Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
60/40 Portfolio is dead, Long live stocks!
Old 11-09-2015, 07:15 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 244
60/40 Portfolio is dead, Long live stocks!

Here's a link to this interesting article in today's USA Today in which the author Jeff Reeves argues that while 60/40 portfolio was Ok a generation ago, people are now living longer and so investors must adapt.

The 60/40 stock-and-bond portfolio mix is dead in 2016

Cheers
__________________

__________________
Rickt is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-09-2015, 07:25 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,115
Here's what the article recommends.

No way I could handle the volatility/risk of equity allocations that high, at least until I make it to my 70's. (Note the graphic implies no one makes it beyond that age...)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg USA Today.JPG (61.2 KB, 67 views)
__________________

__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 07:46 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Here's what the article recommends.

No way I could handle the volatility/risk of equity allocations that high, at least until I make it to my 70's. (Note the graphic implies no one makes it beyond that age...)
The stress of portfolio volatility weeds out 99% of the retirees prior to them reaching 70?
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 07:48 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
The stress of portfolio volatility weeds out 99% of the retirees prior to them reaching 70?
Looks like you nailed it.
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 07:54 AM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
easysurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,890
I wonder what is the article author's personal allocation? Probably 60/40 .
__________________
Have you ever seen a headstone with these words
"If only I had spent more time at work" ... from "Busy Man" sung by Billy Ray Cyrus
easysurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 07:56 AM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Dawg52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Central MS/Orange Beach, AL
Posts: 7,438
Yeah.... a 69 year old reads this and converts to an 80% equity portfolio and then watches the market correct by 20% or so. I wonder how they handle that scenario?
__________________
Retired 3/31/2007@52
Full time wuss.......
Dawg52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 08:03 AM   #7
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 489
I took the infographic as showing the author's recommended divergence from the standard plan (i.e., 60/40 all the way), not that plans end at 70. Or that from 70+, his recommended AA remains the same.
__________________
someguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 08:07 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
I have a liability matching portfolio made up of a pension, rent and a 30% TIAA-Traditional allocation. I've been moving out of bond funds since I retired. I'm 54 and have 70% in stocks and plan to let that percentage drift up as I get older by simply reinvesting dividends.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 08:13 AM   #9
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 191
Well, that pretty much confirms it. My wife and I are in trouble.
__________________
statsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 08:14 AM   #10
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 244
Sounds like the article is more like an infomercial for FA firms including retirement services firm "Rebalance IRA" in Bethesda, MD.

I noticed that in the last paragraph of the article, author quotes Scott Puritz, managing director of that firm who says "There is no sense in creating the optimal asset allocation that works at an intellectual level if when the markets drop, the investor can't sleep at night" Puritz says, "Particularly, as people get older, have families and mortgages and are paying down debt, their financial situations get more complex, so it's good to have a seasoned professional in the mix to strike the right balance for you personally"
__________________
Rickt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 08:38 AM   #11
Recycles dryer sheets
lem1955's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 124
Send a message via Yahoo to lem1955
I'm so glad all you others responded as you did, so I don't have to!
__________________
Retired 12/16/2015 at 60.
lem1955 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 08:48 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,186
When was 60/40 ever the status quo for all ages? I've been hearing age based allocation for as long as I can remember. Maybe 100-age or 110-age in stocks is outdated and the number should be increased.

Has life expectancy really gone up dramatically, or is it just continuing it's steady climb? People aren't suddenly "now living longer". And anyone basing your years left from 60 on base life expectancy is not one to listen to. There are plenty of statistics to show how much longer a 60 year old can expect to live.
__________________
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 08:49 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
It's a pretty meaningless article......interest rates are low and so bond funds are bad......so up your stock allocation and get ready for the roller coaster. We are living longer so out money must last longer so what are we to do? A more sensible article might have given some other options for retirement fixed income......what about buying an SPIA and deferring SS until 70?
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 09:39 AM   #14
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,375
You guys! You are missing the most important part of the article, the punchline at the very end--we cannot figure this out all by ourselves!:

Quote:
“There’s no sense in creating the optimal asset allocation that works at an intellectual level if when the markets drop, the investor can’t sleep at night,” Puritz says. “Particularly, as people get older, have families and mortgages and are paying down debt, their financial situations get more complex, so it’s good to have a seasoned professional in the mix to strike the right balance for you personally.”
I'm holding at 40/60.....
__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 09:43 AM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
I'm holding at 40/60.....
DW says the same thing, but over the last few years she's had a difficult time convincing folks she's 40 and I'm 60.
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 09:50 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
I'm at 52/48.....if you include my rental property, present value of my pension and TIAA-Traditional as fixed income. I have less than 1% in bonds.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 10:05 AM   #17
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
When was 60/40 ever the status quo for all ages? I've been hearing age based allocation for as long as I can remember. Maybe 100-age or 110-age in stocks is outdated and the number should be increased.

Exactly.

Prior to the recession I heard a lot of "120 minus age = percentage in stocks." Since then I've heard 100 replace 120, but I have NEVER heard that you should have the same allocation at all ages. Personally, I continue using roughly 120 minus age because I am risk tolerant.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
FI by 2024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 10:14 AM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
You guys! You are missing the most important part of the article, the punchline at the very end--we cannot figure this out all by ourselves!:
Quote:
“There’s no sense in creating the optimal asset allocation that works at an intellectual level if when the markets drop, the investor can’t sleep at night,” Puritz says.
Can FAs write Prozac prescriptions for their clients now to let them sleep at night?

That said, I personally like a higher stock AA. It makes life interesting.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 10:16 AM   #19
Administrator
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 38,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Here's what the article recommends.

No way I could handle the volatility/risk of equity allocations that high, at least until I make it to my 70's. (Note the graphic implies no one makes it beyond that age...)
+1

Yeah, I'm 67 and perfectly happy with 45% equities, for now. When I turn 70 and start getting RMD's, and hopefully my age 70 SS instead of just my divorced spousal 50%, I'll have more money coming in. For that reason I might need to tweak my AA at that time. Or not.

I sure hope that I live into my 80's and 90's, even, but right now I do not have a clue about that. This week I am starting to feel very old because of having had my (wildly successful) cataract surgery. Isn't that just for old people around 90? Oh well. Guess my eyes had a shelf life of 67 years.
__________________
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harbourless immensities.

- - H. Melville, 1851
W2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 11:27 AM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Lsbcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun View Post
I'm at 52/48.....if you include my rental property, present value of my pension and TIAA-Traditional as fixed income. I have less than 1% in bonds.
Explains the why bonds posts. Many of us do not have a pension.
__________________

__________________
Lsbcal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Similar Stocks The simple and easy way to find similar ETFs, stocks and funds eroscott FIRE and Money 6 05-21-2015 09:51 AM
Live long enough to live forever (book) JJac Health and Early Retirement 10 11-25-2006 08:41 PM
individual stocks vs index funds,stocks poor choice mathjak107 FIRE and Money 31 09-12-2006 01:12 AM
The PC is dead, long live the PC dory36 Other topics 17 03-23-2005 12:45 PM
How Long will you live? dex FIRE and Money 13 06-14-2004 04:02 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:17 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.