Too old?

[ShrinkDoc]

Am I too old to invest in anything with a high yield I have no IRA or 401k like others seem to have
DJ

 

[REWahoo]

How old are you?

 

[aja8888]

Am I too old to invest in anything with a high yield I have no IRA or 401k like others seem to have
DJ

I think you forgot some punctuation and telling us your age, if it's available.

 

[rodi]

How old are you?

His profile says 65.


Now to answer the question... Just my opinion, your mileage may vary....

At 65 you are not dead yet... and may very well have a couple decades left in you. A balanced portfolio makes sense.... Some fixed income (cash, cd, bonds, etc.) and some broad stock market exposure. Lots of people look at a ratio of stocks/fixed income between 40%/60% to 60%/40% as being relatively safe. You get the potential higher yields of stocks, with the capital preservation of fixed income.

No reason not to add some higher yield stuff to your portfolio unless you know you have a very limited time left on this earth.

 

[ShrinkDoc]

Too old

How old are you?

That piece of info would have helped, huh? I am a 68 year old guy in private practice

 

[OldShooter]

That piece of info would have helped, huh? I am a 68 year old guy in private practice

No, you are not too old. The actuaries would probably give you 20 or more years of life expectancy. That's an adequately long time in the investment world to be looking a little bit for yield.

There is a lot of talk around here about ratios, 60/40, etc. There is another way to look at the same situation called "buckets." The idea is to separate your money into two or three buckets based on when you will need it. Bucket #1 is very near term cash for upcoming needs. Often there is a middle bucket for expenses like buying a car, a big vacation, etc.. This one has maybe a 2-5 year horizon. The final bucket is for longer-term needs and typically this is the one where you can consider higher yielding assets like stocks. You can read about "buckets" various places on the internet. Even if you end up not taking that approach, researching it will help you to think about your problem.

To the extent possible at least your long term money should be in tax-sheltered accounts like a Roth. 68 is too old to not have this kind of savings. IMO you need to get at it. It is not too late to start and if you are self-employed you have a number of options. Contact Schwab or Fidelity if you have a local office and want some face-to-face contact. Add Vanguard to the list for good support but not face-to-face. Any of them can explain your options and help you get going.

You can get into a lot of trouble with the phrase "high yield" too. When you see that phrase, think "high risk." Risk and reward go together. Your new broker friend can help you sort the higher-yield opportunities into piles and get rid of the hand grenades.

 

[ckelly78z]

Maybe a little backs story of how you got into this pickle, how much you currently have saved for retirement, and any plans on how long you will work ?

 

[2177V]

Here is a link that suggest the stock allocation based on age:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062714/100-minus-your-age-outdated.asp

The 100 minus your age makes sense to me...but this rule is only a guide. You can be more aggressive by using 110 or 120 minus your age as the article suggest and this may also depend on your health and your financial situation.

I personally prefer a more conservative approach of 90 minus my age because at age 90 I want to be 100% bonds or cash.

I do not want to be age 90, which is slightly over my life expectancy, and have any significant stock investment. This is because I do not want to experience a stock market crash which may take 3 to 7 years to recover. At age 90, I may be dead before the stock market recovers from a stock market crash.

Like the article suggest, it really depends on how much risk you want to take as you get older. Everyone's risk tolerance is different.

 

[frank2009]

Hi doc,

It's very difficult to even begin to answer your question. So I have some questions of my own:
-Do you plan to retire?
-Do you have debt?
-Are experienced/comfortable with money in equities?
Others will probably have additional questions. Ultimately though you will have to decide for yourself.

 

[Dawg52]

Here is a link that suggest the stock allocation based on age:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/062714/100-minus-your-age-outdated.asp



I personally prefer a more conservative approach of 90 minus my age because at age 90 I want to be 100% bonds or cash.

I do not want to be age 90, which is slightly over my life expectancy, and have any significant stock investment. This is because I do not want to experience a stock market crash which may take 3 to 7 years to recover. At age 90, I may be dead before the stock market recovers from a stock market crash.

Like the article suggest, it really depends on how much risk you want to take as you get older. Everyone's risk tolerance is different.

Others use 110 minus age as a guide as the link suggest. I'm in the conservative camp like you.