Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-07-2020, 11:24 PM   #41
Dryer sheet wannabe
SlowlySaving's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 24
I was at 100% stocks up until a few months ago. Currently at 80/20. You also have to think that this portfolio has to last you longer than 30 years, quite possibly 40-45 years.
__________________
FREE at last!! ;-)
FIRE'd in 2/2019 at age 49. AA 80/20.
SlowlySaving 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!

Old 02-08-2020, 11:38 AM   #42
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainsoft View Post
I know the ratio of stocks and bonds is basically a personal choice based on your comfort level with risk. However, it can be helpful to have a general guide to start with.

A common answer is to subtract your age from 100 (or 110, or 120) to determine how much you should have in stocks. However, I've never heard if that is based on a specific retirement age? If I was 50 years old and planned to retire at 65, I might be willing to accept a bit more risk. But if I planned to retire at 55, I would probably want to reduce my risk.

Are there any allocation guidelines based on how many years till you retire, instead of how old you are?
I don't know of any. However, you are probably aware that when you retire, your paycheck stops and you are dependent on your nest egg, your pensions (if any), your SS, your rental income (if any), etc. This means you should think about liquidity. Liquidity is overlooked prior to retirement because your paycheck provides liquidity to meet your needs.

I suggest developing a post retirement budget. If it is $3,000 a month, then that is what your nest egg should provide as a minimum. The elephant in the room is a recession. Here is a useful link to review:

https://obliviousinvestor.com/what-h...-market-crash/

People often assume their bonds provide a soft landing in a recession. However, the link above indicates what "type" of bonds that you have will determine your risk. If you have mostly high yield junk bonds then you may not have a soft landing.

If you have a total bond index fund as an example, I suggest you review the performance of your total bond index fund during the last recession or 2007 to 2009. If it is positive during those years, then you should be OK.

However, if it is negative, then I would suggest creating a "rainy" day cash fund. Some AA can be 50/40/10 which means 50% stock, 40% bonds, 10% cash, CD or treasury. The 10% provides additional liquidity. Be aware that too much liquidity also hurts overall performance. The balance between reward and risk should be up to that individual situation.
2177V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 12:13 PM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,202
I started a poll asking whether and what age based AA people used. 75% said they didn't use one.
https://www.early-retirement.org/for...oll-88258.html

While I don't agree that it's horrendous advice, I'm fairly convinced to ditch my age based plan. It happens that I'm right about where I'd want to be anyway, so I really don't need to decide which way to go for a couple more years, but I'll probably settle in at about 60/40.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 02:36 PM   #44
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmitchell View Post
I haven’t retired yet but having built a nest egg bigger than I ever imagined I’d have makes me feel skittish. I don’t have kids and legacy is unimportant to me so my main goal is to get to the grave with as little drama possible. I have considered dropping to 55/45 or even 50/50 once I do pull the trigger (hopefully around 55–I’m 52 now).
Given that you don't have kids (same here), don't care about legacy (ditto) and want to get to the grave with as little drama as possible (ditto again), you might want to look at whether an even lower equity allocation would still meet your financial needs.

I ER'd at 55 and am roughly 25% equities. Instead, I rely heavily on generating income through CDs, bond fund dividends, stock dividends, etc to cover a good chunk of our living expenses. The equities are solely for LONG-TERM (10+ year) growth and future expenses, and I hope to never have to sell from the equity portion of our portfolio in a down market. (As is often said, you should never have money in the market that you need in the next 10 years..so all these equity heavy portfolios I see people talk about so regularly here is definitely not for me..)

That said, even 25% makes me nervous because a 50% market drop would mean a 12.5% drop in my net worth - and at this point in life when I've turned off the W2 streams for good..that'd be something I'm not particularly comfortable with. I also know from my experience in 2008 that I would stress in a big way even with a 12.5% drop in my overall net worth, so invest accordingly..

Rick Ferri wrote a great article some time back that was posted in Forbes that says the "center of gravity" for an Early Retiree is ~30% equities. He made a pretty good case for that with some hard data as well. Here's the article if you're interested..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickfer.../#659a32be5dae
24601NoMore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 02:48 PM   #45
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by COcheesehead View Post
From 2000-2009 the market was down almost 10%.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/292...he-s-and-p-500
There have also been periods where it's taken the market > 15 years to recover from "peak" (albeit, inflation-adjusted). Those include stretches of 16, 23, 26 and 29 (!) years.

Here's an article that might provide some additional perspective..

https://seekingalpha.com/article/420...t-happens-next
24601NoMore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 06:05 PM   #46
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
I started a poll asking whether and what age based AA people used. 75% said they didn't use one.
https://www.early-retirement.org/for...oll-88258.html

While I don't agree that it's horrendous advice, I'm fairly convinced to ditch my age based plan. It happens that I'm right about where I'd want to be anyway, so I really don't need to decide which way to go for a couple more years, but I'll probably settle in at about 60/40.

I agree that the age based AA is just a guide. I personally did not use it.

I was 100% stock from age 25 to age 50 for my IRA because I knew my IRA is something I cannot withdraw until age 65. I was an aggressive investor for my IRA but I was rewarded for it. After age 50 I started thinking bonds but I started using bonds to exchange my bonds to stocks during a 10% market correction.

When I retired at 65, I was 60/40 but now that I am close to 70, I am now nearly 100% treasury bonds. Looking back... I went from super aggressive during my working years to super conservative during my retirement years. I am now in an asset preservation mode to protect the assets that I earned during my aggressive investment years.

I totally agree with your personally statement "I am right where I want to be". Ditto for me. Everyone is different.
2177V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2020, 09:00 AM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 2,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24601NoMore View Post
There have also been periods where it's taken the market > 15 years to recover from "peak" (albeit, inflation-adjusted). Those include stretches of 16, 23, 26 and 29 (!) years.

Here's an article that might provide some additional perspective..

https://seekingalpha.com/article/420...t-happens-next

You need to factor in dividend reinvestment, and it's not as bad as the numbers above.
GenXguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2020, 09:28 AM   #48
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24601NoMore View Post
There have also been periods where it's taken the market > 15 years to recover from "peak" (albeit, inflation-adjusted). Those include stretches of 16, 23, 26 and 29 (!) years.

Here's an article that might provide some additional perspective..

https://seekingalpha.com/article/420...t-happens-next

Lance Roberts has been a permabear his whole career. The fact that people follow that guy is mind boggling. When I backtest a 100% equity portfolio from 2001-2010 ( 2 bear markets) the numbers aren't as bleak as this article leads us to think.
FREE866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2020, 09:11 AM   #49
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
gayl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Diablo Valley (SF Bay Area)
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by FREE866 View Post
That whole "subtract your age from 100 and put that in stocks" mantra is such horrendous advice.

The main consideration is time horizon, cash flow needs, and your own ability to deal with volatility.
^This

Personally still at 80/20 despite being 68. Getting conservative. Was 100% stock when I retired in 2004
gayl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2020, 09:19 AM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 10,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24601NoMore View Post
... Here's an article that might provide some additional perspective..

https://seekingalpha.com/article/420...t-happens-next
Sorry. SeekingAlpha's authors are there to hawk their investment newsletters or to generate clicks on their web sites.

If any of them could make reliable predictions they would not be living such a miserable existence. They would be off on a private yacht or a private tropical island. The mere fact that they are writing for SeekingAlpha is proof that they have judged their own predictions to be useless.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
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
Date based retiring instead of money based? Cassius King Other topics 60 07-16-2019 07:06 AM
My first asset based mortgage karen1972 FIRE and Money 5 09-25-2018 03:22 PM
So, do you feel your age? Act your age? Like your age? vickko Life after FIRE 84 04-10-2010 01:47 PM
Age-based SWR strategies taking more sophisticated account mortality statistics? Grep FIRE and Money 0 03-16-2007 11:31 AM
Re: Asset based or dividend based Bob_Smith FIRE and Money 21 01-05-2004 12:50 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.