Join Early Retirement Today
View Poll Results: IF you do an age based asset allocation, what is your formula for equities?
90 or less - Age = % equity 1 0.93%
>90 up to 100 - Age 2 1.85%
>100 up to 110 - Age 6 5.56%
>110 up to 120 - Age 6 5.56%
>120 up to 130 - Age 5 4.63%
>130 - Age 1 0.93%
Other age based system (explain) 5 4.63%
I don't use an age based system 82 75.93%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Age based AA poll
Old 08-30-2017, 07:34 PM   #1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,113
Age based AA poll

IF you use an age based asset allocation what % equities do you hold?

If you use some age based scheme that doesn't fit the simple "Number - age = equity % allocation" scheme, pick "other" and explain.

If you don't use an age based system, you really don't have a reason to vote in this poll, but I added the last option for you.
__________________

RunningBum 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!

Age based AA poll
Old 08-30-2017, 07:54 PM   #2
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 425
Age based AA poll

Age 52. 60/40 EQ/FI. will keep same AA until 60. Then will be 50/50 for rest of life.
__________________

__________________
Retired at age 52 on 12/1/2016
AA:60/40 WR:3% until 2022 then 4% is the plan
retire2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 12:41 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,290
I didn't answer as nothing exactly explained. I don't use a hard formula. On the other hand, age is one factor that I qualitatively think about in setting an AA.

I note that DH and I are 6 1/2 years apart in age. So, in these hard formulas, I always get hung up on whose age to use. His or mine?
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 05:23 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
i think trying to age base an allocation is a terrible way to plan . one size never fits all
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 06:07 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DrRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,946
Don't use an age system.
__________________
"The mountains are calling, and I must go." John Muir
DrRoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 07:09 AM   #6
Full time employment: Posting here.
racy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 617
I'm 64 and have 50% in equities; planning to maintain that going forward.
__________________
The Big Lebowski: Are you employed, sir?
The Dude: Employed?
racy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 07:13 AM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i think trying to age base an allocation is a terrible way to plan . one size never fits all
It's not one size. 100-age is a totally different size from 125-age. That's fine if you use a different system and don't agree with this, but I don't understand your point against.

I knew not everyone used this kind of system but I'm surprised to see how many don't. And there may be more, since I was kind of discouraging people from voting if it didn't apply, which I realize now I shouldn't have done. I know market timers wouldn't use this, but I thought those were in the minority here. Now I'm curious what the rest of you do--something fairly static, like retire2020? It'd also be helpful to me if you say whether or not you're retired.

I'm not arguing for or against any system. This is a case where I'm not fully sold on doing this or what number to use.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 07:15 AM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
easysurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,101
100-age.

Use 100 because easiest math .

I made the wrong selection on the poll though. Should have chose >90 up to 100 - Age, but instead chose >100 up to 110 - Age (hate when that happens... sign of not paying attention ... Grrr! . Maybe one of the mods can fix. Thanks!).
__________________
Have you ever seen a headstone with these words
"If only I had spent more time at work" ... from "Busy Man" sung by Billy Ray Cyrus
easysurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 07:18 AM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
at any given age- one size never will fit all and in fact may really fit few .

we all have different needs , different investing temperaments , we may want to do things based on the world around us at times , etc etc .

in fact some retirees may be investing for their income while others have pensions and are investing for legacy money which can be as aggressively invested as in their 30's .

this is why target date funds never made sense to me . telling a 25 year old with little pucker factor he should be heavy in equities so he bails and runs when we decline does no good .

telling a 65 year old with high pucker factor they need to not only have a high allocation to bonds but should increase it every year can be just as wrong .

especially if rates are rising and they have losses ..

think about the fact that target funds are all over the place allocation wise even for the same situation .

the same 2010 target date fund from wells fargo in 2008-2009 lost 11.5% while the t.rowe price 2010 target fund lost 26.5%. that is a target fund that had 2 years to go before retirement. in fact the t.rowe target date fund didn't fall to below 45% equities until 5 years after the target date.


while age based investing covers wall streets butt it really is not such a great way to go in my opinion .

how we invest is really unique to all of us and anytime you try to get a simple answer to a complex issue it is likely going to be the wrong answer .
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 07:46 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
at any given age- one size never will fit all and in fact may really fit few .

we all have different needs , different investing temperaments , we may want to do things based on the world around us at times , etc etc .

in fact some retirees may be investing for their income while others have pensions and are investing for legacy money which can be as aggressively invested as in their 30's .

this is why target date funds never made sense to me . telling a 25 year old with little pucker factor he should be heavy in equities so he bails and runs when we decline does no good .

telling a 65 year old with high pucker factor they need to not only have a high allocation to bonds but should increase it every year can be just as wrong .

especially if rates are rising and they have losses ..

think about the fact that target funds are all over the place allocation wise even for the same situation .

the same 2010 target date fund from wells fargo in 2008-2009 lost 11.5% while the t.rowe price 2010 target fund lost 26.5%. that is a target fund that had 2 years to go before retirement. in fact the t.rowe target date fund didn't fall to below 45% equities until 5 years after the target date.


while age based investing covers wall streets butt it really is not such a great way to go in my opinion .

how we invest is really unique to all of us and anytime you try to get a simple answer to a complex issue it is likely going to be the wrong answer .
Well said. Excellent post.
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 07:48 AM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
i was on the 401k committee at work back in 2008 . we saw the youngin's bail and run because the target funds they were in were age based . they got so scared out they never returned .
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:02 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
at any given age- one size never will fit all and in fact may really fit few .

we all have different needs , different investing temperaments , we may want to do things based on the world around us at times , etc etc .

in fact some retirees may be investing for their income while others have pensions and are investing for legacy money which can be as aggressively invested as in their 30's .

this is why target date funds never made sense to me . telling a 25 year old with little pucker factor he should be heavy in equities so he bails and runs when we decline does no good .

telling a 65 year old with high pucker factor they need to not only have a high allocation to bonds but should increase it every year can be just as wrong .

especially if rates are rising and they have losses ..

think about the fact that target funds are all over the place allocation wise even for the same situation .

the same 2010 target date fund from wells fargo in 2008-2009 lost 11.5% while the t.rowe price 2010 target fund lost 26.5%. that is a target fund that had 2 years to go before retirement. in fact the t.rowe target date fund didn't fall to below 45% equities until 5 years after the target date.


while age based investing covers wall streets butt it really is not such a great way to go in my opinion .

how we invest is really unique to all of us and anytime you try to get a simple answer to a complex issue it is likely going to be the wrong answer .
Your argument is primarily against target funds, which picks the number for you. That's not at all what I'm talking about. And I certainly never said age based allocation was for everyone. That's why I started with "IF".
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:04 AM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,113
I'm also interested in what investors HERE do, since most of us don't panic sell, unlike novice investors.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:05 AM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
Your argument is primarily against target funds, which picks the number for you. That's not at all what I'm talking about. And I certainly never said age based allocation was for everyone. That's why I started with "IF".
no , my argument is against any fixed allocation based on age or retirement date without looking at all the other parameters that are important to most of us that need to go in to that decision . ..
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:06 AM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,654
Reduced equity exposure to 50% 2 years prior to retirement and it's been the same for the 3+ years of retirement. No plans to deviate from it for the foreseeable future.
Corporateburnout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:24 AM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
no , my argument is against any fixed allocation based on age or retirement date without looking at all the other parameters that are important to most of us that need to go in to that decision . ..
Thank you. This makes the point that even of those who do age based allocation, it's probably not of much use to me since they may not match my risk level, goals of whether to leave an estate behind, or life expectancy outlook. Still, it's of use to know if I'm an outlier, and if so to make sure I have a good reason for it. Judging from the poll responses so far, I'm sort of an outlier just for using that system, and I should think about whether I'm ok with that.

Still interested in others' responses.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:27 AM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
easysurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i was on the 401k committee at work back in 2008 . we saw the youngin's bail and run because the target funds they were in were age based . they got so scared out they never returned .
On the flipside, for me, an age based systems helps keep my emotions out of the equation so I don't bail and run when the market gets choppy. Plus, I stick to my number so I'm not say, 100 - age today, 125 - age or 90 - age tomorrow, bouncing around.
__________________
Have you ever seen a headstone with these words
"If only I had spent more time at work" ... from "Busy Man" sung by Billy Ray Cyrus
easysurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:29 AM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
38Chevy454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,348
I picked the age value that fits my allocation amount, but I don't use that as a value for past or for future allocation choices. I have always thought the generic "100-age" was too conservative for me.
__________________
The advice we're giving you is invaluable, that's why it's free
Experience is a good teacher, but the tuition can get expensive real fast

Semi-Retired 7/1/16: working part-time (60%) for now [4/24/17 changed to 80%]
Retired Aug 2, 2017; age 53
38Chevy454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:29 AM   #19
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by easysurfer View Post
On the flipside, for me, an age based systems helps keep my emotions out of the equation so I don't bail and run when the market gets choppy. Plus, I stick to my number so I'm not say, 100 - age today, 125 - age or 90 - age tomorrow, bouncing around.




but you are changing over time if you are following age based .the fact would be you are bouncing around to different allocations as you age whether you want to change or feel a need to change . each year you would have less in equities being age based .

in fact that is the opposite of a rising glide path where each year you increase equities after initially reducing them entering retirement
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2017, 08:36 AM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Moemg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sarasota,fl.
Posts: 11,182
65/28/7.I am 70 .
__________________

Moemg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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
Percentage of Salary to Save Based on Age You Start EvrClrx311 Young Dreamers 32 12-15-2012 01:46 PM
So, do you feel your age? Act your age? Like your age? vickko Life after FIRE 84 04-10-2010 02:47 PM
Questioning Age-Based Allocations mmcc FIRE and Money 19 01-10-2010 09:42 AM
Age-based SWR strategies taking more sophisticated account mortality statistics? Grep FIRE and Money 0 03-16-2007 12:31 PM
Re: Asset based or dividend based Bob_Smith FIRE and Money 21 01-05-2004 01:50 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×