offering at the time.13. Rental housingRental housing can be a great investment if you have the willingness to manage your own properties.To pursue this route, you’ll have to select the right property, finance it or buy it outright, maintain it and deal with tenants. You can do very well if you make smart purchases.However, you won’t enjoy the ease of buying and selling your assets with a click of the mouse. Worse, you might have to endure the occasional 3:00 a.m. call about a broken pipe.But if you hold your assets over time, gradually pay down debt, and grow your rents, you’ll have powerful cash flow when it comes time to retire.Risk: As with any asset, you can overpay for housing, as investors in the mid-2000s quickly found out. Also, the lack of liquidity might be a problem if you ever needed to access cash quickly.Liquidity: Housing is among the least liquid investments around, so if you need cash in a hurry, investing in rental properties may not be for you. On top of this, a broker may take as much as a 6 percent cut off the top of the sales price as a commission.14. Nasdaq 100 index fundAn index fund based on the Nasdaq 100 is a great choice for investors who want to have exposure to some of the biggest and best tech companies without having to pick the winners and losers or having to analyze specific companies.The fund is based on the Nasdaq’s 100 largest companies, meaning they’re among the most successful and stable.A Nasdaq 100 index fund offers you immediate diversification so that your portfolio is not exposed to the failure of any single company. The best Nasdaq index funds charge a very low expense ratio, and they’re a cheap way to own all of the companies in the index.A Nasdaq 100 index fund is a good choice for beginners.Risk: Like any publicly traded stock, this collection of stocks can move down, too. While the Nasdaq 100 has some of the strongest tech companies, these companies also are usually some of the most highly valued. That high valuation means that they’re likely prone to falling quickly in a downturn, though they may rise again during an economic recovery.Liquidity: Like other publicly traded index funds, a Nasdaq index fund is readily convertible to cash on any day the market is open.15. Industry-specific index fundDo you like an industry but don’t know want to (or can’t) pick the winners? A good option for you could be an industry-specific index fund.These funds give you narrow, yet diversified exposure to the industry without requiring you to analyze every company in it. If the industry does well, then the fund will probably do well, too.An industry-specific index fund is typically an ETF, and some of these have low expense ratios, meaning the ongoing cost of the fund is reasonable.This kind of index fund can be good for beginners and more advanced investors who want exposure to a specific area.Risk: The big advantage of an industry fund is that it allows the investor to select an industry to invest in, rather than a specific company. However, this kind of narrow exposure to one industry means that a negative development may hurt all the companies in the industry, lessening the benefits of diversification.Liquidity: This fund can be converted to cash on any day the market is open.Bottom lineInvesting can be a great way to build your wealth over time, and investors have a range of investment options – from safe lower-return assets to riskier, higher-return ones. So that range means you’ll need to understand the pros and cons of each investment option to make an informed decision. While it seems daunting at first, many investors manage their own assets.But the first step to investing is actually easy – opening a brokerage account. Investing can be surprisingly affordable even if you don’t have a lot of money. (Here are some of the best brokers to choose from if you’re just getting started.)]