Dtail
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
If after 30 years you have what you started with, inflation adjusted, IMO that is an excellent result.
Agree
If after 30 years you have what you started with, inflation adjusted, IMO that is an excellent result.
Thanks..was more curious what others have done and couldn't think of what to search for to see previous comments but will try "won the game".
If after 30 years you have what you started with, inflation adjusted, IMO that is an excellent result.
If that generates for you annually 200-300k in dividends than what is one losing by being 95% in stocks? Add to it 90k in Social security. What will higher spending than 300-400k per year give you?
i view it as i worked hard all my life for my money . now it’s my moneys turn to work hard for me .
so i wont get it a low end , low paying job .
i expect my money to work efficiently for me , so nothing under 40% equities is acceptable to us and we strive now for 50-55%
I guess it is. However, with a $1,000,000 starting portfolio the median balance on 100% bond portfolio after 30 years with a 4% WR inflation adjusted is ~$512, 000.
You'd have to bump it up to 50% bonds to get the final balance to over $1,000,000.
So I guess it goes back to the original point that having a very high bond portfolio leaves a lot of money on the table.
I used the ******** calculator to get the above values.
Good thoughts.
Latest thoughts after playing around a lot with some calculators this past week, is for my allocation to be between 45-55% equities. Currently at 49%.
This thread prompted me to play around with calculators for hours again
But every time the conclusion I get is to stay high equity...regardless of AA ratio the success ratio is always 100% and the ending value is high and the possible "lowest amount" isnt much lower with high equity
I do get you, but the sleep at night volatility factor along the way just would not work for me.
Good thoughts.
Latest thoughts after playing around a lot with some calculators this past week, is for my allocation to be between 45-55% equities. Currently at 49%.
It still takes enough appreciation to over come the pay out reduction or it’s no different then taking the same dollars out of any portfolio
Dividends are a withdrawal method .
It isn’t like interest
Returns only can come from appreciation of the stock or fund
John Templeton would be proud of you. He famously advised viewers of Wall Street Week to invest for growth, and then sell some of the growth when you needed the money..
To the OP. You say that you're at only 22% in stocks/equities. If the market has a major correction and dips down a whopping 50%, you yourself are only down 11% of your portfolio. If you can't take an 11% dip in your investments without it disrupting your retirement, I politely would question if you do indeed have enough saved.
Nothing stops you from being heavily in growth stocks + spend dividends only.
Templeton saw a troubled business as an opportunity for growth. I very much doubt 99.9% of people in this forum have skills to do that.
spending dividends only may be either an over draw or under draw .
just because a company hands you back a huge dividend it doesn’t mean that can be your draw . your draw is based on a lot more .
in down years when dividends are reduced or cut it may be impossible to meet expenses .
so trying to actually create a consistent income off dividends alone can be rough unless it’s just fun money
Don't invest?I think it's more than just the dollar amount.
Some folks have low risk tolerance and "suffer" significantly from Loss Aversion.
I'm not aware of any way to "fix" that condition...
Don't invest?