Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-18-2014, 03:16 PM   #81
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
In his latest book, "Stop Acting Rich" one of the the Millionaire Next Door authors wrote that most millionaires do not have more than low to mid twenty percent range of their net worth in publicly traded equities. He bases that number of his studies and says it is confirmed by IRS data, which has the best data set on millionaires in the world.

In his recent book he states that, "Real safety is not in a diversified stock portfolio. One of the reasons millionaires are successful is that they think differently. Many a millionaire has told me that true diversity has much to do with controlling one's investments; no one can control the stock market."
No comment on the book, but the IRS tracks income and transactions, not assets, and does not collect or track the data needed to determine how individuals invest.

My guess is most became millionaires through self-owned business, real estate appreciation, and equity investing. I would love to see some data showing how many reach this level primarily by fixed income.
__________________

__________________
MichaelB 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 08-18-2014, 03:25 PM   #82
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
No comment on the book, but the IRS tracks income and transactions, not assets, and does not collect or track the data needed to determine how individuals invest.

My guess is most became millionaires through self-owned business, real estate appreciation, and equity investing. I would love to see some data showing how many reach this level primarily by fixed income.
His book states he uses his own research studies and finds the results confirmed by IRS estate returns -

The Top Ten Assets Owned by Millionaires

His recent book states, "I have consistently found that most millionaires do not have all their wealth tied up in their stock portfolios or in their homes."

His books basically are mostly just the results of his research on exactly how people became first generation millionaires. Stop Acting Rich has a profile of the most common occupations, marital statuses, home values, etc.
__________________

__________________
daylatedollarshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 03:58 PM   #83
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
His recent book states, "I have consistently found that most millionaires do not have all their wealth tied up in their stock portfolios or in their homes."
Their is a big difference between saying that and saying that most millionaires have zero equities. I totally believe that most millionaires do not have all their wealth tied up in their stock portfolios or in their homes. I also would be very surprised to find that most of them have zero equities.
__________________
Katsmeow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 04:02 PM   #84
Recycles dryer sheets
Quantum Sufficit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by eta2020 View Post
Quantum I am also 100% in equities. Not far from retirement. My portfolio is few million and generates dividend that exceeds our annual spending. I had been 100% equities all my life. Yes it is stressful during 2008..2009 but let me assure you dividend yield will not drop 57%.

Nice thing about 100% equities is that each your you get a nice dividend raise which by far exceeds inflation rate.
ETA, do you also have a pension? (if I may be so nosey?)
__________________
Quantum Sufficit is offline   Reply With Quote
Safe margin of 2.5x to 3x income, 100% long bond portfolio, built in inflatio...
Old 08-18-2014, 04:07 PM   #85
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,035
Safe margin of 2.5x to 3x income, 100% long bond portfolio, built in inflatio...

All this talk of portfolio percentages makes me want to point out that once you bonds are covering, lets call it X years, of spending, there is no sense in more cash-like assets. Another way to put it, the more you got, the lower the bond allocation should be.

There no sense in 15 years of expenses being tied up in bonds, 5, maybe 10, pull from it when the market is upside down. You'll avoid the worst of any downturn and be positioned for the rebound. Meanwhile, let those stocks grow.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
dallas27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 04:21 PM   #86
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
His book states he uses his own research studies and finds the results confirmed by IRS estate returns -

The Top Ten Assets Owned by Millionaires

His recent book states, "I have consistently found that most millionaires do not have all their wealth tied up in their stock portfolios or in their homes."

His books basically are mostly just the results of his research on exactly how people became first generation millionaires. Stop Acting Rich has a profile of the most common occupations, marital statuses, home values, etc.
Thanks for the link and source.

The data represents deceased individuals under age 70 filing estate tax returns. That may not representative of all families with assets of $1M or more. Still, the top 3 asset classes are real estate, closely held stock, and publicly traded stock. This is not a surprise because they represent the primary ways people accumulate and retain wealth in the US.

Fixed income, on the other hand, represents around 11% of the total. This is no surprise, wealthy individuals prefer investment vehicles that can grow in real terms over time, and fixed income does not do that.

The real believers in fixed income are institutional investors. It is much easier to match obligations with liabilities over time and it is not their money, so they show less concern with the loss of real value over time.
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 04:22 PM   #87
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
Their is a big difference between saying that and saying that most millionaires have zero equities. I totally believe that most millionaires do not have all their wealth tied up in their stock portfolios of in their homes. I also would be very surprised to find that most of them have zero equities.
I agree there would be a big difference in making those statement. I do not think that I or anyone else said in this thread that most millionaires have zero equities. The top ten assets link to the Stanley blog shows publicly traded stocks at 12.5%.

Per my previous post in this thread:

In his latest book, "Stop Acting Rich" one of the the Millionaire Next Door authors wrote that most millionaires do not have more than low to mid twenty percent range of their net worth in publicly traded equities. He bases that number on his studies and says it is confirmed by IRS data, which has the best data set on millionaires in the world.

In his recent book he states that, "Real safety is not in a diversified stock portfolio. One of the reasons millionaires are successful is that they think differently. Many a millionaire has told me that true diversity has much to do with controlling one's investments; no one can control the stock market."
__________________
daylatedollarshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 04:31 PM   #88
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Thanks for the link and source.

The data represents deceased individuals under age 70 filing estate tax returns. That may not representative of all families with assets of $1M or more.
His book said that the IRS estate data confirms the findings of his own research on millionaires. He was a marketing professor studying the affluent prior to his bestseller The Millionaire Next Door book.
__________________
daylatedollarshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 04:40 PM   #89
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
His book said that the IRS estate data confirms the findings of his own research on millionaires. He was a marketing professor studying the affluent prior to his bestseller The Millionaire Next Door book.
From the link you provided
Quote:
Let's look at the data from the IRS' estate returns computed during 2007-2009 for those decedants who were under 70, married at the time of their deaths and had a gross estate of $2M or more
This is not representative of the households we are discussing in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
I agree there would be a big difference in making those statement. I do not think that I or anyone else said in this thread that most millionaires have zero equities. The top ten assets link to the Stanley blog shows publicly traded stocks at 12.5%.
Closely held stock at 14%, retirement assets (some stock) another 11%, limited partnerships another 4%. The total equity holds are much greater than 12.5%.

An equally important question, though, is how much do wealthy individuals allocate to fixed income?
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 04:48 PM   #90
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Closely held stock at 14%, retirement assets (some stock) another 11%, limited partnerships another 4%. The total equity holds are much greater than 12.5%.

An equally important question, though, is how much do wealthy individuals allocate to fixed income?
Irrelevant. What we would really like to know is how much they invested in Venezuelan beaver cheese futures...
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 05:20 PM   #91
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
From the link you provided
This is not representative of the households we are discussing in this thread.

Closely held stock at 14%, retirement assets (some stock) another 11%, limited partnerships another 4%. The total equity holds are much greater than 12.5%.

An equally important question, though, is how much do wealthy individuals allocate to fixed income?
There is quite a bit more in the various Stanley books on assets and investments. If you find this topic interesting you may want to read a few of his books if you have not done so already.

I see many here are staunch advocates of the Vanguard / Fidelity mutual fund approach. I've posted many of the links that have influenced my line of thinking and caused us to rethink our AA and to reduce our allocation of mutual fund equities now that we are the age we are and concerned about sequence of return risk. If this doesn't bother you then carry on, otherwise posters like the OP may find the Thomas Stanley, recent Bill Bernstein, Zvi Bodie, NY Times chart, and Rob Arnott links of interest. Other than that I don't really have anything new to add to this thread.
__________________
daylatedollarshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 05:31 PM   #92
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
There is quite a bit more in the various Stanley books on assets and investments. If you find this topic interesting you may want to read a few of his books if you have not done so already.
He has excellent books. I don't think The Millionaire Next Door stresses that you should avoid equities and load up on bonds.

It stresses more LBYM. If you follow his books you will do well if you invest 100% in Bonds or 100% in equities.
__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 06:04 PM   #93
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
There is quite a bit more in the various Stanley books on assets and investments. If you find this topic interesting you may want to read a few of his books if you have not done so already.

I see many here are staunch advocates of the Vanguard / Fidelity mutual fund approach. I've posted many of the links that have influenced my line of thinking and caused us to rethink our AA and to reduce our allocation of mutual fund equities now that we are the age we are and concerned about sequence of return risk. If this doesn't bother you then carry on, otherwise posters like the OP may find the Thomas Stanley, recent Bill Bernstein, Zvi Bodie, NY Times chart, and Rob Arnott links of interest. Other than that I don't really have anything new to add to this thread.
Thanks. I think I read TMND when it was recently published. Also both Bernsteins (old and new) and lots of Rob Arnott. We apparently draw different conclusions from the same authors.

I share your concern about sequence of returns risk. There are other risks, though, that I also fear, such as this, which has affected portfolios more frequently in the US over the most recent century

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer12345 View Post
Inflationary spirals inflict permanent damage that you never recover from.
I use Vanguard and Fidelity funds for equities and fixed income, both domestic and international, and agree with this investment philosophy

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer12345 View Post
Diversify and you will have vastly better outcomes.
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 06:09 PM   #94
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by eta2020 View Post
Buy and hold would had made annual profit of 1.327 for total profit of 30%.
That is AFTER inflation.
Thanks for double checking vs the NY times chart. This is a huge difference.

Does anybody know exactly how they figured taxes? It didn't say in the link (or perhaps I missed it).
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 06:26 PM   #95
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Sufficit View Post
...
Tell me, why do I need the stock market in MY PARTICULAR SCENARIO? ....
Really good responses on this thread to the OP's question.
__________________
“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 08-18-2014, 06:55 PM   #96
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...html?_r=1&#top

"After accounting for dividends, inflation, taxes and fees, $10,000 invested at the end of 1961 would have shrunk to $6,600 by 1981. From the end of 1979 to 1999, $10,000 would have grown to $48,000.

“Market returns are more volatile than most people realize,” Mr. Easterling said, “even over periods as long as 20 years.”
The 20-year period of 1961-1981 was terrible because of high inflation. The dollar lost nearly 2/3 of its value over that time!

Indeed, stock return was bad, but how bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eta2020 View Post
S&P 500 Return Calculator - Don't Quit Your Day Job...

Buy and hold would had made annual profit of 1.327 for total profit of 30%.
That is AFTER inflation.

I guess somebody did ton and ton of trading and racked up lot of fees and taxes :face palm:
Using the linked calculator, I saw that from Nov 1961 to Nov 1981 (the earlier NY Times article said "the end of 1961") the S&P stock return with dividend invested was 6.65%/yr in nominal terms, but only 0.75% after inflation.

Note: this calculator has a bad data point at Oct 1981, so do not use that month!

And how about fixed income during the same period? I only did a quick look using FIRECalc, which says that $1M invested in 30-yr Treasury would become $1,048,701 after inflation adjustment. That works out to 0.23% annualized return, trailing the S&P.

So, if history repeats, we are all doomed no matter what we do.

Y'all need to check out this concurrent thread, More potential retirement lifestyles, for a backup plan. It may be time better spent than to debate AA, if that terrible period should repeat.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 07:17 PM   #97
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Y'all need to check out this concurrent thread, More potential retirement lifestyles, for a backup plan. It may be time better spent than to debate AA, if that terrible period should repeat.
OK by me. I hunt, fish, bake, cook, forage, can, grind my own flour for homemade bread, and in a pinch could figure out trapping and a bunch of other things.
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 07:21 PM   #98
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer12345 View Post
OK by me. I hunt, fish, bake, cook, forage, can, grind my own flour for homemade bread, and in a pinch could figure out trapping and a bunch of other things.
I am working on "White Trash cooking" cookbook that will save us all.
__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2014, 07:25 PM   #99
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by eta2020 View Post
I am working on "White Trash cooking" cookbook that will save us all.
You have permission to include any of my recent contributions to the ER cookbook thread.
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2014, 09:17 AM   #100
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,420
I found it interesting that, during the period of 1961-1981, you could be 100% in stocks or bonds and it did not matter. Either way, you could barely keep up with prices, which went up 3X over 20 years.

If you never spent it, your $1 in 1961 would become $3 in 1981 due to inflation. If that happens again, look how many people will become multi-millionaires, even if the stash has to be shared with a spouse .

But, but, but, here's a gotcha. So, your $1M would become $3M? Not so fast! You will have to pay taxes on that $2M "gain". Talk about adding insult to injury!
__________________

__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound 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
Why not 100% TIPS for Bond portfolio? mystang52 FIRE and Money 35 01-06-2016 11:30 AM
Tax considerations of liquidating part of portfolio/Margin Loans younginvestor2013 FIRE and Money 12 01-25-2014 11:40 AM
Poll: Do YOU have a floor income % built into your retirement income plans? Midpack FIRE and Money 45 01-02-2014 01:14 AM
What SWR for 100% bond portfolio accountingsucks FIRE and Money 9 06-30-2010 02:54 PM
Can 95% Safe = 100% Safe? halo FIRE and Money 3 10-14-2008 07:56 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:29 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.