Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
what is a typical asset allocation?
Old 02-02-2019, 10:23 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 284
what is a typical asset allocation?

I am in my mid 50s. I have saved enough to retire but I plan to work for another couple of years. (I am earning a good income and the job, while it can be stressful, certainly gets easier once you internalize that you are doing it by choice).

I recently sold some stock to reduce my asset allocation to 48/52. (A significant chunk of the "fixed income" is in CDs -- and I know some people here would put that in a third category -- but I have always thought of it as just another part of the fixed income side of my portfolio).

I had been wanting to reduce my stock exposure for a while, but I was reluctant to take the capital gains. However, when the market fell steeply in 2018-Q4, I felt anxious. I guess nobody really knows what asset allocation is right for them until the market falls. So a week or so ago I bit the "capital gains tax bullet" and sold some stock.

My plan is to stay at 50/50, or thereabout, for the foreseeable future, re-allocating as needed. I have no pension, so that is it -- other than my income while I continue to work as SS.

I am comfortable at this level, but I am wondering whether my allocation is typical, or how atypical it is. Are there published data on typical asset allocations? I guess the data would have to been pretty customized to be useful, since it depends on age, how many years left to work, accumulated assets, etc.? But it seems like something someone might have collected data on.

Some would say "what difference does it make what other people are doing-- even similarly situated people -- you should just do what feels right to you." There is certainly merit to that view. But still, I think it is natural for someone to wonder what other similarly situated people are doing.
medved 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 02-02-2019, 10:30 AM   #2
Moderator Emeritus
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 47,474
I thought Rick Ferri's book, "All About Asset Allocation" was tremendously helpful to me when I was in my 50's and preparing for retirement. It's interesting and easy to read.

I was 100:0 for most of the accumulation phase, because I was gambling to see if I could catch up to others after a financially rugged divorce in which we agreed that he would get the house and contents and all of our retirement accounts and other financial accounts. During 2002-2006 we had a bit of a bull market and I won the gamble. Then, during the three years before my 2009 retirement I transitioned to 45:55 (equities:fixed) and was there until recently.

Right now, I am 70, retired, very conservative about investing, and recently began the process of slowly moving towards 110-age for equities. So this year, I'm 42:58. But my situation is different from yours so probably not very useful for you.
__________________
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harbourless immensities. - - H. Melville, 1851.

Happily retired since 2009, at age 61. Best years of my life by far!
W2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 10:39 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,804
+1on the Rick Ferri book.
I was between 90/10 and 75/25 for many years prior to retirement. Moved closer to 70/30, then 60/40 the closer I got to leaving the workforce. Last year, I discovered I was still uncomfortable a bit, so moved closer to 50/50 with 5% band.
It is such an individual decision, only you will know what is reasonable to you.
__________________
Give a Man a fish, he will eat for a day.
Teach a Man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime.
pacergal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 10:54 AM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
walkinwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,506
Bengen's SWR paper said that the ~4% SWR worked for equity allocations from 40% to 70%, so you're right in there and that should work.



Being comfortable and sticking with your AA through all markets is essential.
walkinwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 12:23 PM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 10,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by medved View Post
... I guess nobody really knows what asset allocation is right for them until the market falls. ... I guess the data would have to been pretty customized to be useful, since it depends on age, how many years left to work, accumulated assets, etc.? ...
Yes. And yes again. My standard example is two identical widows, 75 YO, good health, long-lived family history. The one-size-fits all rule subtracts their age from 100 or maybe 120 to get an equity allocation. Same for both. But now observe that one has $100K to live on and the other has $10M. Should the allocations be the same? Of course not.

We'll be 72 this year. Our AA is about 70/30 because most of what we have will end up in our estate and most of that in trusts for our two adult sons. Their investing time horizon is long-term, so nearly 100% equities is the right thing for them. But DW and I have been through all the ups and downs starting in 1987, so we know that we will not panic and sell when the next downer comes.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 12:36 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
USGrant1962's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: DC area
Posts: 2,479
Another Rick Ferri fan here - get his book.

The other thing to keep in mind is inflation. It is a slow but unending erosion of your portfolio. That is why most historical studies suggest higher equity allocations than the old "100-Age" concept. Having said that 50/50 is in the middle of a broad sweet spot and IMO just fine. If you play with FIRECalc, you will find that historically anything between 30/70 and 70/30 generally works about the same.
__________________
FI and Semi-ER March 24, 2017
Consulting to stay engaged

"All models are wrong, some are useful." - George Box
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem: neat, plausible, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
USGrant1962 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 12:38 PM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
dtbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Madison
Posts: 1,337
I don't think there is a "typical" AA. Each individual has his/her risk tolerance and time period to consider.
__________________
Wild Bill shoulda taken more out of his IRA when he could have. . . .
dtbach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 12:49 PM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
VanWinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tellico Village
Posts: 2,607
I've read Rick's book twice and learned something new both times. It is an easy read and available used or at many libraries. You could buy new, but even Rick would say buy used and invest the difference!

VW
__________________
Retired May 13th(Friday) 2016 at age 61.
VanWinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 01:04 PM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,252
In order to answer the thread title question, one does not have to look any further than the asset allocations institutionalized in Target Date funds. One can look at the Stocks/Bonds/Cash ratios in any number of these funds found at various vendors and that includes
the Federal Thrift Savings Plan
Vanguard
Fidelity
Schwab
TRowePrice
and many, many others.
LOL! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 01:04 PM   #10
Recycles dryer sheets
4legsgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by USGrant1962 View Post
Another Rick Ferri fan here - get his book.

...If you play with FIRECalc, you will find that historically anything between 30/70 and 70/30 generally works about the same.
+1, this keeps me sleeping well, and combined with stock allocation in total US stock market.
__________________
Retired 2015 at age 55...50/45/5 AA
4legsgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 01:21 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 21,206
Like others have said, there is no one size fits all AA. But most of what we’ve all read here seem to fall between 30:70 to 80:20 equity:bonds. The difference in average total returns in that range haven’t been that wide. If you can live with that range, maybe the best way to decide what’s best for you is to focus on the one year downside - what can you live with? E.g. how much downside will allow you to resist panic selling and still sleep well at night? Can you live with a 34.9% portfolio loss in one year to average 9.4% or is a 14.1% loss and an average 7.3% return sound more palatable? Something in between?

The numbers aren’t guaranteed of course, but they provide a decent relative glimpse.

__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 50% equity funds / 45% bonds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 1.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 01:29 PM   #12
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 1,156
Right now my AA is 100/0 into LCG, and has done better than most for the last few years (everybody took a hit 4Q 2018). I'm 53, and will be re-evaluating this often depending on what the market is doing, what the FED is going to be doing, and what our trade war is doing.
ckelly78z is offline   Reply With Quote
what is a typical asset allocation?
Old 02-02-2019, 01:34 PM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 3,930
what is a typical asset allocation?

As others above noted, it is remarkable how little difference it can make over a 20 year + time frame whether one is 40%, 50%, 60% or 70% equities, if left alone, according to Portfolio Visualizer’s fairly limited timespan of a few decades. We are ages 53 and 55 and are comfortable with our 50/50 allocation, which is arrayed much like a Vanguard target date or Life Strategy fund. At a globally-diversified 50/50, it feels like we’re as ready as we can be for anything that happens.

Portfolio 1 Blue = our 50/50 allocation
Portfolio 2 Red = a similar 40/60 allocation
Portfolio 3 Gold = a similar 70/30 allocation. It is ahead the last few years but I would bet on the other two outpacing it very slightly during and for many years after the next recession.IMG_0210.JPG

[ATTACH]
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 01:54 PM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
VanWinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tellico Village
Posts: 2,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOL! View Post
In order to answer the thread title question, one does not have to look any further than the asset allocations institutionalized in Target Date funds. One can look at the Stocks/Bonds/Cash ratios in any number of these funds found at various vendors and that includes
the Federal Thrift Savings Plan
Vanguard
Fidelity
Schwab
TRowePrice
and many, many others.
Many target date funds have 40% of the stocks in International. That
may fit some well, but most retirees likely would like a little less that 40%.
If I see those allocations, how do I pick the right one? Just by age can be
deceptive as many have circumstances that would trump the age only allocation formula.
__________________
Retired May 13th(Friday) 2016 at age 61.
VanWinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 02:54 PM   #15
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanWinkle View Post
Many target date funds have 40% of the stocks in International. That
may fit some well, but most retirees likely would like a little less that 40%.
That is interesting. I did not know that. Of our 50% equities, about 30% of that (so, about 15% of our total portfolio) is in international equities. Left to my own devices, I might dial that back, in favor of US equities. But people who are a lot smarter than I am have told me 30% is very reasonable.
medved is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 03:56 PM   #16
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanWinkle View Post
Many target date funds have 40% of the stocks in International. That
may fit some well, but most retirees likely would like a little less that 40%.
If I see those allocations, how do I pick the right one? Just by age can be
deceptive as many have circumstances that would trump the age only allocation formula.
Look at the Prospectus for each fund before investing. It will tell you who the manager is, what their experience is, how it has performed over different time periods, and what each individual stock that is owned.

I have never taken the "age" for target date funds as a rule, but a guideline. I tend to be more aggressive, and get better returns looking elsewhere, but taking a proactive approach to picking my own.
ckelly78z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 04:41 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 10,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by medved View Post
That is interesting. I did not know that. Of our 50% equities, about 30% of that (so, about 15% of our total portfolio) is in international equities. Left to my own devices, I might dial that back, in favor of US equities. But people who are a lot smarter than I am have told me 30% is very reasonable.
It's very reasonable. US market cap is 50-55% of the world market cap. Guru Kenneth French talks here (8 minute video) about home country bias: https://famafrench.dimensional.com/v...home-bias.aspx There is quite a good Vanguard paper (https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icriecr.pdf) too, which shows research that 30-40% of equities in international funds has minimized portfolio volatility in backtests. DW and I try to stick to around zero bias; we hold a lot of VTWSX and VT. Very comfortable with it.

(A bit beyond the scope of this thread, but I believe that both regression to the mean and a future decline in the value of the US dollar are reasons to be optimistic about international investments.)

Re blended and target date funds I do not like them because they are impossible to benchmark. The concept is not bad, but I would suggest instead making your own blend of separate equity and fixed income so you can monitor performance.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 04:49 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 10,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckelly78z View Post
Look at the Prospectus for each fund before investing. It will tell you who the manager is, what their experience is, how it has performed over different time periods ...
A completely accurate statement, but mountains of data say that none of that stuff matters. See post #25 here: http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post2183096
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2019, 05:29 PM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
VanWinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tellico Village
Posts: 2,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter View Post
It's very reasonable. US market cap is 50-55% of the world market cap. Guru Kenneth French talks here (8 minute video) about home country bias: https://famafrench.dimensional.com/v...home-bias.aspx There is quite a good Vanguard paper (https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icriecr.pdf) too, which shows research that 30-40% of equities in international funds has minimized portfolio volatility in backtests. DW and I try to stick to around zero bias; we hold a lot of VTWSX and VT. Very comfortable with it.

(A bit beyond the scope of this thread, but I believe that both regression to the mean and a future decline in the value of the US dollar are reasons to be optimistic about international investments.)

Re blended and target date funds I do not like them because they are impossible to benchmark. The concept is not bad, but I would suggest instead making your own blend of separate equity and fixed income so you can monitor performance.
I agree with OldShooter on this, except many suggest 20-40% in international. I also agree that international equities have a good chance of returning more than US equities in the next 10 years. I don't feel compelled to buy the market at the world allocation of 55/45 US/International. Mr. Market can throw a tantrum longer than I can stay solvent. Taylor Larimore over on the Bogleheads likes the 20-40% international range so I will stick with his experience. I think someone that goes US only properly allocated will do fine if it meets their goals.
__________________
Retired May 13th(Friday) 2016 at age 61.
VanWinkle is offline   Reply With Quote
what is a typical asset allocation?
Old 02-02-2019, 09:06 PM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 3,930
what is a typical asset allocation?

It was good to reread that impressive Vanguard white paper VanWinkle referenced. It was written in 2012 and, since then, U.S. equities have outperformed international. The concluding sentences are a good summary of the paper:

“... For many investors, an allocation between 20% and 40% should be considered reasonable, given the historical benefits of diversification. Allocations closer to 40% may be suitable for
those investors seeking to be closer to a market- proportional weighting or for those who are hoping to obtain potentially greater diversification benefits and are less concerned with the potential risks and higher costs. On the other hand, allocations closer to 20% may be viewed as offering a greater balance among the benefits of diversification, the risks of currency volatility and higher U.S. to non-U.S. stock correlations, investor preferences, and costs.”

DW and I are 20%.
Markola 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
What is a typical retirement skill you don't have? hakuna matata Other topics 34 12-12-2010 06:48 AM
Your Typical Checkbook Balance TromboneAl FIRE and Money 45 06-24-2008 02:05 PM
Study: typical wealth at retirement Htown Harry FIRE and Money 3 06-04-2008 11:30 AM
Obama on grandmother "...she is a typical white person..." dex Other topics 49 03-27-2008 11:29 AM
A Typical ER Day education Other topics 25 10-22-2005 06:03 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.