|
Stay in VBIAX fund after retirement?
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.
|
|
|
|
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!
|
01-30-2017, 09:38 AM
|
#2
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
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.
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 09:42 AM
|
#3
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,004
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happyras
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
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 09:50 AM
|
#5
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
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
|
|
|
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
|
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.
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 01:34 PM
|
#7
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
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
|
|
|
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
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.
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 02:06 PM
|
#9
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,004
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainsoft
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
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 02:32 PM
|
#10
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
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.
|
|
|
01-31-2017, 08:37 AM
|
#11
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Acworth
Posts: 1,214
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejman
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.
|
|
|
01-31-2017, 08:45 AM
|
#12
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,328
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by exnavynuke
..........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.
|
|
|
01-31-2017, 08:50 AM
|
#13
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Acworth
Posts: 1,214
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover
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.
|
|
|
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
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.
|
|
|
01-31-2017, 09:59 AM
|
#15
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,872
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejman
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
|
|
|
01-31-2017, 10:31 AM
|
#16
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Redmond
Posts: 892
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover
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
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|