The sky is falling..

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha To me this means, "sure go ahead and market time, everyone does, but be sure to call it "tactical asset allocation."" OK boss, como quieres.But this artful speaking is a bit over the top. Ha

I feel differently. It shows that Bogle is not a hard-core EMH proponent.

He acknowledged that the market could be "stupidly" overvalued or undervalued. And he also meant that it did not happen that often, hence one had to be careful jumping in/out of the market. He said "tactical AA", then changed it to "strategic AA", and added that one got to do this only a couple of times in his lifetime.

I did not see anything Bogle said that I had problems with.

[target2019]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha To me this means, "sure go ahead and market time, everyone does, but be sure to call it "tactical asset allocation."" OK boss, como quieres.But this artful speaking is a bit over the top.

I found a longer, more complete discussion by Bogle concerning tactical asset allocation. It is in one of his books, "On Common Sense in Mutual Funds." I probably read this in the 2005 era. The section is available in Google Books. Pages 88 through 90 discuss Fine Tuning Your Balance.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ac...cation&f=false

It was unfair of me to post an earlier link to what someone wrote about what Bogle said, instead of beginning with his own words. Reader will have to draw their own conclusion. Even better, one can read the entire book.

My take-away is that a few tactical changes in a lifetime when valuations go insane is a reasonable safety relief from a rigid asset allocation. And this is really a very minor part of Bogle's writings and speeches. I understand market-timing to mean dangerous behavior investors repeat every time there is a correction. So, a large gulf exists between market-timing and changing AA a few times in a lifetime. That is how I see things.

[HadEnuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by target2019 I found a longer, more complete discussion by Bogle concerning tactical asset allocation. It is in one of his books, "On Common Sense in Mutual Funds." I probably read this in the 2005 era. The section is available in Google Books. Pages 88 through 90 discuss Fine Tuning Your Balance. https://books.google.com/books?id=ac...cation&f=false It was unfair of me to post an earlier link to what someone wrote about what Bogle said, instead of beginning with his own words. Reader will have to draw their own conclusion. Even better, one can read the entire book. My take-away is that a few tactical changes in a lifetime when valuations go insane is a reasonable safety relief from a rigid asset allocation. And this is really a very minor part of Bogle's writings and speeches. I understand market-timing to mean dangerous behavior investors repeat every time there is a correction. So, a large gulf exists between market-timing and changing AA a few times in a lifetime. That is how I see things.

I agree with you and with Bogle on this.

[audreyh1]

But isn’t that just saying pay attention to market valuation and change your AA when it seems prudent (i.e. tactical)? Hard to claim that isn’t market timing especially when the “prudent” part will often come down to gut feel. Does he offer valuation metrics for detecting when the markets have “gone insane”?

This has nothing to do with changing AA based on personal events unrelated to market activity such as getting ready to retire, aging, inheritance, family changes, etc.

[target2019]

On Shiller PE Ratio I see two examples in my lifetime investing. One is at 2000, other may be at 2018?

[street]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major Tom I think that I must be just about the least helpful member of this forum, contributing very little of use to others. Since beginning portfolio withdrawals around 8 years ago, I have not consciously rebalanced. However, other activities such as additions to the portfolio, and the selling of equities to generate funds to cover living expenses, inadvertently contributed to rebalancing. I do not watch my AA very closely. My target equity allocation is 60% but at last look, it was closer to 70 (it has probably dropped a bit lower in recent days!) If anything, in another 10 or 20 years, perhaps I can serve as a hopeful example for those who, like me, occasionally wonder if they should be doing more to manage their portfolio, but don't really have the interest or motivation. I feel fairly convinced that, if you can live off less than 3% WR, and are fairly impervious to big swings in NW, your exact AA is not too important. If you are particularly averse to volatility (or if you're perverse enough to actively enjoy it), you can adjust your AA accordingly. This seems to be one of those areas where being slightly apathetic and detached can actually be of benefit!

^ Interesting reply and I thought you were talking about me. I also am one of the least helpful member on this site. I guess that is why I'm here is to learn and thankful for all the good people here that do have the answers and willing to help me.

Great post.

[Trooper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski I think that is a very legit strategy to address SORR.... Had I been aware of that strategy [a more conservative AA earlier in retirement] when I retired I we'll might have done that.

Me too. I was aware of that strategy but decided to go with a more traditional 60/40 AA with an annual rebalancing. I'm still thinking of going safer, but can't force myself to pull trigger. We are "only" 61 and 60 years old, and the thought of not having the growth afforded by equities scares me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major Tom This seems to be one of those areas where being slightly apathetic and detached can actually be of benefit!

Totally.

[ER Eddie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carpediem +1 That's exactly what I've been trying to do. Finding it hard to break the habit but it sure feels good when I'm able to.

It sure is a lot harder to ignore the day-to-day fluctuations when they get so large.

[rayinpenn]

<b>”We are "only" 61 and 60 years old, and the thought of not having the growth afforded by equities scares me.”</b>

I share your concern. The Mrs. has a grandma that lived into her 90s and another into her late 80s. Her and her sister enjoy incredibly low cholesterol like 120s. I suspect she will live a long time after I am gone. Id like to provide one last gift.. comfort. That to me means equities.

[corn18]

I'm fortunate in that my savings spreadsheet is not set up to easily figure out if I am making money or losing money. I had it set up to easily see that data, but then hid that portion.

My sole MOE for my retirement savings is simple: How much blow that dough money will I have when I retire @ 55 (52 now).

Current forecast = $25,795

That's enough.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by target2019 I found a longer, more complete discussion by Bogle concerning tactical asset allocation. It is in one of his books, "On Common Sense in Mutual Funds." I probably read this in the 2005 era. The section is available in Google Books. Pages 88 through 90 discuss Fine Tuning Your Balance. https://books.google.com/books?id=ac...cation&f=false It was unfair of me to post an earlier link to what someone wrote about what Bogle said, instead of beginning with his own words. Reader will have to draw their own conclusion. Even better, one can read the entire book. My take-away is that a few tactical changes in a lifetime when valuations go insane is a reasonable safety relief from a rigid asset allocation. And this is really a very minor part of Bogle's writings and speeches. I understand market-timing to mean dangerous behavior investors repeat every time there is a correction. So, a large gulf exists between market-timing and changing AA a few times in a lifetime. That is how I see things.

Thanks for sharing. The writing is more of Bogle's philosophy. And nothing I have problems with.