Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-08-2015, 02:18 PM   #21
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnzw_rui View Post
I believe there's a 60-day restriction when it comes to mutual funds to prevent excessive trading (which can increase fund expenses, etc). Automatic deposits are still okay. That said, I rebalance once or twice a year. Three tops so I've yet to run afoul of this restriction.
There is.
__________________

__________________
ER'd 6/1/2014 @ age 53. AA=70/30, WR=3%
Looking4Ward 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 09-08-2015, 02:46 PM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looking4Ward View Post
Thanks, but it's the part in bold that has me stumped.

For instance, Wellington is roughly 70% equity while Wellesley is roughly 30% equity, while Vanguard Energy and Health Care funds are both 100% equity.

My target AA is 70/30. Not sure, mathematically, how to get there taking the above into consideration.

Currently it looks like this:

Wellington is 70% of my portfolio
Wellesley is 17%
Vanguard Healthcare is 7%
Vanguard Energy is 6%

So my current AA is at 65/35. If I were to rebalance now to get it back to 70/30 I'm not sure what I would move from where.
That is more complicated, mainly because there will be multiple correct answers.

One way to make it easier would be to set a target percentage for each fund, assuming their average equity/bond allocation, and let the managers decide to raise or lower your equity percentage. That's what they're there for. You probably shouldn't watch Wellington go from 20% bonds to 30% bonds and then compensate for that by increasing your equity allocation elsewhere.
__________________

__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 02:55 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
gauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looking4Ward View Post
Thanks, but it's the part in bold that has me stumped.

For instance, Wellington is roughly 70% equity while Wellesley is roughly 30% equity, while Vanguard Energy and Health Care funds are both 100% equity.

My target AA is 70/30. Not sure, mathematically, how to get there taking the above into consideration.

Currently it looks like this:

Wellington is 70% of my portfolio
Wellesley is 17%
Vanguard Healthcare is 7%
Vanguard Energy is 6%

So my current AA is at 65/35. If I were to rebalance now to get it back to 70/30 I'm not sure what I would move from where.
Assuming you have studied linear algebra in the past, your are looking to solve a simultaneous set of M equations and N unknowns.

You need to come up with the allocation for the 4 funds that will give you your target 70/30 allocation. When I had to do this in the past, I setup a system of 'N' linear equations and 'N' unknowns and solved for the N unknowns. In my case I was able to solve directly for the N weightings.

If you have more funds than asset classes, then you will have a few free variables that you can set arbitrarily (well arbitrarily in the sense that the resulting set of equations will still have a solution)

In your case you appear to have 4 funds and 2 asset classes.

I am probably not doing this justice, so if it is unfamiliar please disregard.

-gauss
__________________
gauss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 03:04 PM   #24
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 903
Wellington is ~65/35. Wellesley is ~35/65. The only way you can get into your target 70/30 allocation is by moving more funds to Healthcare or Energy or some other equity funds. Heck, I'd probably just ditch Wellesley altogether and divide the proceeds between Wellington, Healthcare, Energy and FTSE All-World ex-US stock fund.
__________________
hnzw_rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 03:42 PM   #25
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 495
Well, I feel a little better seeing that there isn't an easy answer to this.
__________________
ER'd 6/1/2014 @ age 53. AA=70/30, WR=3%
Looking4Ward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 03:43 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looking4Ward View Post
I thought funds would be easier to rebalance but at least for me it's not proving to be the case.

For example, in my taxable account I like to keep a 70/30 AA. And I only have four funds there - Wellington, Wellesley, Vanguard Health and Vanguard Energy.

But when my AA gets out of whack it's really hard for me to figure what to move where.
Most advise that you have an AA for your entire portfolio, not just for a certain account. It's up to you though. As someone else said, there are multiple answers. If you had even amounts of each, you'd be at about 75/25. So you'd either need a lot more Wellington or some more Wellesley to pull the equity down. And if you'd rather not have nearly 1/4 in the Health and/or Energy fund, you could overweight Wellesley.

For example,
30% Wellington @.65 equity = 19.5 equity
30% Wellesley @.35 equity = 10.5 equity
20% Health @ 1.00 equity = 20
20% Energy @ 1.00 equity = 20
Total = 70% equity.

If you like that mix, just try to keep 30% of your taxable account in Wellington, 30% Wellesley, and 20% in the other two. So if you had $200K in the account, it should be $60K each in Wellington and Wellesley, $40K each in the others. Any fund over the target would be exchanged for whichever fund(s) are under the target.
__________________
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 03:48 PM   #27
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnzw_rui View Post
Wellington is ~65/35. Wellesley is ~35/65. The only way you can get into your target 70/30 allocation is by moving more funds to Healthcare or Energy or some other equity funds. Heck, I'd probably just ditch Wellesley altogether and divide the proceeds between Wellington, Healthcare, Energy and FTSE All-World ex-US stock fund.
I suppose I'm complicating this by considering Wellesley to be my present ER funding, Wellington mid-term, and Health/Energy long term. In other words, I will always be taking money out of Wellesley each year and trying to keep three years worth of expenses in it since it performs fairly well under adverse economic conditions. Moving funds from Wellington to replenish Wellesley and leaving the two 100% equity funds alone to grow over 10-15 years or more when I start to tap into my IRA.

And now that I read that back to myself it seems that perhaps I shouldn't even be concerned about AA at all because I'm not really rebalancing, I'm replenishing.
__________________
ER'd 6/1/2014 @ age 53. AA=70/30, WR=3%
Looking4Ward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 03:51 PM   #28
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
Most advise that you have an AA for your entire portfolio, not just for a certain account. It's up to you though. As someone else said, there are multiple answers. If you had even amounts of each, you'd be at about 75/25. So you'd either need a lot more Wellington or some more Wellesley to pull the equity down. And if you'd rather not have nearly 1/4 in the Health and/or Energy fund, you could overweight Wellesley.

For example,
30% Wellington @.65 equity = 19.5 equity
30% Wellesley @.35 equity = 10.5 equity
20% Health @ 1.00 equity = 20
20% Energy @ 1.00 equity = 20
Total = 70% equity.

If you like that mix, just try to keep 30% of your taxable account in Wellington, 30% Wellesley, and 20% in the other two. So if you had $200K in the account, it should be $60K each in Wellington and Wellesley, $40K each in the others. Any fund over the target would be exchanged for whichever fund(s) are under the target.
When I throw my IRA into the mix (which is currently 75/25) it brings my entire portfolio to 70/30. But that's by sheer luck and not because I know what I'm doing.

Thanks for that example, though - I can use that as a template to plug in different allocations to each fund to arrive at my desired overall allocation.
__________________
ER'd 6/1/2014 @ age 53. AA=70/30, WR=3%
Looking4Ward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 04:10 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by gauss View Post
Assuming you have studied linear algebra in the past, your are looking to solve a simultaneous set of M equations and N unknowns.
I have a spreadsheet that lets me do trial and error. It is broken down into 9 asset classes, and each position has a place to hold it's allocation, which I looked up in the prospectus or Morningstar. It's complicated, but I should make a simplified version and put it on Google docs.

What makes it complicated for me is that I have his and hers IRA's, his and hers Roths, taxable, 401k and HSA. That's seven things that can't have money moved between them. So if you were over-weighted on US equities and under on, say, hard assets, but you didn't have a position in both of those in one of those accounts, you'd need to start a new position there or swizzle it around with more than just one account. It gets to be quite a puzzle, but it gives me something to do besides buy high and sell low.
__________________
sengsational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 04:18 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
gauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by sengsational View Post
I have a spreadsheet that lets me do trial and error. It is broken down into 9 asset classes, and each position has a place to hold it's allocation, which I looked up in the prospectus or Morningstar. It's complicated, but I should make a simplified version and put it on Google docs.

What makes it complicated for me is that I have his and hers IRA's, his and hers Roths, taxable, 401k and HSA. That's seven things that can't have money moved between them. So if you were over-weighted on US equities and under on, say, hard assets, but you didn't have a position in both of those in one of those accounts, you'd need to start a new position there or swizzle it around with more than just one account. It gets to be quite a puzzle, but it gives me something to do besides buy high and sell low.
+1

And that is why we moved to balanced funds everywhere - single position each.

-gauss
__________________
gauss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 04:41 PM   #31
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by gauss View Post
+1

And that is why we moved to balanced funds everywhere - single position each.
One thing I don't like about using balanced funds everywhere are the tax consequences. I'd prefer to keep just equities in taxable. In the Roth and tax-deferred, I can have both.
__________________
hnzw_rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:43 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
gauss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnzw_rui View Post
One thing I don't like about using balanced funds everywhere are the tax consequences. I'd prefer to keep just equities in taxable. In the Roth and tax-deferred, I can have both.
Good point!

Since 2010 when the rules for Roths changed and we each started moving about $50k/year (max) into our Roths, via 'after-tax 401k' contribution and subsequent rollovers, we have drawn down the balance on our taxable investments to a small fraction of the original balance (with a corresponding increase in the Roth balances.)

-gauss
__________________
gauss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2015, 11:31 AM   #33
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by sengsational View Post
... I should make a simplified version and put it on Google docs.
I did it yesterday. Not for the faint of heart in spreadsheet usage.
Asset Allocation Spreadsheet on Google Drive
__________________

__________________
sengsational 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
Will the new healthcare law make it easier for me to retire early? midlifeguy FIRE and Money 214 10-29-2010 05:42 PM
Easier or Harder for Women To Be FIRE? Danny Life after FIRE 21 08-30-2009 08:11 PM
FIRE Easier If VAT Replaced Income Tax? RetireeRobert FIRE and Money 54 11-16-2007 08:00 PM
life should be easier lazygood4nothinbum Other topics 3 07-31-2006 12:03 PM
Easier to FIRE with no kids? REWahoo FIRE and Money 44 11-13-2005 09:49 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:35 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.