100% stocks? Why?

[OldShooter]

... But, for many who live solely off their portfolios (including penta millionaires), to be down a million dollars or more with no guarantee of it coming back is extremely stressful and unnecessary. ...

You are always entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Please back up this statement by citing research. Not anecdotes.

Do you really think Bill Gates is extremely stressed right now? I don't.

 

[free2020]

Since Bill Gates is mentioned here, he's stepped aside from his business roles to full time status at the Gates Foundation. He predicted (not promised) that a vaccine will be available to give to Health Care workers in 18 months. And also developing the blueprint for faster and more effective countermeasures against the next pandemic!

No he is not stressed, bless his and his team's heart!

 

[FLSUnFIRE]

I'm confused - how can you be 100% in stock AND have cash to fund the first couple of years?

I don't pay bills with fund shares! I have no "cash" I consider part of my portfolio. I have about 1 year expenses in cash at any one time but don't count that as it is for short term spending/cushion. My savings rate when working is about 70%; so of those savings, I'm going 50/50 or so as I will work a bit longer (same cash target for the end of the year).


Bottom line, I am throwing some money at the market while it is down and I'm w*rking a bit longer.

 

[brokrken]

ditto! I understand imoldernu is in a much better place. [emoji120]

oh, no!

 

[brokrken]

I'm 100%, planned to quit this summerish. One of my scenerios for planning was a 40% drop immediately after... not quite there yet but getting close. 60/40 or any other AA ratio wouldn't have made any difference to me in these conditions. I am deferring until next year due as much to the state of the overall economy (planned to have some earnings doing fun stuff which would offset early withdrawals and the world is on pause anyway so many activities I would enjoy FIREd are suspended for now) as to my portfolio. I'm 45 and my investing horizon, even after FIRE in my 40's, will be 40 year horizon so that is why I'm 100%. While invested for growth via mutual funds and not receiving many payouts, the underlying dividends would be enough to cover base expenses. As I have made the decision to sit tight for another year, I have reallocated some of my savings (were going into cash to fund the first couple years) to invest in more equities. (about 50/50 allocation of savings for the remainder of this year going into cash/equities)

A bit of a bummer to make the decision to defer but I'm also fairly detached and find the whole thing interesting as it plays out and believe I'm making fairly good rational decisions. The response around the world is certainly unprecedented in my lifetime.

While your decision may be the right one, and I wouldn't dare question it considering I know nothing about your situation, I would question making any decision in the middle of this mess. Why not give it time to pass, reassess and then do the decision making?

 

[audreyh1]

I have no problem with someone being 100% stocks - it’s their decision,and I know from posts that it’s an informed one for several posters.

It is truly very situation dependent.

I might get annoyed if someone rags on me for not having high equity exposure. Whatever.

 

[Perryinva]

Imoldernu gone? When? How did I miss that?

To the OP: Though not 100% now, I was for many years. : I’d much rather go down 50% temporarily (even permanently, I guess) from $4 million than 10% from. $1 million.

 

[FLSUnFIRE]

While your decision may be the right one, and I wouldn't dare question it considering I know nothing about your situation, I would question making any decision in the middle of this mess. Why not give it time to pass, reassess and then do the decision making?

While I hope the impacts of this pass quickly, I believe it will take a while to get back to "normal" (2-5 years). While I'd get by if this happened after FIRE, I am now below my SWR for my desired level of spending. This wasn't a rash/panic decision and isn't irreversible (though, submitting formal notice would be!).

If the market recovers quickly, then my newly invested funds will give me a nice gain on top of the recovery of my portfolio; if not, I don't need the additional cash anyway as I'm not going to FIRE myself until my portfolio recovers a bit and I'm comfortable in the state of the economy. In my mind, with respect to FIRE, it's an easy choice... I'll FIRE at the same time whether I invest or build cash but by investing some now I will have more assets when I do so (since FIRE is predicated on the market being higher than today).

I haven't written off 2020 yet, it just may be the end of the year instead of summer (I don't need a full recovery to be comfortable); although at that point, I might decide to w*rk the first couple months of 2021 (burning a lot of PTO) with 100% going into my 401K (keeping my taxable earned income near zero). I'm excited to see what happens!

 

[target2019]

Ditto! I understand Imoldernu is in a much better place. [emoji120]

He is still older than me. Knew how to get a topic started for sure.

 

[freedomatlast]

Let's compare 100% stock fund VTSAX which yields about 1.7% in dividends. Compare this to 0% stock fund VMMXX which yielded about 2% last year, but will be much below that this year. High percentage of stock may not be so crazy after all if a person can avoid getting so excited about share price fluctuations.

 

[GravitySucks]

If you don't sweat the ups and downs 100% stocks is not a bad idea.
My last major purchase was 3/2013.
Portfolio Visualizer says I'd still have more if I went 100% than the 60/40 I eventually went too.
2015 taught me my 'risk' tolerance is no where near 100% For those with the cajones for it, it's not a bad move. 60/40 seems good for me.