Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Long Term Real Returns Favor Stocks
Old 09-10-2014, 05:31 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 349
Long Term Real Returns Favor Stocks

Quote:
Jeremy Siegel, author of “Stocks for the Long Run“, had an article in the latest issue of the “AAII Journal” (American Association of Individual Investors) entitled “Real Returns Favor Holding Stocks.” The full article is a benefit available for members only, but perhaps the best part of the article was a chart showing the risk/return trade-offs (efficient frontiers) for stocks and bonds over various holding periods (1980-2012):
Marotta highlights important points from two of the graphs from in the article.

http://www.marottaonmoney.com/real-r...olding-stocks/

__________________

__________________
aim-high 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 09-10-2014, 06:30 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,330
Long term real returns may favor stocks but imagine retiring in 1929 with 100% equities. How comfortable would you feel in 1932 when almost 90% of your assets have disappeared. Go back just to 2008 and we had a 50% drop. Yes, the market recovered but it took several years while deminished assets were being spent to live on. The purpose of fixed income is to let you sleep at night and not let a severe market downturn destroy your retirement plan.

I just got my Vanguard financial plan that is my last validation step before pulling the plug. I'm currently 40% in equities and their recommendation is to increase this to 60%. Doing this would increase my calculated spending by about 10-15% (on paper anyway) but at 40% equities I can spend (again on paper) more than my current taxable income is now. I'm not spending all of that now. Despite the current poor fixed income interest rates I have created a stronger safety net in the event of another 1929.
__________________

__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 06:59 AM   #3
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
The larger portfolio you have easier it is to be 100% stocks. IMO at cutoff 3 million you can be 100% stocks and sleep without big worries.

Such portfolio should generate 60k-70k of dividend yield which if qualified is taxed at 0% by Uncle Sam. Lot of research indicates that happiness does not grow after income of 75k (As far as income goes).

If you can live on 60k-70k you can care less where market goes next year. That includes 2008-2009 scenario.

But even in above case having 2-3 years of cash is advisable thing to do.


It is hard to be 100% with lets say 700k portfolio since one has to be selling positions.......
__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 07:10 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2B View Post
Go back just to 2008 and we had a 50% drop. Yes, the market recovered but it took several years while deminished assets were being spent to live on.
However, a 50% loss would only occur if one sold the entire portfolio at the very bottom in 2008. The funds extracted to "live on" would, of course, lose 50% or less -- on a sliding scale -- over that 2-year period. Therefore, a million dollar portfolio (as example) with a 4% withdrawal rate would have lost perhaps $40k... a long way from your implied $500,000.

So the question is: Which would recover the $40,000 faster, stocks or bonds?
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 07:13 AM   #5
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
However, a 50% loss would only occur if one sold the entire portfolio at the very bottom in 2008. The funds extracted to "live on" would, of course, lose 50% or less -- on a sliding scale -- over that 2-year period. Therefore, a million dollar portfolio (as example) with a 4% withdrawal rate would have lost perhaps $40k... a long way from your implied $500,000.

So the question is: Which would recover the $40,000 faster, stocks or bonds?
Add to that, that the article isn't advocating for 100% stocks. What would a 68% allocation rebalanced annually have done form 1928 with a 4% WR done?
__________________
aim-high is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 07:35 AM   #6
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 728
The real question is how well you sleep and night and how can you almost guarantee enough income without worrying without the purchase of an annuity. For that reason, and my net worth is substantial, I have over half of my money in muni bonds, laddered, and far less than half of my money in stocks. I sleep good since I can live off of SS, muni bond interest and dividends. Dividend stocks will increase dividends most years, SS will go up with inflation and the only question is how much I leave the next generation.....and, there will be money left. So, my opinion is that if you have over 3 million, you can choose to invest conservitely....yes, the financial planners will tell me I'm leaving money on the table.....my answer is "so what" ......all it means is less inheritance for others.
__________________
jerome len is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 04:27 PM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 2,204
Nice chart! The conclusion however isn't necessarily that you should go stocks in the long run. We don't get to play averages, we just play once.

And of course, statistics means you can still drown in a pool with average depth of 5 cm.

Not that I don't plan for stocks in the long run, I do. I'd also sign immediately if someone could garantuee me >5% real returns as the chart is implying for 100% stock.

Somehow doubt anyone credible will offer me that deal
__________________
Totoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 04:34 PM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,695
Good idea to have a balance of stocks & bonds I like the quote that the market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent and.... in the long run we're dead.
__________________
T.S. Eliot:
Old men ought to be explorers
yakers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 06:45 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Car-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Citizen of Texas
Posts: 2,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerome len View Post
my net worth is substantial, So, my opinion is that if you have over 3 million, you can choose to invest conservitely....yes, the financial planners will tell me I'm leaving money on the table.....my answer is "so what" ......all it means is less inheritance for others.

Trust me, you are not the only one on this board that feels that way!
__________________

__________________
Car-Guy is online now   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
Long Term Care, Real Cost , Real Inflation Lakewood90712 FIRE and Money 58 03-12-2014 02:59 PM
Long term loss combined with long term gain dmpi FIRE and Money 9 12-21-2012 04:27 PM
More Gloom and Doom? Long-term real returns of 2.1% samclem FIRE and Money 57 11-03-2010 10:47 AM
Fertilizer stocks out of favor CitricAcid Stock Picking and Market Strategy 6 07-25-2008 09:51 PM
Long-term returns from real estate wabmester FIRE and Money 56 11-20-2006 02:38 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:37 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.