Are some of you at the minimum asset allocation and are you at comfortable with that?

[FANOFJESUS]

Are some of you at the minimum stock allocation and are you at comfortable with that?

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Would like to know.

Yes, we certainly are, and very happy with a zero stress, sleep well option.

 

[OldShooter]

... minimum asset allocation ...

I have no idea what this phrase means.

 

[Sunset]

I think it means only own 1 house, 1 car, and 1 boat.

 

[FANOFJESUS]

I have no idea what this phrase means.

Sorry I should have said minimum stock allocation.

 

[REWahoo]

Are some of you at the minimum stock allocation and are you at comfortable with that?

I think everyone has their own definition of "minimum stock allocation" so I'm not sure the responses you get will be useful.

 

[The Cosmic Avenger]

Yeah, I still have no idea what that means. There's no minimum, just a preferred AA, the way I'm thinking about it. Although I guess 0% equities would be a minimum!

 

[COcheesehead]

What's the minimum?

 

[corn18]

What's the minimum?

My minimum is 23/77 because that's the lowest the the Flexible Retirement Planner allows as a default. If I go any lower, I have to input a custom return and that is hard.

My actual AA is 60/40, though.

 

[ERD50]

Yeah, I still have no idea what that means. There's no minimum, just a preferred AA, the way I'm thinking about it. Although I guess 0% equities would be a minimum!

I suppose you (edit: could) short the market, to have a negative allocation to stocks?

What the heck does OP want to know, and why?

-ERD50

 

[UnrealizedPotential]

I don't think a minimum in stock allocation can be defined. I am at around 50% in stocks and I feel comfortable with that. But I have no idea what a minimum would be and I am not sure it is that important.

The big thing I think is what stock allocation lets you sleep at night and still allows your portfolio to grow. That will be different for everyone.

 

[BeWealthy]

My current stock allocation is at the bottom of my desired allocation range. That's my minimum and I'm comfortable with that right now.

 

[aja8888]

Are some of you at the minimum stock allocation and are you at comfortable with that?

Yes....

 

[Telly]

Are some of you at the minimum stock allocation and are you at comfortable with that?

I'm assuming that what you really may be asking is...

Are some of you at a minimal stock allocation, and are you comfortable with that?

and added to that, could be,

and if so, why?

If that was the goal of the question, my answer would be, no, I am at 60/40, with no plans to change. My concern with low % devoted to equity, is the silent killer, inflation. Having lived and worked through the high inflation years of the 70s and early 80s, I am leery of saying it can't happen again in my lifetime, or DWs lifetime, if she far outlives me.

I understand a counter-argument, that if you have a really big stash that far exceeds your projected needs, why risk much equities? Sort of the Suze Orman situation. Maybe I'm not thinking right, but I'd still stick with a significant equities position anyway!

As they say, YMMV -- in this case, Your MONEY May Vary

 

[RobbieB]

I'm at 80% equities and am comfy, sleep well, never worry, party hardy and blow lot's of dough!

 

[ERD50]

...

If that was the goal of the question,...

I wish OP would explain the goal of the question, I sure don't get it.

We each set our own "minimum stock allocation", right? So how could we be uncomfortable with it? Wouldn't we change it if we were, which would then make us comfortable again? The whole premise seems nonsensical.

Are you letting someone else dictate your "minimum stock allocation"? I'm lost.


-ERD50

 

[Sunset]

I suppose you (edit: could) short the market, to have a negative allocation to stocks?..
-ERD50

+ 1

My thoughts exactly..

 

[Dtail]

Possibly the question is are you at the minimum stock % needed to support a successful rate (100% or whatever) in the retirement calculators.

 

[MrsHaloFIRE]

someone on here used to be 100 pct cash. in his case, Id say yes hes comfortable with a minimum stock allocation, being at 0pct.

 

[FANOFJESUS]

A lot of people would call 40% stocks minimum.

 

[jollystomper]

A lot of people would call 40% stocks minimum.

For me, 30% would be the absolute minimum. Since the start of the year I am closer to (but not quite) 40%.

 

[foxfirev5]

To me AA is useless unless it is the context of real dollars to meet your objectives. Personally I have enough fixed income (no matter how you define that) to meet all my wants and a big chunk of equities. Whether that amount is 30% or 90% is irrelevant.

 

[Jerry1]

A lot of people would call 40% stocks minimum.

I was at 40% and no, I was not comfortable with that. I increased my equities to 60% because I felt I was leaving too much on the table given the great returns we’ve experienced and I felt a bit more to cover inflation was prudent.

For me, 50% is now my minimum. I feel I could lose half in my equity portion and still be fine. So that would be 30% of my total portfolio at my current AA. Of course I’d certainly hope it’s not a permanent loss, but if it was, I’d still be okay. More than that and it would be time to get serious about scaling back.

 

[GenXguy]

I'm at 42% equities, down from about 80% over the last 2 years. I'm very comfortable with it in the current market.

 

[Markola]

My strategy is 52% equities, 48% bonds, one house and one spouse[emoji857]