Recession over? Buy, buy, buy?

My current asset allocation is 60% equities, so my monthly DCA of 25% of savings into more equities is enough for now.

Meadbh
(gutsy female) :cool:

But, but, but I think you take a back seat to crazy connie. In a thread that she started, she mentioned that she has reclaimed her Oct 07 high. I would think that required going full-bore to near 100% equity, bought at March 09 low.

I am still kicking myself for missing that period due to being busy with w*rk, though I would not have the guts to buy more than another 10% or 20%.

No guts, no glory. It's that simple.
 
I'm only really buying TIPS (in a fund) at the moment; stocks too scary for me.

Which means, of course, that stocks will soar from now to eternity; leaving me behind to eat cat food and wave around a sign on street corners that reads, "will wrestle you for food". I'll be wearing those charming cut-off mittens, and may smell a little gamey when without those neat little Handi-Wipes.

You can thank me by sending a small commission of your massive profits, say 5% annually, to an address I will provide upon PM request.
 
My current asset allocation is 60% equities, so my monthly DCA of 25% of savings into more equities is enough for now.

Meadbh
(gutsy female) :cool:
I'm still satisfied with my allocation of 40% equities...

bbbamI
(wimpy guy) :whistle:
 
Buying 100% stocks right now. Not that I think that they're particularly cheap, but I have some catch up to do AA-wise. But I can't say I am convinced the recession is over yet...
 
Buy buy buy? I'm just waiting for my portfolio to come back so I can get the heck out of stocks. Well except for a few hormone stocks. Right Unclemick?;)
 
Buy buy buy? I'm just waiting for my portfolio to come back so I can get the heck out of stocks.

Reminds me of my mother and her Intel stocks in the late 80s. Right after she bought about $5K worth, Intel stock price dropped some. She hung on, then bailed out when the stock recovered to the break-even point.

In 1999, that $5K would have become $100K. :whistle:
 
For people with pensions, multiply your annual payout by 25 (same as a 4%SWR), and it's not small potato anymore.

It's just that you do not "get" to ride the white-knuckled roller coaster that the early retirees like me have no choice but to take a seat in. I have fastened my seat belt and am hanging on for dear life. :D

OK, OK, I know. Buy some annuities, like Nords has said sarcastically... :rolleyes:

PS. I am not having a case of envy here. Not at all. I am only pointing out to Freebird that she is richer than she claims.
I'm glad you did point this out. :flowers:
I've seen this multiplication reference in other posts. :confused:
I know this isn't rocket science, but why does the pension get multiplied by 25 ? Because I'll live another 25 years if I fit the statistical models for my age and gender ?
I count my survivor pension and annuity as income that gets consumed for the most part on an annual basis, including continued investing.
 
I know next to nothing of annuity and am no actuarial expert here. I believe the 25X factor is just the inverse of the average 4% annual yield of the portfolio that one would need to provide the income that you, you, lucky you, get.

It's obviously just a quick-n-dirty rule of thumb, because when pensioners die there is no residual value, while a private portfolio should or might have something left for the heirs. My children certainly hope so.

In my case, I will take my early SS payout at 62 and multiply it by 25 to add to my stash for a feel-good factor. :whistle:

PS. See ziggy's excellent point below. For my SS feel-good factor, it's the whole 25X. Yippee!
 
I know next to nothing of annuity and am no actuarial expert here. I believe the 25X factor is just the inverse of the average 4% annual yield of the portfolio that one would need to provide the income that you, you, lucky you, get.
Keep in mind the 4% rule applies to inflation-adjusted payouts, so that would mean the 25x factor applies to a fully COLA'd pension or annuity.

Those with pensions or annuities that aren't COLA'd or have a Diet COLA might want to multiply by less than 25 since they don't get the benefit of an inflation-adjusted income stream.
 
Reminds me of my mother and her Intel stocks in the late 80s. Right after she bought about $5K worth, Intel stock price dropped some. She hung on, then bailed out when the stock recovered to the break-even point.

In 1999, that $5K would have become $100K. :whistle:

I don't mind being compared to your mother. :) But that 100k would be worth about $37k right now. Still better than in a 5% average cd savings over the last 25 years.
 
I don't mind being compared to your mother. :)

My mother, a widow, has been managing her own finances fairly well. However, she is a very risk-averse investor. She bought Intel stock based on a recommendation from my brother. At that point, I was only invested with mutual funds and was not following individual stocks.

When I heard that she waited patiently just to bail-out at the break-even point, I asked why she couldn't wait a little more as the stock was rising. She said that she thanked her lucky star just to be made whole and did not want to press her luck!

No offense to you, Dawg, but I have read time and time again that buy, sell, or hold decisions should be made solely on whether you think the stock will rise or fall from its current price. The price where you bought should be of no concern.

In my mother's case, Intel could also have gone down the tube while she was waiting for it to recover to where she bought it. She was looking at the price, but did not ask why it was going up or down.

At the point she was selling, Intel was recovering from some problems and went on to become THE dominant processor supplier for the ensuing PC boom. Knowing that, she could have hanged on to it a little longer. Now, of course she could have reached a different prediction about Intel's role in the computer industry, but at least it would be a better reason to sell the stock.

OK, you may say that how would an old woman know about a tech stock? Then, just as she bought it based on my brother's recommendation, she could have asked him on the sell decision, as he followed this stock.
 
Keep in mind the 4% rule applies to inflation-adjusted payouts, so that would mean the 25x factor applies to a fully COLA'd pension or annuity.

Those with pensions or annuities that aren't COLA'd or have a Diet COLA might want to multiply by less than 25 since they don't get the benefit of an inflation-adjusted income stream.

I recall playing with this in FIRECALC - non-COLA'd pensions are only worth ~ a 12-14 multiplier. I think that was for a 30 year time frame, but I might have been stretching it out to 40 for the comparison. Ballpark number. I just did iterations until I came up with the same success rate.

-ERD50
 
If you look at a non COLA'd pension as an annuity, in my situation at age 60 male for single life 5 year certain it worked out to 13.3. For dual life, with a 58 year old female it worked out to 15.5 so ERD50's numbers look pretty good. A $3,000 per month dual life benefit would cost approximately $560,000.
 
And if long term Treasury rates keep rising, the monthly payouts for an SPIA will keep rising. Of course, you'd still need inflation protection elsewhere, most likely.
 
Unemployment has not peaked. No way. Even if the economy has bottomed -- and I'm not convinced of that, though it's possible the rate of collapse is slowing -- unemployment almost always lags the end of a recession by several months.

I would think the same about the unemployment, though suspect that if we have not been past the economy bottom, then it is not more than a few months down the road. The money that has been issued is slow in "trickling down" due to the gummint's bureaucracy, but once the floodgate is opened, we may face a deluge. :D “Après moi, le déluge” (“After me, the deluge") Louis XV (or US Congress 2009)

Back to reading tea leaves on the economy, it is strange that Robert Gordon stuck his neck out with such an assertion. But here are two more articles on taking the pulse of the economy that I would like to share. One uses the "men underwear" indicator. Supposedly, Alan Greenspan used it among more conventional econometrics. I am not making this up. :D

How your undies track the recession - MSN Money

Basically, the above article argues that "right now men's underwear sales suggest that things have bottomed but not started to recover.". This conclusion does not necessarily contradict what the second article reported. Namely, it is that the recovery will begin in 2nd half of 2009 and not 2010 as some predicted. The recovery however will be anemic. I am still OK with that.

Survey: Most economists see recession end in '09: Associated Press Business News - MSN Money

Confused? I am going to hold my nose and "buy, buy, buy". Mining companies in Australia and Brazil, dry-bulk shippers, chemical and agricultural companies, etc ... If not individual stocks then ETF. Perhaps another 10 to 20% of portfolio.

Heh heh heh ... It can't be "irrational exuberance" yet, as a majority of investors are still pretty scared. :LOL: Me too. :whistle:
 
Back
Top Bottom