Going to 100% cash

[Purron]

Summer's almost over -- get ready Brett Arends' ROI - MarketWatch

Quote from article:
Hold plenty of cash. And be ready to, um, "embrace volatility."

 

[dex]

But didn't you notice that my actions are exactly the opposite of yours? That I'm hanging in there with my planned asset allocation and riding out the rollercoasters, rebalancing as needed.
Audrey

Are they really? All I am doing is re balancing in a slower time frame than you.

You probably pick a time in the year to analyze at your portfolio. If it is out of your balance you sell one asset and buy another; maybe in the same day. But the transaction is the same as mine - e.g. sell stock fund (to cash) buy bond fund (with that cash).
I'm doing the same thing but over a longer period of time - selling everything this week to buy later.

 

[FIYes]

I certainly have no idea which way the market is headed in the next couple of years---however since I don't plan to access the funds I have in the market for another 10 years, I plan to stay with what I have. If I needed to access these funds in the near future then I might have a different reaction.

 

[ziggy29]

Are they really? All I am doing is re balancing in a slower time frame than you.

Is it really "rebalancing" to go 100% cash very quickly?

To me it sounds more like a combination of market timing eventually followed by dollar cost averaging back into the market over a prolonged period of time.

Now "market timing" has a dirty word -- but I've adjusted my AA on the fly over the last 3 years; something I never used to do but I'm not comfortable in this market with this volatility to "set and forget" the 60-70% equity AA I used to have. So I guess that's a bit of market timing too (though I try to base mine mostly on valuations then on emotion).

Having said that, I had one of those "100% cash moments" on Halloween 2007 with the Dow at 14,000, so I'm not immune to these nagging feelings either. In hindsight that would have looked like a brilliant move had I done it, my retirement would be looking a lot better today (assuming I knew when to get back in) and maybe I could have gotten rich with a newsletter even if I couldn't ever repeat that [-]luck[/-] prescient call. I will say that I am more willing to adjust my AA out of equities a bit if I feel that way again (I have a little for the last few months but not extremely), but I think my core comfort level is 40-60% in stocks these days based on economic conditions and current valuations.

 

[haha]

I beleive that this thread shows that as a group we have matured since the unpleasantness of several years ago. Around fall 2007 there were some bearish posts, which were mostly greeted with hoots and derision.

Now most of us seem to realize that "who knows?" Anything could happen, including another crash. But it doesn't have to happen, and there there are costs to preparing for a crash that does not come-so it's kind of "do whatever you want, George".

Ha

 

[FUEGO]

But in all seriousness, with (very early) retirement 7 years away for me, and the doomsayers predicting 8-10 years of depressed prices followed by a major boom, I'm (selfishly) having a hard time getting too depressed about that happening. Of course, I'll take 20% a year for the next 7 years too.

I'm roughly on the same time line as you - 5-7 years to FIRE. I would prefer flat to down markets these next seven years assuming DW and I can keep a job to keep funding our investments.

A seven year period averaging 20% a year would definitely have me well above my FIRE target, but I would be worried that it was too much too fast.

 

[bbbamI]

I think folks should do anything they want investment wise as it is their money.

As for me, I'm not the analytical type; I don't have the brains or patience for it. I approach investing the way I fish; I make sure I have several types of bait, if one doesn't work well, I'll depend on another.

 

[fritz]

Dex, over your investing history have you frequently made big moves such as this one, or is going to 100% cash something entirely new and different for you?
............

Dex,

Haven't been around here too long, so don't know your investing style (that you may have posted here before). I've included REWahoo's original investing question to ask you if you would elaborate on it.

Like others commented, I evaluated getting out of a heavier position in stocks in October 2007. I came to the conclusion that I was comfortable with my 65/35 allocation. Would also be facing significant taxable gains. As they say "hindsight is 20/20", and although I have not recovered 100% of 2007 highs - I'm still feeling that no one called the 2007 top, and/or the 2009 bottom.

I currently hold 50/50 allocation. I've moved out of most of my select stock funds and the higher 65/35 allocation over the last 12 months (b/4 May of this year thankfully). But this was primarily due to preparation for early retirement this year. I don't know anyone doing market timing, and always understood (from what I've read) that it's difficult at best and not for the timid.

Have you moved 100% out of the market like this in the past?
Did you get out at the high in October 2007?
Did you get back in at the low in March 2009?

 

[heyduke]

well i have 5-7 months before being FIRE'd and I am in 90/10 - always have been high in equities and if I hadn't been i am sure i wouldn't be retiring at 55...
i am quite diversified in equities and do buy a lot of div produces and individual volatile issues...and i really love buying in this type of "sky is falling" environment...

now I just hope they are all wrong

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

I transferred some money from a TIPS fund to my Total Stock Market fund this morning. Funny how one's reactions to the same information can lead to opposite responses. I'm pretty much a Boglehead in philosophy but wanted to grab a little stock on sale just cause.

I have about 13 years of expenses in non-equity holdings (probably a bit more than 13 year including a small pension due at age 65). May be naive, but I figure there shouldn't be too many events that I'd have to wait out much longer than that.

For me, that 13 years lets me sleep well. Who knows?

 

[ziggy29]

I have about 13 years of expenses in non-equity holdings (probably a bit more than 13 year including a small pension due at age 65). May be naive, but I figure there shouldn't be too many events that I'd have to wait out much longer than that.

For me, that 13 years lets me sleep well. Who knows?

I suspect Ray Lucia would approve.

 

[dex]

I
Now "market timing" has a dirty word -- but I've adjusted my AA on the fly over the last 3 years; something I never used to do but I'm not comfortable in this market with this volatility to "set and forget" the 60-70% equity AA I used to have. So I guess that's a bit of market timing too (though I try to base mine mostly on valuations then on emotion).

Market timing might be a bad word to some but those who 're-balance' their portfolio to stay at an established asset allocation are market timing. The market timing mechanism is the AA. The underlying concept of balancing to an AA is market timing.

A person who uses moving averages as a market timing mechanism says 'my moving average rules tells me to re-balance my portfolio' (e.g. sell stocks)

A person who uses asset allocations as a market timing mechanism says 'my asset allocations rules tell me to re-balance my portfolio' (e.g. sell stocks)

 

[dex]

Dex, over your investing history have you frequently made big moves such as this one, or is going to 100% cash something entirely new and different for you?

Yes, in the late 90s - I don't remember the years - I didn't understand what was going on in the market so I got out. I also don't remember exactly when I got back in, I didn't keep those records. But I know I was conservatively invested.

I'm asking because of the subject matter of two recent threads you've started:
http://www.early-retirement.org/for...ith-posts-news-radio-etc-the-cause-51058.html
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f38/my-blue-period-lack-of-sunlight-51409.html

Any possibility your emotions rather than analysis are influencing your decision-making?

I'm not attempting to be snarky with these questions, simply asking if you've considered this in your reasoning....

This secular bear market view has been with me since the 2000 top at least.

 

[ziggy29]

This secular bear market view has been with me since the 2000 top at least.

Yes, I concur with that one. The thing is, during the secular bear there generally are shorter bull and bear markets within them (the bear markets being more prevalent and/or steeper).

 

[dex]

Have you moved 100% out of the market like this in the past? See post above.

Did you get out at the high in October 2007? No - I'm guessing my asset allocation was 25% stocks 75% bonds/cash - very rough estimate.


Did you get back in at the low in March 2009? I put more money into High Yield Corp Bonds somewhere back then.

...

 

[harley]

It might be easier to understand, if I were to say I'm going to 100% cash and then re-balance after that.

I'm of a similar mind. I'm largely (~60%) in cash right now, and plan to go moreso. I probably wouldn't be so much in cash, but I missed the opportunity to buy in during the 2008 crash. We sold a couple of houses during that time, but the Dow was back up to the mid to high 9000s before I finished. I thought that was too much of a run up to be buying into. So I've been hanging around waiting for the inevitable (in my mind) double dip.

Could someone explain to me why you wouldn't stick it all in either bonds or CD's in the short-term? I've never quite understood why you concede even the low interest you would get there versus nothing with cash.

By having my cash scattered around in a few banks to keep the FDIC coverage, I'm averaging about 1.2% in savings accounts. I'm only getting about 1.5% in CDs. So I don't see that it's worth the lack of liquidity to tie it up in CDs.And I agree with Brewer and others that bond funds are a relatively risky place to be right now.

Aha, I assumed you were in cash for the long haul, not just market timing. I would lose even more sleep with that approach. When do you get back in? Lets say the market steadily improves instead of double dipping - in December we are at 11,000, 12,000 next summer. Do you figure things have turned around and jump back in (the typical sell low, buy high scenario of panic sellers) or do you keep waiting for 6,000 again?

Yeah, that's what I've been dealing with a lot recently. I just keep telling myself that the more I'm tempted to panic into the market, the more likely it is that it is at a peak. Patience, grasshopper.

To me it sounds more like a combination of market timing eventually followed by dollar cost averaging back into the market over a prolonged period of time.

Yep, that's pretty much it for me. Along with selling the houses, I was working on freeing myself up from my FA and the investments he had me in (high cost, front end fees). I withdrew money from the accounts I had with him to buy the new houses, and didn't give it back to him when I sold the old ones. I put it in VG for a while, but when I realized the modified DCA opportunities wouldn't be coming right away, I moved much of it to higher interest paying institutions. I like the DCA concept, just can't bring myself to start at what I consider a high priced market. And yes, I understand the lack of logic in that.

I'm still moving even more to cash, bit by bit. The FA still has some of the money, including some in an IRA. What I'm doing there is pulling it out of the investments he has it in, and convert it to cash in the Roths in VG. I'm doing this now because I'm in a very low tax bracket for now, and can convert money deferred at 25-28% at a 10-15% bracket. I'm tempted to go all the way to the top of the 25% bracket though, to get it done faster. But I haven't decided that one yet.

Overall, I agree with Dex. I don't see a lot of upside potential for now, and do see a lot of downside potential. I'm tending to go with my gut, though, more than analysis. I just think we're in for some fairly dark days in the near term. The hard part, as always, is when to get back in. For me, I plan to start DCAing when the S&P is below 950. I'm sure it will be someday.

Edit: My plan is that once I'm DCAing into the market, I'll go with my planned AA, then stay in that and rebalance for the foreseeable future. I want to be a good AA investor, I just can't see pulling the trigger into what I'm expecting to be a high in the market.

 

[audreyh1]

Are they really? All I am doing is re balancing in a slower time frame than you.

You probably pick a time in the year to analyze at your portfolio. If it is out of your balance you sell one asset and buy another; maybe in the same day. But the transaction is the same as mine - e.g. sell stock fund (to cash) buy bond fund (with that cash).
I'm doing the same thing but over a longer period of time - selling everything this week to buy later.

I don't think so. Selling assets and parking it in a different allocation to wait until conditions are conducive to reinvest in the asset is not rebalancing. It is market timing in it's purest form - changing asset allocation in anticipation of market conditions.

You are changing your target allocation based on expected market conditions. You are going to all cash.

I only rebalance if my asset allocation deviates from target by a certain %. It is always same day. This is also completely reactionary - not anticipatory. This also means NEVER completely getting out of an asset class - but rather making small trims or additions to return to target.

Totally different.

Audrey

 

[audreyh1]

Market timing might be a bad word to some but those who 're-balance' their portfolio to stay at an established asset allocation are market timing.

No they are not. Rebalancing your portfolio is not market timing if you are doing it based on regular intervals of %deviation rules.

Market timing means you change your allocation because you think the market (or a certain asset class) is about experience a major change in value in the near future.

Rebalancing is purely reactive. It makes no assumptions about the future. It is returning the portfolio back the the original AFTER the market has does something - some asset classes appreciated and others depreciated.

Asset allocation assumes that each asset class is volatile, that they are not perfectly correlated, and that therefore, over long periods of time, there is some advantage (mainly reduced volatility for the total portfolio) to occasionally rebalancing between asset classes. This is no more timing than "buy and hold" which assumes that over very long periods of time, some asset classes will outperform others.

Audrey

 

[clifp]

That's not a different take - it is a different analysis - stocks Vs bonds.

The focus of the NTY article was about taking $ out of stock mutual funds.



The right thing is determined by the investors assessment of the market - it can be different.

What am I risking if I am wrong - the opportunity cost if the market goes up?

People question why get out of the market. My guess is they want to know what that person sees that they may not.

Why are there no questions on why people are staying in the market? What do the people staying in the market see that those getting out do not?

A couple of personal questions Dex. How old are you and do you have sufficient funds to retire while earning 1-2% in CDs?


The reasons I am still in the market is at age 50 there is a certainly a decent shot that I still have another 40 years maybe even longer. If I divide my assets and factor in a 2% income, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of steadily depleting my capital to fund my lifestyle.

While it is certainly doable if there is no inflation, I do expect inflation to return sometime in the next 10 to 20 years. (Now a year ago I expected it to return in 1-3 years so obviously things have changed.) In the event of inflation I don't have enough assets if I am stuck in low yielding investment like cash.

I am seeing the market look pretty cheap, not on absolute basis, but on a relative basis compared to other asset classes in particular bonds, and 0% cash.

 

[FIREd]

I am with Dex on that one, though I won't probably go all cash myself because I am just an armchair economist who knows nothing (which doesn't prevent me from having an opinion). I don't want to go to extremes one way or the other. I have started to unwind my more speculative positions while I will probably hang on to my dividend payers.

Personally, I find this economy too unsettling. Governments around the world have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at this economy and yet it has barely moved the needle. And what's in the pipeline? Tax increases, more spending cuts by local and national governments, higher health care costs, etc... I can't see any of it adding up to sustainably higher economic growth any time soon personally.

I think that deleveraging in the public and private sectors will go on for years before we can find some solid footing. People brighter than me think that, in the next decade, stocks will return about 5% per year and bonds 4% per year. So when I see a zero-risk CD that pays 4-5%, I find it hard to pass up.

 

[haha]

I am seeing the market look pretty cheap, not on absolute basis, but on a relative basis compared to other asset classes in particular bonds, and 0% cash.

I think relative value is something conjured up by brokers and mutual fund people. Unless you stay very short, which is clearly impossible with stocks, relative values can go down very fast, as we have quite recently learned but perhaps not learned well.

Worry about living on 2% for 15-20 years might be realistic, as no one can predict the future, but it would be unprecedented in market history. People are way too impatient, and way too easily manipulated. Wouldn't you rather get 2-3% in a 3 year CD ladder for even five years than get 3-4% in good stocks only to lose 40-50% in a downdraft somewhere along the way?

When it all sucks, I prefer that new committments be made in the shortest, highest quality instruments that I can find. Right now, that is mostly CDs in my view.

I also have some fairly recent committments to oil and gas, though the ones I bought are not high yielding shares. Sometime we are going to be amazed at the snapback in oil prices. Who knows, some day they may even stop giving away gas.

But this can be volatile stuff, and it can get painful when these shares hit the skids.

Ha

 

[DoingHomework]

I approach investing the way I fish; I make sure I have several types of bait, if one doesn't work well, I'll depend on another.

Hmm. When I fish I do the same thing. But it always seems as though whenever I switch to a new bait everyone else starts catching fish on the one I switched away from. So years ago I just decided to pick a bait and stick with it regardless of what everyone else is using.

 

[rescueme]

It is market timing in it's purest form - changing asset allocation in anticipation of market conditions.

You are changing your target allocation based on expected market conditions. You are going to all cash.

Agreed. Of course, it's only my opinion ...

BTW, as far as the folks talking about hoping the market stays/goes down so they can buy more (since they are in their accumulation phase), don't forget the flip side. One day you will be retired and on the receiving end of downturns. It's a seesaw for those on either side of retirement.

Of course the advantage I have over those in the accumulation phase is that I hit my "number", which allowed me to retire earlier than planned. Not ER (according to some on this board), but good enough ..

I (and a lot of other retirees) have an additional advantage that at my age, my investments do not have to last as long as the younger folks. If I went total cash (and I would never do that), it would be enough for the rest of my days. That may not be the case for someone in the accumulation phase. Compared to me (and only me) going 100% cash is more risky for the longer term, IMHO. However, I've never try to time the market. I've found out over the years (since 1982) that I could never be successful in it, so I've just modified my AA over the years to reflect where me/DW were in life and took our lumps (along with our gains) over the years. It was much easier then; I didn't live on my portfolio, as I do today. Of course today I have the advantage about worrying about getting/keeping my job (been there, done that in the 70's & 80's - so I understand that challange).

Believe it or not, that is a real advantage from a financial standpoint when you look at what you need financially for the next 10-30 years vs. those that are much younger and need to plan for a much longer lifetime, and what they need to do to accumulate their "number", let alone plan for their expected length of retirement. Sometimes, it's good to be old .

And no "Chapter 2" for me (I'm retired )...

 

[ziggy29]

BTW, as far as the folks talking about hoping the market stays/goes down so they can buy more (since they are in their accumulation phase), don't forget the flip side. One day you will be retired and on the receiving end of downturns. It's a seesaw for those on either side of retirement.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, younger folks wishing for a prolonged weak period in equities are indirectly also wishing for a decrease in job security. Doesn't matter if the Dow drops to 5000 if you don't have a paycheck to buy cheap stocks with...

 

[ESRwannabe]

I started selling my remaining mutual funds and will probably be in 100% cash by Thurs. or Fri.

Bottom line - the downside risk out weights the upside potential.

I'll post more after I'm finished selling.

I started moving out of stocks back when I posted the thread on high yield bond funds...

I don't believe that we will have a depression. I believe that we will have stagflation. It will be a long jobless recovery similar to Japan. I think the only growth will come from emerging markets. I think imports will cost more, but there will be no wage inflation, in general, for the US. Some skilled labor jobs may have wage inflation when too many Boomers retire (i.e. STEM fields).

I have a year's worth of living expenses in cash and the rest is as follows.

taxable
-------
vanguard high yield tax exempt = 45.63%
fidelity new markets income = 7.20%
matthew's asia dividend = 7.22%
fpa crescent = 1.44%

roth ira
-------
vanguard high yield corporate = 21.14%

401k
-----
vanguard total bond index = 17.36%


My investments are not determined by some arbitrary percentage allocation goals. What I am doing is deciding how much money I want to risk in certain areas. So, the percentages above are not planned, just a representation of where I have money right now. I will be putting more money into different things as time goes on.