|
|
Anybody else 100% stocks, no bonds?
10-29-2021, 12:59 PM
|
#1
|
Confused about dryer sheets
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Lomita
Posts: 6
|
Anybody else 100% stocks, no bonds?
Our living expenses are completely covered by my wife's pension. I expect the ride to be bumpy at some point on our investments (VTSAX), but we're retired debt free at age 60 with a six month emergency fund, full medical benefits and expecting to collect social security at 62. Just looking for other perspectives. Bonds in our case seem to likely be a drag on our investments when we can ride out any serious dip in the market.
|
|
|
|
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!
|
10-29-2021, 01:10 PM
|
#2
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Sugar Land, Texas
Posts: 1,245
|
Yes at 43.
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 01:57 PM
|
#3
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 11,299
|
Not me, but if I was in your situation, I would certainly consider it.
__________________
TGIM
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 03:00 PM
|
#4
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Fargo
Posts: 990
|
You both can do it and you don't have to.
So it is a personal choice. At 60, I wouldn't go below 20% Treasury Index or something similar.
At 50 we are 70-30.
Nobody knows if/when the next big dip is coming or how long it will last. Many roads to Dublin.
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 03:02 PM
|
#5
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 4,373
|
In your case 100% equities is a reasonable choice. I target 70/30 AA, but with the great stock market results and poor fixed income side thanks to such low interest rates (and now higher inflation adding to fixed income woes), I'm letting my AA ride the wave. Currently at 83% equities.
Yes I understand that fixed income is more for stability and not returns. I can make adjustments as I feel are needed.
__________________
The problem isn't artificial intelligence, it's natural stupidity.
You can't spend yourself to prosperity.
Semi-Retired 7/1/16: working part-time (60%) for now [4/24/17 changed to 80%]
Retired Aug 2, 2017; age 53
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 03:03 PM
|
#6
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,605
|
We are 50/50. I've looked at VTSAX but noticed our Wellington and VSIAX holdings have beaten VTSAX from 2000 - Present.
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 03:29 PM
|
#7
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 151
|
We are 50/50 at the moment. In a similar situation as you, as our pensions pay for our living expenses (not splurges), ages 57 and 55. Given the current status of fixed rates, as individual bonds mature, will be reinvesting in equities. Been retired for 3 years now so feeling more confident in our ability to ride through a downturn (like March 2020), so AA in equities will steadily rise over time. Plan on taking SS at 62 as well.
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:07 PM
|
#8
|
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83
|
I'm still five/seven years away from pension/SS, respectively. And although both streams of income will cover 125% of my current expenses I don't think I will every go above 75% equities
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:13 PM
|
#9
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,579
|
I think it is fine for your situation.
When we had our investments managed by ML, they insisted that we should stay with 65-35 even though we had protested that we did not need to draw on taxable accounts. Our investments are in equal amounts for taxable to IRA accounts.
Now that we have taken back management of our accounts, we are having
- 60-40 equities to fixed income in the IRA account because it needs to meet RMD each year.
For our taxable accounts:
- My son who is 35 yo, I am managing it to 83-17 equiites to fixed income.
- My husband and my taxable accounts are at 80-20.
My IRA account has been turned into annuities, which go towards fixed income.
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:28 PM
|
#10
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,335
|
I'm 55 and have been retired almost 5years and although it is against conventional wisdom I'm at almost 100% stock. I always have been. I keep ~1-2 years in cash and draw on my account a few times a year to cover expenses. When I ran numbers paring my AA down to 70/30 it just didn't make sense to me.
__________________
Retired 1/6/2017 at 50 years old
Immensely grateful
“The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect.”—Warren Buffett
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:29 PM
|
#11
|
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 761
|
I'm 100% stocks and mostly dividend stocks (I don't want to get into a big debate about the evils of dividend investing - I know the consensus here is that it is foolish)
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:38 PM
|
#12
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 26,895
|
I'd say it's fine, but remember that...
Hah, I was going to give my stock answer that FIRECalc shows that a 95/5 AA has a better survival rate than a 100/0 (the bonds are probably helping avoid selling stocks in the downturn), but then I realize you have zero withdrawals, so I guess any portfolio should survive!
So yes, historically 100% stocks is the ticket (and FIRECALC agrees, with a higher min/max end for 100%), as long as you never get scared of the volatility and sell when they are down (doesn't sound like you would).
Carry on! Enjoy!
-ERD50
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:47 PM
|
#13
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,186
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
I'd say it's fine, but remember that...
Hah, I was going to give my stock answer that FIRECalc shows that a 95/5 AA has a better survival rate than a 100/0 (the bonds are probably helping avoid selling stocks in the downturn), but then I realize you have zero withdrawals, so I guess any portfolio should survive!
So yes, historically 100% stocks is the ticket (and FIRECALC agrees, with a higher min/max end for 100%), as long as you never get scared of the volatility and sell when they are down (doesn't sound like you would).
Carry on! Enjoy!
-ERD50
|
Wouldn't it depend on the exact years involved? Historically, especially for relatively short time periods, portfolios with less than 100% equities outperformed portfolios at 100% equities, even with no withdrawals.
I think about this more and more as I crash through my 70's! Investment time frames just might not be 30 years.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:48 PM
|
#14
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 10,351
|
I think it's fine. You can think of pensions as your fixed income tranche. Because they are. You could even play present-value-of-money games and try to come up with a dollar value for the pensions, then calculate a sort of synthetic AA.
__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabimus
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:52 PM
|
#15
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,228
|
If I had all of my expenses covered, I might be 100% stocks too, like I was when I was working. I'd have that emergency fund the OP mentioned, for a major purchase or repair. I'd want all of my expenses covered, not just essentials.
As I got older, and thought I might be headed for assisted living, memory care, or a situation like that where my expenses would increase, I'd rethink this. At 60, the OP is probably safely years from that.
A side question to this is, if you were close to having it all covered, would you get an SPIA to cover the gap, and then leave the rest in stock?
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 04:59 PM
|
#16
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 26,895
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet
Wouldn't it depend on the exact years involved? Historically, especially for relatively short time periods, portfolios with less than 100% equities outperformed portfolios at 100% equities, even with no withdrawals.
I think about this more and more as I crash through my 70's! Investment time frames just might not be 30 years.
|
Oh yes. For that post I just did a long term look, 40 year portfolio. Just now did a few quick runs, 20 years still favors 100%, 10 years favors 75% by a bit.
I'll leave further analysis to the more motivated (and less hungry - dinner calls!)!
-ERD50
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 07:52 PM
|
#17
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 7,591
|
Well, your pension represents a bond portfolio. So in my opinion you are fine with no other bonds. In fact it sounds like your are heavily into "bonds".
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 08:12 PM
|
#18
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 35,712
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet
Wouldn't it depend on the exact years involved? Historically, especially for relatively short time periods, portfolios with less than 100% equities outperformed portfolios at 100% equities, even with no withdrawals.
I think about this more and more as I crash through my 70's! Investment time frames just might not be 30 years.
|
If you are not going to die broke and intend to leave money to your heir, the investment timeframe is then perpetual. It is not tied to your lifespan.
I don't do 100% stock because I practice tactical AA.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)
"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire (1694-1778)
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 09:00 PM
|
#19
|
gone traveling
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 682
|
100% stocks plus cash. Bonds=nein, danke.
|
|
|
10-29-2021, 09:54 PM
|
#20
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 1,708
|
63, retired 15 years, 100% stocks since the 90s. No pension, but the dividend flow covers expenses by a wide margin, making me a buyer of stocks each quarter (so I enjoy watching big market drops).
__________________
learn, work, save, invest, fire
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|