"I lost $25K today"--Does it really feel like that?

[W2R]

We keep an Excel graph of where we were financially at each month's end, (house at a fixed rate, and any outstanding CG taxes not included), and have a tendency, (especially after drops), to look back and say "We have the same amount now as we had on such and such a date; we thought we were doing pretty well then, and we've lived/traveled/etc since that time".

Doesn't totally 'cheer us up' after a big drop....but it helps.

That is a great idea! I looked back after reading your post, and found I had a smaller portfolio less than two years ago. I thought I was doing pretty well then.

Another thing I have been doing lately is assuming a level of annual spending, and then computing the difference in withdrawal rates required based on the larger vs the smaller portfolio size.

The difference is not too drastic so that cheers me up a little bit too.

Also, I try to remember that it is not my investments failing me but instead, simply the fact that buying a house, selling a house, and moving, all involve various transaction costs and other costs that do not contribute to net worth. I knew this going in, and this is how I wanted to spend my excess portfolio so now that it is done I should expect to be down. I'm happy with that decision overall and just need to get used to seeing different numbers.

 

[Senator]

For whatever reason, I was not the least bit concerned about this recent market drop. I am not that far off from my all time high, within 1%, although I have put in a considerable amount over the year. And will continue to do so. My deposits have generally offset the declines, not quite, but close.

I am also still working, but within a few months of retirement. I am not 100% sure how I would feel if this steady decline lingers on for several more years...

I am thinking that if a decline like this is worrisome to people, they should continue working, or get a financial planner to insulate them from the market.

This type of correction, if it really is that, is not at all uncommon. If you are 65 and retired, there are not too many left, and you do not need to worry as much. If you are 45 and retired, you better get used to them.

 

[NW-Bound]

I am also still working, but within a few months of retirement. I am not 100% sure how I would feel if this steady decline lingers on for several more years...

You will feel pretty lousy if the market keeps on declining month after month, trust me.

 

[kcowan]

Doesn't totally 'cheer us up' after a big drop....but it helps.

We had the benefit of retiring in 2002 after the 2000 swoon. While we have had blips along the way, we are better off today than we were in 2002. We never lose sight of that when our net worth fluctuates. And we don't need a new Honda anytime soon.

 

[Corporateburnout]

I am thinking that if a decline like this is worrisome to people, they should continue working, or get a financial planner to insulate them from the market.

Or pick an asset allocation that allows them not to worry as much.

How would a financial planner insulate someone from the market?

 

[haha]

Or pick an asset allocation that allows them not to worry as much.

How would a financial planner insulate someone from the market?

Easy, sell them an annuity!

Ha

 

[Corporateburnout]

Easy, sell them an annuity!

Ha

+1.

Paying high fees for a variable annuity on top of the financial planner's fee would be the answer to their worry......

 

[sengsational]

Should there be a change in allocation when one switches from allocation to withdrawal? Absolutely. I imagine many folks do.

What I was getting at was that the typical suggested asset allocation tables that I've seen just use age as the input and out comes a suggested asset allocation. I haven't seen one that has a different suggestion for "55 and in accumulation phase" from "55 and in spending phase". And when I check the allocation between 60 and 65 (typical retirement), it's just a smooth alteration, no bigger jump between those two ages than between other pairs of adjacent ages.

So maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, but it seems as if the "general wisdom" represented in the tables doesn't support a big adjustment when switching out of accumulation phase.

 

[audreyh1]

What I was getting at was that the typical suggested asset allocation tables that I've seen just use age as the input and out comes a suggested asset allocation. I haven't seen one that has a different suggestion for "55 and in accumulation phase" from "55 and in spending phase". And when I check the allocation between 60 and 65 (typical retirement), it's just a smooth alteration, no bigger jump between those two ages than between other pairs of adjacent ages.

So maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, but it seems as if the "general wisdom" represented in the tables doesn't support a big adjustment when switching out of accumulation phase.

Yes, the age in bonds not paying attention to whether someone us retired or not never made sense to me. I was 100% equities before I retired very early, and I started the transition to 60/40 about a year before I retired. If I had retired later, I might have started reducing equity exposure, but not by that much. My risk tolerance while working was quite high because I was saving and investing so much.

 

[hnzw_rui]

Yes, the age in bonds not paying attention to whether someone us retired or not never made sense to me. I was 100% equities before I retired very early, and I started the transition to 60/40 about a year before I retired. If I had retired later, I might have started reducing equity exposure, but not by that much. My risk tolerance while working was quite high because I was saving and investing so much.

On this note, I'm quite curious what people with pensions do.

If COLA pension covers 100% of essential living, would you go 100% equities on other funds (e.g. 401k, IRA)?

 

[audreyh1]

On this note, I'm quite curious what people with pensions do.

If COLA pension covers 100% of essential living, would you go 100% equities on other funds (e.g. 401k, IRA)?

There are tons of discussions on this very point. Some people do, others choose not to invest aggressively. It comes down to personal preference. Neither answer is wrong.

Just like folks with very large nest eggs. Some choose to put it all in muni bonds and live off the interest. They've already won the game, so why risk any of it. Others invest very aggressively because they can "afford" to take occasional large losses without impacting their lifestyle. I think it comes down to personality.

 

[Mulligan]

On this note, I'm quite curious what people with pensions do.

If COLA pension covers 100% of essential living, would you go 100% equities on other funds (e.g. 401k, IRA)?

My COLA pension covers about 140% of my monthly budget, so I continue to invest. Assuming you have a sound pension, you have plenty of latitude. I had about 25% of my money in common stocks before the market shrinkage and me taking a few dollars out like a chicken. The rest is in more conservative less volatile preferred stocks.
I truly should be more aggressive, due to the fact I don't need the money and just turned 51. But I get too bothered (hot under the collar not worried) by market losses on money I don't even need, so its best not to fight that and just continue what I am doing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NW-Bound]

If one has invested in the market for some time, there would be no real loss, but just cut back from the gain. And that's 99% of us here.

But darn, if I still have all that gain, then I would be able to "rebalance" some of that into a new composite deck. At 1,200 sq.ft., and if I also want new composite railings, it's gonna cost some money.

Now, the cost of the new deck is a lot less than what the market god took back, but my WR is already high as is. An extra percent of WR here and there, and soon you are talking [-]real money[/-] a big bite out of your stash, in addition to what the market god reclaims.

 

[audreyh1]

My COLA pension covers about 140% of my monthly budget, so I continue to invest. Assuming you have a sound pension, you have plenty of latitude. I had about 25% of my money in common stocks before the market shrinkage and me taking a few dollars out like a chicken. The rest is in more conservative less volatile preferred stocks.
I truly should be more aggressive, due to the fact I don't need the money and just turned 51. But I get too bothered (hot under the collar not worried) by market losses on money I don't even need, so its best not to fight that and just continue what I am doing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Mulligan, just like in 2008, people found they had personal thresholds above which they couldn't handle the volatility, i.e. sleep at night. Ultimately an investor has to adopt a style that is compatible with his/her psychology. It doesn't matter if a given approach is considered "optimal" or has better long-term returns - if it goes against one's psychology, it ain't gonna work.

 

[Senator]

Or pick an asset allocation that allows them not to worry as much.

How would a financial planner insulate someone from the market?

A FA would be there to comfort them, and tell them to stay the course. Or the annuity idea.

Despite the information out there about AA and what to invest in (low cost index funds), there are still many people that try their own blend. Or stock picking methodology. Others bail from the job market with a less than stellar chance of success in a perfect economic environment.

For people that have enough cushion, weathering the storm should not be difficult.

 

[Corporateburnout]

A FA would be there to comfort them, and tell them to stay the course. Or the annuity idea.

My comfort is an asset allocation that allows me not to panic even if the stock market loses 95% of its value.

I would not be too comfortable paying a financial planner 1% in fees to tell me to stay the course or buy me an annuity.

My recommendation for people who were extremely nervous with the recent market drop is not be too exposed to the stock market because as we all know stocks go up but they also go down sharply at times.

 

[Senator]

My recommendation for people who were extremely nervous with the recent market drop is not be too exposed to the stock market because as we all know stocks go up but they also go down sharply at times.

Of course, if they do that, they will likely not have enough to retire early...

 

[samclem]

My recommendation for people who were extremely nervous with the recent market drop is not be too exposed to the stock market because as we all know stocks go up but they also go down sharply at times.

Before I'd recommend that a person change their allocation (reducing stocks), I'd recommend that they be sure they are making an informed decision. That they read up on the impact of various asset allocations (e.g. historically a 50-50 allocation has almost the same volatility as a 100% bond portfolio, and significantly higher return), the value of rebalancing, the fact that volatiltiy is not the same as risk (e.g.that inflation is likely a bigger "risk" than portfolio ups and down over the long term) and especially on the history of stock prices and the impact of dividend payments. I can only believe that many people see a drop in the S&P 500 and think that their money is gone forever, so they can't sleep. Before giving up the significant advantages of stocks by reducing the equity allocations to very low levels based on their emotions, I think first they should be sure they understand the situation.

 

[Mulligan]

Mulligan, just like in 2008, people found they had personal thresholds above which they couldn't handle the volatility, i.e. sleep at night. Ultimately an investor has to adopt a style that is compatible with his/her psychology. It doesn't matter if a given approach is considered "optimal" or has better long-term returns - if it goes against one's psychology, it ain't gonna work.

Audrey it gets worse. I have another illogical emotional human trait. This one is tax breaks. I really wanted to sell just about all of my index fund and start over with monthly contributions. But I forgot I would lose my tax break for going over my AGI. All I could sell was just 10k, so that is what I sold. So I guess I would rather risk losing possibility 10-20k in market just to make sure I get my 2k tax credit. Yep, doesn't make sense. But on the good side it forces me to keep money in the market. I am pretty much trapped for years to come as all my dividends are eating up my free space under AGI.
Its funny how I never thought about those things while the market was going up the past several years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[W2R]

Before I'd recommend that a person change their allocation (reducing stocks), I'd recommend that they be sure they are making an informed decision. That they read up on the impact of various asset allocations (e.g. historically a 50-50 allocation has almost the same volatility as a 100% bond portfolio, and significantly higher return), the value of rebalancing, the fact that volatiltiy is not the same as risk (e.g.that inflation is likely a bigger "risk" than portfolio ups and down over the long term) and especially on the history of stock prices and the impact of dividend payments.

Reading up on things is a great idea and something we all should do. But also the 2008-2009 market crash couldn't have come at a better time for me. I had moved my portfolio from its prior 100:0 (equities:fixed) accumulation phase AA, into a 45:55 asset allocation just a very few years before my 2009 retirement, based purely on theory and books I had read.

The crash provided some real world testing of that AA and my personal ability to handle a serious crash without selling low, at that AA. Now I know from experience that it is right for me and provides me with sufficient income for my needs plus inflation.

I'm not saying that we should hope for a crash. Still, those who think we might be in for one soon, can always use the crash as an AA tester if they are inclined to do so, (after reading and adjusting their AA accordingly as you suggest).

 

[sengsational]

Before I'd recommend that a person change their allocation (reducing stocks), I'd recommend that they be sure they are making an informed decision. That they read up on the impact of various asset allocations (e.g. historically a 50-50 allocation has almost the same volatility as a 100% bond portfolio, and significantly higher return), the value of rebalancing, the fact that volatiltiy is not the same as risk (e.g.that inflation is likely a bigger "risk" than portfolio ups and down over the long term) and especially on the history of stock prices and the impact of dividend payments. I can only believe that many people see a drop in the S&P 500 and think that their money is gone forever, so they can't sleep. Before giving up the significant advantages of stocks by reducing the equity allocations to very low levels based on their emotions, I think first they should be sure they understand the situation.

While I agree with the general idea of the efficient frontier (risk/return/equities/bonds), I'm having a bit of trouble with that values in that particular chart. S&P with dividends from January 1977 to December of 2011 comes out to 10.6%, not 12.6% (6.4% w/ inflation). That is, if you believe S&P 500 Return Calculator - Don't Quit Your Day Job... That got me wondering about that chart's claimed bond returns over the period, but I don't have a quickie way to check that.

Thinking about long term returns made me go back and re-check a back of the envelope calculation I made the other day. My own return from the 2000 peak of the S&P 500 to 'now' came out with an IRR of only about 2%, after inflation. That was during my accumulation phase. During that phase I wasn't doing a formal asset allocation, but at least I was just doing buy and hold, mostly equities and certainly not trying to time the market and not ending up with the typical selling low and buying high. That previous calculation returned some incredibly high IRR value that, after I thought about it, knew couldn't be right. Not sure what I did wrong the first time. But with this calculation returning an IRR of around 2%, I'm back to thinking TIPS might not be a bad idea, especially since I'm out of the accumulation phase. This is the approach Laurence Kotlikoff (the author of ESPlanner) recommends. I'd dismissed it, but that might have been premature, especially with the Shiller PE at 25.

 

[NW-Bound]

The above discrepancy aside, the period of 1977-2011 includes the boom years of 1982-2000 when the S&P grew near 19%/yr in nominal terms. Much of that growth was due to P/E expansion. Bond yield was also good, as inflation was dropping.

Now, P/E is high and cannot grow more. Interest rate is already low. While it may be prudent to stay diversified, the Efficient Curve would look quite a bit different. Not sure how it would look, but certainly more squished in the vertical axis. Would anyone expect a return of 10.5% for a 50/50 portfolio in the future years?

 

[samclem]

Now, P/E is high and cannot grow more. Interest rate is already low. While it may be prudent to stay diversified, the Efficient Curve would look quite a bit different. Not sure how it would look, but certainly more squished in the vertical axis. Would anyone expect a return of 10.5% for a 50/50 portfolio in the future years?

Below are some curves for six different decades, and the entire period of 1950-2009 (the black line). We can see that they vary a lot--and for the 2000-2009 period it was even "flipped", with 100% bonds yielding more than stocks. Yet in all cases, the 70-100% Stocks portion of the line is relatively "flat," indicating relatively low improvements (or changes) in return for a given increase in volatility.

Now, I hate to get too focused on volatility because I just don't think it's a useful measure of risk for most retirees. But since people do apparently get spooked by it, it's worth talking about.

For those who want to engage in some simple, occasional asset allocation shifting in response to valuations, I think there's some data that would support that (as we've recently touched on.) We can't know for sure what will happen, but having some clue as to which curve might more closely match the coming decade would be handy. I wouldn't go "all in" either way based on that indication, but switching from 40% stocks to 70% stocks based on valuations it might be appealing.

 

[NW-Bound]

... For those who want to engage in some simple, occasional asset allocation shifting in response to valuations, I think there's some data that would support that (as we've recently touched on.) We can't know for sure what will happen, but having some clue as to which curve might more closely match the coming decade would be handy. I wouldn't go "all in" either way based on that indication, but switching from 40% stocks to 70% stocks based on valuations it might be appealing.

I missed that thread, but "Tactical AA" has been my modus operandi long ago. I do not care if they call me a DMT. Heh heh heh...

But the outcome still depends a lot on execution. Even buy-hold-rebalancers have varying outcomes depending on their particular execution. Theory is one thing, but in practice there's still luck involved.

 

[sengsational]

We can see that they vary a lot--and for the 2000-2009 period it was even "flipped", with 100% bonds yielding more than stocks. Yet in all cases, the 70-100% Stocks portion of the line is relatively "flat," indicating relatively low improvements (or changes) in return for a given increase in volatility.

Wow, The flipped decade, the flat decade...makes me wonder what the curve looks like 2000 through today.

Given the introduction of program trading and more access to world markets, or the timing of other developments, I wonder if there's a reason why these curves change as they have done.