Most Humbling

[stephenandrew]

I suppose that I have always considered myself to be relatively knowledgebale about the markets and investing. I am 46 now, and since I got my first job out of college, I have been dollar cost averaging into low cost index funds for my 401-K, IRA's etc. I always "knew" that in the long run equities were the place to be, and that I would be rewarded for taking staying the course (to parapharase my friends at Vanguard). Along the way, I remember scoffing, laughing to myself as I heard my coworkers and friends speak about investing their retirement monies in CDs, short term Treasuries, and the like. I "knew" that they would ultimately find themselves in a positon of having too little capital to adeqautely fund their retirement, because of their failure to see the relationship between risk and reward. Over thee years I had accumulated a pretty substantial sum of money--obviously the recent losses have set me back considerably. Frankly, with my large exposure to equities, I am embarrassed to say how much I have lost, but suffice it to say is the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But looking back on it now, the thing that strikes me most is the contempt (best word I can think of) I had for those who failed to see the way to financial secuirty was through the long term investing in equities. Is it really the best way?---I think the answer is mostly "yes", but depending on when you pass thorugh this life, the answer may be "no". In retrospect, I should have had more respect for those who were "afraid" of the market, not because they were right (atleast it appears so now), but because it showed me I did not have enough repsect for the risks involved with investing. The fact that something is 90% certain, does not make it certain. I should have been more understanding of their concerns, perceptions of risk, and not assumed that "my" way was the best way.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

I should have been more understanding of their concerns, perceptions of risk, and not assumed that "my" way was the best way.

Hmm. Maybe.

Say they invested at 5% for 25 years, and you invested at 11% for 25 years. Say you all invested 25K per year just to keep it simple.

They end up with 1.2mm.

You end up with 2.8mm. Discount that 50% (really less if you are diversified, but let's assume all stocks) for the current recession. With 1.4mm to their 1.2mm you still win.

 

[Free To Canoe]

..Frankly, with my large exposure to equities, I am embarrassed to say how much I have lost, but suffice it to say is the hundreds of thousands of dollars....

Welcome to the multiple $100k club. Consider yourself a dues paying member, like many on the board.

IMHO the best I can figure, the "safety first" crowd (Ben Graham Warren Buffett) knows how investing works and the others (many, many of them) are less knowledgeable.
Just what exactly does safety first mean? I am still learning.

I too am humbled and frankly, nothing short of this economic collapse would have changed my mind. It is a good time to learn. While the pain is still fresh. Is that a silver lining I see?

Mr. Upbeat

 

[JOHNNIE36]

Hmm. Maybe.

Say they invested at 5% for 25 years, and you invested at 11% for 25 years. Say you all invested 25K per year just to keep it simple.

They end up with 1.2mm.

You end up with 2.8mm. Discount that 50% (really less if you are diversified, but let's assume all stocks) for the current recession. With 1.4mm to their 1.2mm you still win.

See your logic Rich, but the 11% you use is questionable. I've heard that the market has returned on average 8% since its inception. That was some years back and don't know how recent trends have affected that average. Are there any recent figures published?

 

[frayne]

Anyone who has any percentage of their portfolio in equities, and no matter how well diversified, has been humbled by the events of the past year. And like Free to Canoe said, welcome to the multiple $100K loss club, our membership continues to grow, daily.

 

[jazz4cash]

See your logic Rich, but the 11% you use is questionable. I've heard that the market has returned on average 8% since its inception.

This was my initial reaction also, but then recalled 10.6 being the long term rate for SP500 since 1926 or something, so 80/20 would give you ~8% overall.

Anyway...yes humbling and somewhat betrayed. Every bond fund and CD I hold now looks golden. My noble side says I am lucky to have some recovery time and remember how this market feels and learn from it. My tension is towards the folks who proclaimed "might as well spend it now!!!" It seems their philosophy is besting my diligent saving and moderately aggressive equity allocation.

 

[ikubak]

There are times when cash outperforms stocks. Right now, people earning 2 or 3% in cash look like the geniuses, but most of the time, stocks outperform cash. One day, stocks will be leading the way again.

 

[FinallyRetired]

Hmm. Maybe.
With 1.4mm to their 1.2mm you still win.

Yes, but on the other hand... suppose you only need 1.2mm to retire comfortably. The CD/MM investor obtained their goal at 0 risk and slept well, whereas the equities investor came out a bit ahead but at much higher risk and sleepless nights.

I say this with 20/20 hindsight, since if the market was booming I'd be feeling pretty silly.

 

[Dawg52]

Well the thing is......most all of us either worked or still work for corporations that have 401k plans. And most all 401k investment advisers recommend a balance portfolio with equities. It has just been considered part of a good plan. I would love to have been smart enough to follow my parents lead and just go the cd route over the years. But I bought into the 'balance portfolio' theme and now I am paying the price.

We could very well be headed for a depression. I have heard a couple say we are already in one. Stocks may not come back for 20 plus years. I may be dead before stocks come back. But I know one thing, I'll go to my grave with a balanced portfolio.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

See your logic Rich, but the 11% you use is questionable. I've heard that the market has returned on average 8% since its inception. That was some years back and don't know how recent trends have affected that average. Are there any recent figures published?

Someone smarter than I am will probably set us straight, but I recall the market did over 10% on average with dividends reinvested, 8% without and, of course, the average investor's return was lower because they can't resist buying, selling, and paying high expense ratios.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

...suppose you only need 1.2mm to retire comfortably.

I sure better be able to be comfortable on a lot less than that.

 

[DblDoc]

Someone smarter than I am will probably set us straight, but I recall the market did over 10% on average with dividends reinvested, 8% without and, of course, the average investor's return was lower because they can't resist buying, selling, and paying high expense ratios.

The confusion may lie in the difference between 10-11% nominal return vs 7-8% real return

DD

 

[ziggy29]

Welcome to the multiple $100k club. Consider yourself a dues paying member, like many on the board.

Member of the 200 Club checking in... (sigh)

 

[OAG]

I suppose that I have always considered myself to be relatively knowledgebale about the markets and investing. I am 46 now, and since I got my first job out of college, I have been dollar cost averaging into low cost index funds for my 401-K, IRA's etc. I always "knew" that in the long run equities were the place to be, and that I would be rewarded for taking staying the course (to parapharase my friends at Vanguard). Along the way, I remember scoffing, laughing to myself as I heard my coworkers and friends speak about investing their retirement monies in CDs, short term Treasuries, and the like. I "knew" that they would ultimately find themselves in a positon of having too little capital to adeqautely fund their retirement, because of their failure to see the relationship between risk and reward. Over thee years I had accumulated a pretty substantial sum of money--obviously the recent losses have set me back considerably. Frankly, with my large exposure to equities, I am embarrassed to say how much I have lost, but suffice it to say is the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But looking back on it now, the thing that strikes me most is the contempt (best word I can think of) I had for those who failed to see the way to financial secuirty was through the long term investing in equities. Is it really the best way?---I think the answer is mostly "yes", but depending on when you pass thorugh this life, the answer may be "no". In retrospect, I should have had more respect for those who were "afraid" of the market, not because they were right (atleast it appears so now), but because it showed me I did not have enough repsect for the risks involved with investing. The fact that something is 90% certain, does not make it certain. I should have been more understanding of their concerns, perceptions of risk, and not assumed that "my" way was the best way.

Yes, I am one of those you held in "contempt" - Virtually, never in the Stock Market (no 401k do have a DB retirement). I can not post numbers like Rich did, as there were times I pulled money out to purchase homes (3 times) for CASH. But, suffice it to say I have 3 virtually EQUAL legs on my retirement "stool" - SS, Military Retirement, and CD's. Frankly, I am totally "risk adverse" and the gyrations of the stock market over the past 30 years has always scared me off.

 

[FinallyRetired]

What OAG said.

 

[TromboneAl]

Well put, Stephen, I've been having the same thoughts. Your Money or Your Life is an example of a book I admired but considered that its investing strategy (US Treasuries) was too conservative.

We also have to admit that Kramer's Oct 6 statement to get out of the market was reasonable:

​

OTOH we have to distinguish between bad decisions and good decisions with bad outcomes. A 60/40 asset allocation was a good decision based on all available data (and probably still is). But stuff happens.

 

[dex]

Excellent point.
What we are taking about is a bit of buyers remorse.
We bought into a investment strategy and we are losing.

I thought and do think Kramer is not the type of person I would listen to regarding my investments. That he was right a few months ago should play into my thinking now.

Last Jan/Feb. I thought that this decline would be in the 20% range. I didn't get out then because I was averaging into the market at the time, thinking long term and OK within the context of my plan.

 

[Westernskies]

Member of the 200 Club checking in... (sigh)

My losses passed a great bowling score and are now closer to a great MLB batting average....

 

[stephenandrew]

OTOH we have to distinguish between bad decisions and good decisions with bad outcomes. A 60/40 asset allocation was a good decision based on all available data (and probably still is). But stuff happens.

Agreed--sometimes we make the right decisions, but things don't work out. But I guess my main point is that I was dismissive of the potential level of market risk. Frankly, I never believed that it would be possible to incurr this kind of loss, which just reflects my ignorance I suppose. Maybe more than anything I am just venting, reflecting on the fact that given my age, and the amount of capital lost, that I may, in fact, have to start making some other plans regarding my future retirement, e.g. working longer. Its almost funny now, but when I projected out what I would have at age 56 with my excel worksheets, I used a "conservative" 7% annual gain for the next 10 years. My spreadsheet looks a little different now. Sorry for the moaning--yes, I know things could be worse---much worse. Fortunately for me (and I suspect most of you), investment returns are only one componet of financial success. Since we have no debt except a mortgage that will be paid off in May 2010 ($35,000 balance), things will be (should be?) fine. Maybe the real lesson here is that you can't control investment returns, but you can always LBYM.

 

[Lusitan]

Maybe the real lesson here is that you can't control investment returns, but you can always LBYM.

Yeah. LBYM really helps when it comes to rolling with the punches, whether its a job loss or a market crash. Knowing how to get by with less really is important.

 

[IBWino]

Agreed--sometimes we make the right decisions, but things don't work out. But I guess my main point is that I was dismissive of the potential level of market risk. Frankly, I never believed that it would be possible to incurr this kind of loss, which just reflects my ignorance I suppose. Maybe more than anything I am just venting, reflecting on the fact that given my age, and the amount of capital lost, that I may, in fact, have to start making some other plans regarding my future retirement, e.g. working longer. Its almost funny now, but when I projected out what I would have at age 56 with my excel worksheets, I used a "conservative" 7% annual gain for the next 10 years. My spreadsheet looks a little different now. Sorry for the moaning--yes, I know things could be worse---much worse. Fortunately for me (and I suspect most of you), investment returns are only one componet of financial success. Since we have no debt except a mortgage that will be paid off in May 2010 ($35,000 balance), things will be (should be?) fine. Maybe the real lesson here is that you can't control investment returns, but you can always LBYM.

Well, look at it this way: from this point forward, where's the best potential for earning 7% real return? I'll take my chances with equities.

FYI, we've also lost over $200K of our retirement funds so far.

 

[Koolau]

Mentioned elsewhere, I'm emerging from the recent unpleasantness relatively unscathed because I was always so risk averse. My roughly 20% stock position has became something less than 20% now. Oddly enough, I'm using this downturn to add to my equity position. I can't actually justify that move on the basis of "value" because earnings are down so much. Still, it just seems easier to buy in at half the cost of the recent past. Don't know if this is a good move in the long run, but the only thing that frightens me more than the volatility of the stock market is inflation. I don't know any other way to consistently outperform inflation (in the long run) than through equities. Sure, I could use TIPS (actually have a small non-qualified stash in I-bonds - wish I'd bought more when they were a good deal) but even they probably won't consistently protect against hyperinflation which may result from the "cure" for the recent unpleasantness.

Anyone else "rebalancing into" equities at this time? I assure you it's only because I consider doing nothing to be potentially worse. I look at it as the vaunted diversification which I should have done long ago (and I guess I'm glad I didn't!) I suppose rebalancing is not the appropriate term for what I'm doing since I've actually trying to increase my equity position, but I'll call it rebalancing if you will.

Feels pretty lonely, especially when I read this thread.

 

[Free To Canoe]

...Feels pretty lonely, especially when I read this thread.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Free

 

[haha]

Yeah. LBYM really helps when it comes to rolling with the punches, whether its a job loss or a market crash. Knowing how to get by with less really is important.

I wonder how much of our spending is truly discretionary?

You need someplace to live, though if you are single or a flexible couple you could move into a group house. Still, that would likely cost within sevreal hundred dollars of your own apartment.

You need medical and other insurances. Most of us need a car. If you do not want to be completely out of touch with people you need telephone and internet service. For me, without a siking fund for auto depreciation this is nevertheless about 65-70% of my expenses. before I have purchased any food.

I don't want to discuss food because when I do someone will always wonder how I spend that much. For the most part, food costs are a function of where you live, unless you are a rice and beans kinda guy.

To make a big drop in expenses one would need to make big changes- like becoming an apartment resident manager, or a night clerk in a motel, or something that was likely not what he had in mind when he retired.

Ha

 

[DallasGuy]

When I first came to this forum 1-2 year ago, I was warned that my 65% cash position (CD's, I-bonds and MM) would be eroded by inflation....and I still hear that argument here. That may be true, but how much do you really lose to inflation with cash investments? Maybe 1-2% a year? My 35% equities have truly been eroded and it wasn't caused by inflation....it was caused by the riskiness of the stock market. What's worse? I'd rather lose 1-2% a year to inflation instead of losing 50% in a year to equity investments. If a person has enough put away towards retirement and will eventually have a decent pension or social security income, the "inflation loss" by investing in cash investments will not force a person to "lose out" to inflation. I always found the inflation argument a little hollow in that many people completely ignore the risk of the stock market. Even I ignored the risk to some extent with my 35% equity holdings. I guess I was trying to hedge my bet on my cash investments. I know there are people that will disagree with having a large percentage of their investments in cash....but every so often the stock market reminds people that it doesn't guarantee an annual 8-10% return.