Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Stay in VBIAX fund after retirement?
Old 01-30-2017, 09:28 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,350
Stay in VBIAX fund after retirement?

I currently have my IRA in a VBIAX fund through Vanguard. It has a 60% stocks/ 40% bonds split.

I'm still about 8 years from retirement, but curious what the pro's and con's are of staying with that fund after retirement? Obviously it's more risky with 60% stocks, but the long term returns are better.

Are there similar Vanguard funds that would be safer after retirement? I need something simple, set and forget.
mountainsoft 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 01-30-2017, 09:38 AM   #2
Full time employment: Posting here.
Happyras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Redmond
Posts: 892
Well, Well, Well......Wellington 60/40, Wellesley 35/65 you pick. Std dev good on both, returns better than VBIAX pending market conditions. Long term, VWENX a great fund. Admiral shares in both. Also add some VHCOX for growth.
Happyras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 09:42 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happyras View Post
Wellington 60/40, Wellesley 35/65 you pick.
+1

And if the AA of one is too low and the other too high, do a mix to get a blended AA of your liking.
__________________
Numbers is hard
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 09:46 AM   #4
Full time employment: Posting here.
Happyras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Redmond
Posts: 892
I like this chart since 2002 to date;
PerfCharts | Free Charts | StockCharts.com
Kind of tells the story
Happyras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 09:50 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,872
VBIAX is my default retirement fund. I have a solo401k and it's all in VBIAX because of low fees and a diversifued and sensible asset allocation.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 75% Equity Funds / 15% Bonds / 5% Stable Value /2% Cash / 3% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 11:26 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happyras View Post
I like this chart since 2002 to date;
PerfCharts | Free Charts | StockCharts.com
Kind of tells the story
Thank you for that chart. Interesting that when set for maximum time span (14 May 2001 to Jan 27 Jan 2017), the two actively managed funds Wellesley and Wellington come out way ahead of the index funds.

Also notable that Wellesley comes out ahead of Wellington. The lowest volatility (and presumably risk) fund ahead of the other ones. I remember reading in investment books that higher risk would result in higher return over long periods of time. I guess a 15+ year period is not long enough for that pattern to establish itself, particularly a period with two extreme bear markets.
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 01:34 PM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 36,266
IMO nothing wrong with 60/40.... if so, then I've been doing it all wrong.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 01:51 PM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
IMO nothing wrong with 60/40.... if so, then I've been doing it all wrong.
I'm happy with that balance at this stage in our lives, but I didn't know if that was considered too risky after retirement? We will have my wife's pension and our social security incomes as well.
mountainsoft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 02:06 PM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainsoft View Post
I'm happy with that balance at this stage in our lives, but I didn't know if that was considered too risky after retirement? We will have my wife's pension and our social security incomes as well.
Only you can tell if an asset allocation is too risky in retirement since risk is entirely up to an individual's personal level of tolerance. In 08/09 many people who thought they were comfortable with a 60/40 allocation found out they were way wrong. Others were OK with it.

One last note: FIRECalc tells us that any allocation between ~35/65 and 80/20 has a 95% or greater chance of surviving for 30 years or more. Those closer to an 80/20 AA had a far more volatile ride but almost always ended up buried with larger portfolios than those with fewer equities. YMMV...
__________________
Numbers is hard
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 02:32 PM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,328
It can be useful to hold bonds separately from stocks so that the bonds can be mostly in a pretax account with more stocks in after tax account, for tax efficiency. Also, in a downturn you can just sell bonds with out also selling stocks, too, as would happen in a balanced fund.
travelover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 08:37 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
exnavynuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Acworth
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejman View Post
Thank you for that chart. Interesting that when set for maximum time span (14 May 2001 to Jan 27 Jan 2017), the two actively managed funds Wellesley and Wellington come out way ahead of the index funds.

Also notable that Wellesley comes out ahead of Wellington. The lowest volatility (and presumably risk) fund ahead of the other ones. I remember reading in investment books that higher risk would result in higher return over long periods of time. I guess a 15+ year period is not long enough for that pattern to establish itself, particularly a period with two extreme bear markets.
What "performed better" is directly correlated to what time period you pick. If you pick from the bottom in 2009 until now then you'd say that the W's have severely underperformed with the index funds having about twice their averaged return. When you start just before a crash, the more conservative funds lose less and even missing out on some of the gains show outperformance. How would they perform relative to the index funds without two major pullbacks in the same decade, probably not as well?

Then there is the whole "efficient frontier" side to the risk:reward discussion as well.
exnavynuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 08:45 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by exnavynuke View Post
..........If you pick from the bottom in 2009 until now then you'd say that the W's have severely under performed with the index funds having about twice their averaged return. ........
Are you comparing the Ws to all stock index funds? Over the long run, an all stocks fund will outperform a fund with a significant bond component, but at the price of volatility.
travelover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 08:50 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
exnavynuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Acworth
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
Are you comparing the Ws to all stock index funds? Over the long run, an all stocks fund will outperform a fund with a significant bond component, but at the price of volatility.
I was using the S&P 500 and Vanguard's associated fund shown on the chart linked earlier.
exnavynuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 09:27 AM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by exnavynuke View Post
What "performed better" is directly correlated to what time period you pick. If you pick from the bottom in 2009 until now then you'd say that the W's have severely underperformed with the index funds having about twice their averaged return. When you start just before a crash, the more conservative funds lose less and even missing out on some of the gains show outperformance. How would they perform relative to the index funds without two major pullbacks in the same decade, probably not as well?

Then there is the whole "efficient frontier" side to the risk:reward discussion as well.
Of course, that's the beauty of data mining no? It stands to reason that in a strong bull market as in 2009 - 2016 an all stock fund will perform better than a balanced fund.

But it's surprising to me how well Wellington stacks up against 100% stocks over really long periods i.e.return from inception July 1929 is 8.25%. The s&p 500 from the same date is 9.185 % (as index- no associated costs).

Likewise Wellesley 9.85% since inception July 1970 vs S&P 500 - 10.764%

Of course, the above means nothing since past performance is no guarantee of future results etc etc.
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 09:59 AM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejman View Post
Thank you for that chart. Interesting that when set for maximum time span (14 May 2001 to Jan 27 Jan 2017), the two actively managed funds Wellesley and Wellington come out way ahead of the index funds.

Also notable that Wellesley comes out ahead of Wellington. The lowest volatility (and presumably risk) fund ahead of the other ones. I remember reading in investment books that higher risk would result in higher return over long periods of time. I guess a 15+ year period is not long enough for that pattern to establish itself, particularly a period with two extreme bear markets.
Wellesley benefits from the extended bond bull market.

You'll be fine in VBIAX, Wellesley or Wellington. When I was deciding on VBIAX or Wellington I chose VBIAX simply on the lower fees.
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 75% Equity Funds / 15% Bonds / 5% Stable Value /2% Cash / 3% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 10:31 AM   #16
Full time employment: Posting here.
Happyras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Redmond
Posts: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
Are you comparing the Ws to all stock index funds? Over the long run, an all stocks fund will outperform a fund with a significant bond component, but at the price of volatility.
OK try this link, set up your mix or use one of the standards given and compare to VWIAX or the Wells over any period. If you go with index bond and indexed equities in the same allocation as say Wellington, it gives a better picture of the managed fund versus indexed for the same allocations and risk.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/...nalysisResults

Use 40% BND 60% SPY, versus 100% VWENX versus 100% VBIAX

Portfolio Returns Wellington has a higher Std Dev, but higher return 2008 to date.

Portfolio performance statistics
# Initial Balance Final Balance CAGR Std.Dev. Best Year Worst Year Max. Drawdown Sharpe Ratio Sortino Ratio US Mkt Correlation
1 $10,000 $17,495 6.41% 10.00% 20.11% -22.12% -30.99% 0.65 0.96 0.99
2 $10,000 $18,115 6.82% 10.65% 22.34% -22.23% -31.19% 0.66 0.97 0.97
3 $10,000 $17,428 6.37% 9.51% 18.54% -19.34% -28.94% 0.68 1.00 0.98
Happyras is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
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
How to invest after-tax money. 401k after-tax? lindalou FIRE and Money 20 11-28-2016 01:38 PM
Buy index fund before or after dividend declaration? Amethyst FIRE and Money 9 12-18-2013 09:55 AM
How to fund IRA after ET? EddieG FIRE and Money 5 10-07-2007 11:06 PM
Where should I put taxable after-emergency fund money? Olav23 FIRE and Money 6 03-24-2007 07:35 PM
Scott Burns: Stay safe on retirement spending PL FIRE and Money 49 12-22-2004 10:59 AM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.