Join Early Retirement Today
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Start low and increase your equities during retirement?
Old 09-25-2013, 06:06 AM   #1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 10,429
Start low and increase your equities during retirement?

Michael Kitces and Wade Pfau are out with a study arguing that retirees can do better starting out with about 20-40% equities and gradually raising that allocation to about 50-60% over time during retirement. NYT has a brief article on it. I get the idea - lower volatility during the critical early years preventing panic, supplemented by greater growth later when a dip won't be as alarming. Since this strategy leaves you with a substantial potential for buying in the early years I would like to see a study that evaluates it with a little market timing. Since you plan to gradually buy equities over time anyway, how would it work out to make your buys only on significant dips (e,g. >5%) rather than on a fixed annual or other basis?
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff 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 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 09-25-2013, 06:10 AM   #2
MichaelB's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland again!
Posts: 34,807
Recently discussed here
Not sure you could model it easily, but the "buy on a big dip" would really make a difference in terms of portfolio survivability.
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 06:24 AM   #3
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 728
I totally agree......I've done it and it really worked the past 10 years, especially with the big dips. I was in Vanguard LT muni bonds....earning over taxes and I am still in a strong tax situation.....and .12% expenses. If I had invested it through one of the "big" financial firms I would have had to average over 7% to equal what I earned. Even if the market would have been fairly good, I still would have done ok.

Now, I'm a little older and I'm headed into more dividend ETF investments.....still through Vanguard.....still low expenses.....but taxes are taking a little bigger bite.

Everybody is different but this sure worked for me. All my friends at work thought I was they want me to review their portfolios.....but looking ahead, I have no idea what will happen.....I'm not an investment advisor and don't want to be. Good luck to all!
jerome len is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 08:00 AM   #4
gone traveling
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 209
I read the actual study, and tried modelling it off of historical data with my own methods. I found that tinkering with the glide path toward higher equities can change the default FireCalc scenario of $750k Portfolio and $30k spending from 6 failures to 2 failures, but reduces the "average ending portfolio" quite a bit.

I guess that was the whole point of the study... to reduce risk, but not necessarily increase the ending portfolio.
bo_knows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 11:40 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,299
If you buy on dips and manage to decrease your share costs by 5% over buying on a schedule, you will be ahead by 5% on the added money you used for the new purchases. No compounding or anything, so at the end of many years you have still saved yourself 5%. A small gain, and you risk the chance that you miss gains while waiting for your dip.

Something similar used to be an example for getting into the market. What happens if you bought at the highest price each year? It's not that bad compared to missing out on, say, just a couple of years of average growth compounding. It's a one time loss, not a yearly growth rate compounding loss.
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote

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

» Quick Links

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.