What percentage of net worth allocated to stocks ?

[Steven]

Some of us are risk averse and keep money in CD's or money markets and are not entirely invested in the market. Am I in the minority on this ?

So my question is not what percentage of your "portfolio" is in stocks, but rather, what the percentage of your "net worth" is invested in stocks or stock funds ?

(sorry about the earlier typo)

 

[REWahoo]

Your thread title doesn't appear to have any relation to the questions you ask in your post. What are you asking?

 

[HFWR]

The equity in my home, which I will likely never fully "own", is about 10% of my net worth.

My allocation is currently ~50% bonds, 35% stocks, 5% REIT, 5% CCF, and 5% cash.

 

[obgyn65]

Zero.

 

[Steven]

Thanks for pointing out my error.
I re-posted my question.

 

[Steven]

I edited the title but it still displays the error .

 

[Donzo]

I am about 50% stocks now.

 

[REWahoo]

I edited the title but it still displays the error.

Looks correct to me.

 

[Meadbh]

39% currently. At one time it was 60%. I rebalanced over time by adding other asset classes.

 

[Gumby]

Approximately 45-50%, depending on the value of my house.

 

[sanfanciscotreat]

58% and gradually falling.

 

[Ready-4-ER-at-14]

2%cash
55% stock,mutuals,MLP,
16.6% fixed income
26.5% RE + reits (our RE is 1/3 lower in value as Chicago is an area with no rebound yet)
some in annuities but harder to price value as have bonus for delay in turn on

 

[NW-Bound]

70% of portfolio. About 55% of net worth when RE values are added.

 

[FIREd]

I am about 1/3 equities, 1/3 fixed income, 1/3 real estate.

 

[arky]

Retired 5 years. Down to 25% stock from about 50% 5 years prior to retiring. May let it creep back up a bit.

 

[LOL!]

Our home is about 10% of our net worth and dropping in percentage every year. Equities are about 55% of networth and will likely not go down from that value.

 

[Hamlet]

I'm 40 and probably at least 10 years from retirement.

Our home equity is probably 5-10% of our network worth. We probably have another 5% in our emergency fund and cash that hasn't been invested yet.

The rest is entirely in equities.

 

[donheff]

60% of portfolio about 38% of net worth.

 

[GrayHare]

about 40% in equities and I'm concerned that's too low but bonds are like the Energizer bunny

 

[MDJO]

75% of portfolio. If home and coin collection are added, 62% to stock.

 

[braumeister]

42% and likely to stay about that for a while.

 

[haha]

I think OP may have a restrictive definition of portfolio. I really don't know what my net worth is, it is basically my invested assets (= portfolio) plus my condo + any other RE owned. If I owned contractual assets like annuities I am not sure how I would handle it.

But once a month I get a picture of my invested assets, which the way I look at it is identical with saying "my portfolio", and includes bank accounts, CDs, treasury securities and Savings Bonds, any other fixed income, plus stocks, royalty trusts, MLPs or any other tradeable assets that I own for income or to be sold (hopefully!) at a profit.

On this basis, straight up (cash zero maturity) is 20% of invested assets, and I have another 14% which is fixed income securities funds of duration <= 1 year.

Ha

 

[Alan]

40% of net worth is allocated to stocks. (We rent, and don't own any property)

 

[ERD50]

So my question is not what percentage of your "portfolio" is in stocks, but rather, what the percentage of your "net worth" is invested in stocks or stock funds ?

I assume your distinction between 'portfolio' and 'net worth' would be other non-portfolio assets (home equity being #1 for most). But then, maybe you should include the 'phantom' net worth of pensions, SS, etc? Non-COLA will be worth ~ 1/2 that of a COLA pension/SS.

Some of us are risk averse and keep money in CD's or money markets and are not entirely invested in the market. Am I in the minority on this ?

As I've said before, I don't think that keeping a large % of money in CD's or money markets is 'risk averse' at all. In fact, it has historically been just the opposite. Do some FIRECALC runs with 90% fixed and some with 25% fixed, and see how much higher the risk is that you FAIL with a high % of fixed.

How can increased failures be seen as less risky? Less volatile, yes, but less risky? Not historically.

So I will turn it around and say, yes, I think you are in the minority. Most of us choose not to expose ourselves to the level of risk you are taking on.

-ERD50

 

[Steven]

I guess I need to get some courage.
I'm only 3.5% stocks and 4% bonds.