Thinking of calling the market done.

I am sure this has been discussed over and over. I am 40 yo now and have about 1.2 million in assets in the stock market with a AA utilizing Coffee House style. I am far ahead of where I need to be at my age, and even though I planned on retiring in a few years, I have now been promoted at my job and actually like going to work again. I currently sock away the max to my 401k's and save about 20k extra externally as well. I don't really need any gains anymore and am thinking of just cashing out. My current living expenses are around 38k including taxes. I have 2 years aside from that in cash and can continue to live the same lifestyle that I am happy with. I am seriously thinking that it is time to call the market quits and move to 100% cash and wait for CD's to start to return to the averages again at some point in the future. I plan on working another 10 or so years now given my current job that is very stable and easily transferable to another company in the event of a job loss. I work in high tech field as lead programmer so the ongoing demand is expected to be strong.

My thought is once you have won the game why continue any risk? I understand loss of principal due to inflation, but it looks on paper right now that I could retire with a 3.2% withdrawal rate. Given another 10 years in the industry I my projections will be a 2,144,050.46 ending balance given $45k additions and 3% growth. I know cashing out now will only give 1% growth if I am lucky. But eventually we have to return to the norm.

Thought and Comments?

Reading your post seemed a little like deja vu to me. I was in a realted field for many years, was well compensated and even got a promotion and a better assignment just a few years before I retired. From an investment perspective, I guess I had always felt a lot like you in that "once you have won the game why continue any risk?" (however there are always some risk)

To that end, once I reached what I considered, "more than enough" I moved most (but not all) of my money from "90% in high value stocks" to what most people would consider very conservative investments.
I think you really need to be sure of the lifestyle you want to maintain for the rest of your life, which could be another 50 years or more at your age. I know for me, my retirement plans changed (by choice) from when I was 40 to when I was 60. There are also the endless unknowns which others have pointed out. You just never know what's coming. But you will probably be surprised several times. Hopefully for the better.

For me, 1.2 million at age 40 wouldn't have been enough to "get out of the market". You might want to consider waiting a while longer and accumulate a bit more wealth before moving to such a strategy (again depending on desired lifestyle.) Just my 2 cents. (4 cents adjusted for inflation :)
 
Last edited:
RetirementColdHardTruth,

I think your overall goal, to cash in your chips now, is fine. However, I would not go 100% CDs.

I personally like Vanguard's Intermediate Corporate Bond fund. If you can put this into a tax advantaged account, that is how I would go if I wanted no stocks.

I personally feel a lot more comfortable loaning money to US companies as I think that market is less manipulated.
 
Like you I am also very risk averse and understand where you are coming from. I started to buy deferred annuities this year, as documented in other threads. You may wish to have a look at these financial products.

My thought is once you have won the game why continue any risk? I understand loss of principal due to inflation, but it looks on paper right now that I could retire with a 3.2% withdrawal rate. Given another 10 years in the industry I my projections will be a 2,144,050.46 ending balance given $45k additions and 3% growth. I know cashing out now will only give 1% growth if I am lucky. But eventually we have to return to the norm.

Thought and Comments?
 
I think it's a workable plan if you can commit to it. Put your money in 30 year treasuries at 3.16%. That, along with your 45000 in additions will give you your number. Put the new money and interest in CDs. I guarantee you will be better off than 70% of the folks who invest in equities.
 

Same source, same discussion from about a year ago FWIW. http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/buffett-bonds-the-most-dangerous-of-assets-59984.html. Ask yourself, 'is he talking to individual investors, or from the perspective of BRK?' Warren Buffett is one of a kind successful and brilliant, but does that mean individuals should invest just as he does for himself of BRK?
 
Last edited:
+1
This would be my strategy if I was pessimistic or wanted to be very conservative. Something along the lines of Vanguard Wellesley.

+1 on Wellesley, like so many others on this forum. Over the past forty years, only 6 losing years, and none worse than -9.6%. Very comforting.:greetings10:
 
I tend to conceptualize this issue somewhat differently. I think of retirement in terms of decades. If I was retiring now at age 49 I would conceptualize my portfolio as follows:

Decade 1: Age 50-60. These are funds I'll be spending over the next 10 years and should be invested conservatively enough to eliminate downside risk

Decade 2: Age 60-70. These are funds I'll be spending 10-20 years out and so should be invested using an asset mix that provides the best combination of safety and earnings for a 10-20 year horizon.

Decade 3: Age 70-80. These are funds that I will be spending 20-30 years from now. I can afford to be somewhat more aggressive here because because that has historically been far more than enough time to recover from even the worst bear market. It's a tradeoff between inflation risk and market risks.

Decade 4: Age 80-90. These are funds that I'll be spending 30-40 years from now. Really no different than Decade 3 as a 30 year horizon and 40 year horizon are basically the same thing for investment purposes.

Now of course I wouldn't break my portfolio into 4 separate portfolios managed separately for each decade. But the mental exercise does allow one to better conceptualize investment strategies. Putting everything back together I would come up with a portfolio in the neighborhood of 50% equities and 50% fixed for early retirement at age 40 or 50 and somewhat more conservative for traditional retirement at age 65.
 
Wait, you want no risk and so will move to 100% cash? I can't think of a riskier approach than zero diversification.
 
I think it's a workable plan if you can commit to it. Put your money in 30 year treasuries at 3.16%. That, along with your 45000 in additions will give you your number. Put the new money and interest in CDs. I guarantee you will be better off than 70% of the folks who invest in equities.
I wouldn't be foolish enough to make any guarantees about the various markets over 30 years, but I'm betting my own future on a mix of equities and bonds, perhaps with an SPIA in my later years.
 
RunningBum said:
I wouldn't be foolish enough to make any guarantees about the various markets over 30 years, but I'm betting my own future on a mix of equities and bonds, perhaps with an SPIA in my later years.

I'm not making guarantees about the various markets. My bet is that he will outperform 70% of the humans who invest in equities. The average investor lags the index by a wide margin. And that includes index investors. lol
 
If you Won the Game, Stop Playing

The Federal Reserve is sitting on ~3.1 Trillion dollars they have to unwind by raising interest rates sooner killing the stock market rally or later and tolerating increased inflation. Since history suggests they won't time this correctly this cannot end well.

Bonds are in a one of the biggest financial bubbles in the history of finance. When rates rise in 2014, 2015, 2016 people holding bonds with take a severe hit on principle they do not seem to understand.

I sold my Wellesley Fund last week. With a holding of ~60% bonds the risk is too high. Bonds are in a major bubble.

I am in a similar situation as the original poster but I have twice as much in assets. Sometime, probably in 2014, I will be at a minimum 70% cash and 30% equities which is for me is defensive. I have been in 95%+ stocks for over 35 years.

Capital preservation is the key in the next few years and the Federal Reserve has sown the seed so fhe next financial crisis. This graph nicely sums up in a picture what is will drive the next crisis..too much money in the economy.


Graph: St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base (AMBNS) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
 


Very nice. Thanks for pointing this link out. When you start to think about it in terms of fixed vs income producing it does start to take on a whole new meaning. I guess I have to stop looking at the balance and start looking at what that balance can generate. As buffet points out there are a lot of companies (and for my liking ETF's that limit single company risk) that provide nice dividends year in and year out.

I guess markets hitting new highs, and all the talking heads got me worried about the market will "Crash" again. All this talk of 1 last run before the market completely melts down and never comes back. Talk of peak oil, energy prices, high unemployment, gap between the rich and poor, youtube conspiracies, and the like.

Maybe I should turn the internet off! Might make me sleep better at night. I will plan on taking about 200k out into a cash position, but let the rest ride. I am looking at those High Dividend ETF's as a place to start moving into income producing vs my coffee house gowth style.

Thank you all for reiterating what I have read many times over from many threads, you guys have certainly made me re-evaluate my go to cash strategy.
 
Ask yourself, 'is he talking to individual investors, or from the perspective of BRK?'

My guess is the piece he edited for the magazine was targeted at their readership, primarily individual investors rather than fund managers.

Warren Buffett is one of a kind successful and brilliant, but does that mean individuals should invest just as he does for himself of BRK?

No.

...
 
Rising Rates

I guess markets hitting new highs, and all the talking heads got me worried about the market will "Crash" again. All this talk of 1 last run before the market completely melts down and never comes back.

Markets are hitting new highs because the Federal Reserve is pumping trillions into the economy along with 38 other countries around the world. At some point these policies will have to come to a halt causing rates to rise and markets to come down...imo...very hard. I believe the market will meltdown but not necessarily this year. Now the question I ask is simple:

Why would you or anyone else buy an asset at $50, see it rise to $100, and watch it come back down because of increasing rates, at some indeterminable point in the future? It makes no sense.

Imo, it is better to stop playing the game early, take your profits, watch the market meltdown, and reenter at some later date. And if you perceive you have won better to stop playing altogether and enjoy the money you have earned.
 
Very nice. Thanks for pointing this link out. When you start to think about it in terms of fixed vs income producing it does start to take on a whole new meaning. I guess I have to stop looking at the balance and start looking at what that balance can generate. As buffet points out there are a lot of companies (and for my liking ETF's that limit single company risk) that provide nice dividends year in and year out.

I guess markets hitting new highs, and all the talking heads got me worried about the market will "Crash" again. All this talk of 1 last run before the market completely melts down and never comes back. Talk of peak oil, energy prices, high unemployment, gap between the rich and poor, youtube conspiracies, and the like.

Maybe I should turn the internet off! Might make me sleep better at night. I will plan on taking about 200k out into a cash position, but let the rest ride. I am looking at those High Dividend ETF's as a place to start moving into income producing vs my coffee house gowth style.

Thank you all for reiterating what I have read many times over from many threads, you guys have certainly made me re-evaluate my go to cash strategy.

I am glad you re-evaluated. Buffett is not infallible, but I can't tell you how much I've learned about investment by reading his annual letters. It helps that I am shareholder, but I was reading them long before I bought a share of Berkshire stock. There are lots of things I learned from reading the letters.

But the three most important are

  • When you buy ETF/Mutual fund you are not entering a casino or even an ebay auction, this isn't a zero sum game. You are buying the rights to receive the future earnings/dividends of collection of great companies that make valuable products and generally make a profit selling them.
  • Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful
  • Price is not equal to value
Before reacting to a big change in the market either direction. I find it helpful to step back and ask yourself; will the crisis, or more often the impending crisis, or perhaps rosy economic news, dramatically change the number of iPhones Apple sells 2, 5 or 10 years from now, boxes of Tide P&G sells, cans of cola shipped by Pepsi or Coke, microprocessor made by Intel. Almost always the answer is no. Although the events in 2008 were so devestating the answer was a definite yes.


If we look back at the economic news over the last year the results were generally positive. The Euro doesn't look like it will collapse, the housing market is recovering in the US, China is taking steps to avoid a bubble in their economy. All in all things are slightly better than a year ago, although serious problems remain in the developed countries, but the emerging markets are doing quite well indeed. It seems more likely that Apple, Coke etc will sell more stuff in the next couple of years than it seemed a year ago. The stock market has responded by going up.

Now we are starting to see signs of people being less fearful. like individuals investors getting back into the market. But I have not seen much in the way of greed, neither the taxi cab driver, nor my barber have asked for or offered stock tips. Nothing like we saw back in 1999 of day trader, and crazy IPOs for tech companies, or stories of house flippers in 2006/2007. But your instincts are right when the market goes up become nervous.

IMO what Buffett such a great investor is he has a keen understanding of what things (especially companies) are worth. He pays very little attention to what the markets say (i.e stock quotes) a company or stock is worth. Instead he does an independent analysis to determine the value and than looks at the price. Now there a lot of people especially academic who say it is foolish to try outsmart the market. I think they are wrong, I'll note that all of them are poorer than Buffett, and most of them are working and I am not.

Now there are a zillion way of valuing the stock market, but I always try evaluate things by making both an absolute valuation and a relative valuation. The chart below is the historic Price/Earning ratio (P/E) of the S&P over the last 150 years. At 17.23 if we eyeball the chart it looks a tad overvalued. Since earning are predicted to increase this year the P/E on forward basis is 13.8. A reason to be cautious but not enough to say crash ahead, like was evident in 1999.

But on relative basis compared to bonds or cash, the stock market is cheap. As Buffett say they bonds are priced to provide return free risk.
The ten year T-bill is yielding 2% and corporate are 3% (AA) and of course cash is ~0%. If we convert the P/E ratio of the stock market it currently is yielding 5.8% and if earning projections hold the ratio will be 7.2%. Of this 5.8%, 2.1% is returned to the shareholder as dividends which are receive favorable tax treatment compare to bonds. Now compared to other assets classes like real estate, and maybe commodities stock are fairly valued or perhaps a tad expensive. But it isn't easy to invest in any of these in a 401K.


chart
 
Last edited:
If we convert the P/E ratio of the stock market it currently is yielding 5.8%
And, regardless of that happens to the stock price, the dollar-value of that 5.8% will likely continue to be paid if the company keeps selling its services and its business (not it's stock price) is healthy. In today's low-return environment, that's a pretty attractive proposition compared to bonds and CDs.
 
Interesting. Bernstein says that in retirement you should determine what would be 20 to 25 times your residual living expenses - living expenses less SS/pension. That should be TIPs, annuities, or short-term bonds. Whatever is left can be in risky assets.

He doesn't really describe what he means by living expenses. The sense I have is that he means the basic expenses, not things that are discretionary.

He talks a bit about inflation risk but in the end thinks that rates won't always be low and seems to favor short term bonds.
 
Going form 100% equities to 100% cash doesn't sound very sensible. Given your age and plans I've advise a more balanced AA, maybe 60% equities, 40% bonds. If you want to lock in income for the future deferred annuities might be right for you, but go in understanding what you are buying ie the fees, interest and return of capital. You could also buy some real estate. IMHO that is the best option, stocks are high and real estate is coming out of a minimum. I'd buy a one or two bedroom quality place close to where you live so you can manage it yourself and get an above market rent.
 
Interesting. Bernstein says that in retirement you should determine what would be 20 to 25 times your residual living expenses - living expenses less SS/pension. That should be TIPs, annuities, or short-term bonds. Whatever is left can be in risky assets.

He doesn't really describe what he means by living expenses. The sense I have is that he means the basic expenses, not things that are discretionary.

He talks a bit about inflation risk but in the end thinks that rates won't always be low and seems to favor short term bonds.
The trouble with this is that it would take so much money to fund even bare bones needs. Say a couple can get by on $30,000. At 1%, which is more than we will generally be able to find, that means a $3mm portfolio if invested in ST bonds. But a couple with $3mm is not likely to want to, or even be able to live on $30,000. So what will they do? Invest in a fleet of luxury cars.

Any of you who are resenting the boomers should realize that Mr. B is cutting them off at the knees as we speak. Starve the bastids, and no one will have to worry about all the money they suck up ever again.

Ha
 
Interesting. Bernstein says that in retirement you should determine what would be 20 to 25 times your residual living expenses - living expenses less SS/pension. That should be TIPs, annuities, or short-term bonds. Whatever is left can be in risky assets.

For me that means 50% in TIPS, etc from ER to 66 and 0% there after.
 

It's pretty obvious that Bill was deeply affected by the fact that many clients fled the stock market during the latest unpleasantness (I recall we discussed this in previous posts). If someone is prone to do that then they should definitely keep only a very low equity allocation because they are going to lose a high percentage of it.

On average, it has taken 63 months to recover from US market declines of greater than 25% (if we count reinvested dividends). It took just 58 months to recover from the stock declines of 2007-2009. So, we're even again. The folks who lost a lot of money are those who fled. It certainly helps to have enough resources to keep food on the table during a market drop, but it's even more important to just hold on. Those who can't/won't do that should probably not be in equities. William Bernstein's (current) advice is good for them.
 
Katsmeow said:
Interesting. Bernstein says that in retirement you should determine what would be 20 to 25 times your residual living expenses - living expenses less SS/pension. That should be TIPs, annuities, or short-term bonds. Whatever is left can be in risky assets.

He doesn't really describe what he means by living expenses. The sense I have is that he means the basic expenses, not things that are discretionary.

He talks a bit about inflation risk but in the end thinks that rates won't always be low and seems to favor short term bonds.

I think he is speaking about those age 60 plus and not 40 year olds like the OP. But I think one can take this advice and expand it. If the OP can meet his residual living expenses investing only in less risky assets, then certainly that option should be entertained. For the record, I am heavy equities but the OP asks a legitimate question. If he invests consecutively and continues to save for the next 10 years, he will have about 2.5 million , which is plenty to retire on. If he invests in equities, maybe he hits 2.5 million at age 47. Or maybe he hits it at 60.
 
The trouble with this is that it would take so much money to fund even bare bones needs. Say a couple can get by on $30,000. At 1%, which is more than we will generally be able to find, that means a $3mm portfolio if invested in ST bonds. But a couple with $3mm is not likely to want to, or even be able to live on $30,000. So what will they do? Invest in a fleet of luxury cars.

Ha
I don't think Bernstein is saying that you must live off the interest and dividends of safe assets. He must be assuming you draw down the principal. For someone who can live a basic lifestyle for $30K, he's saying put $600-750K in safe investments.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's what I took out of it. That seems to imply that you could survive on $750K in low-yielding assets on a $30K budget, but I wouldn't want to try it for a 30 or 40 year time frame. If $30K is your basic budget now, what do you think it will be in 10 years with inflation?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom