Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+)

Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Jane, conventional wisdom is that the longer the
the investment period the safer it is to have
a higher allocation to stocks. That is because
historically the long term trend in stock prices
has been up. Both Bernstein and Bogle show
in their books that the longer the holding period
the lower is the standard deviation of volatility.

Cheers,

Charlie
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Hi Charlie. Wouldn't dispute Berstein and Bogle for a
moment. I no longer have a "long term" to work with :)

JG
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

"I no longer have a "long term" to work with :)"

Mr Galt-

My dad has been telling me for the last 15 years that he has lived longer than he ever expected to. Don't sell yourself short! 8)

rapoole
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Jane, conventional wisdom is that the longer the
the investment period the safer it is to have
a higher allocation to stocks.  That is because
historically the long term trend in stock prices
has been up.  Both Bernstein and Bogle show
in their books that the longer the holding period
the lower is the standard deviation of volatility.

Cheers,

Charlie

Yes, I agree with you that conventional wisdom says that. I am just trying to suggest an alternative way of thinking. Unlike the original poster, some people may not feel comfortable with the ups and down of 100% stock portfolio.

I remember reading an article by Bernstein entitled "The 60/40 Solution". I believe he said that unless you are very, very comfortable for taking great risks, there is nothing wrong with 60/40 (stocks/bonds) portfolio for long-term investors. The future is unknown. Yes stocks have done better than other type if investment in *the past*. Who knows about the future? I will try to look up this article again to confirm. I could be wrong.

If guy A and guy B both have 100K to invest. A has 20 years to invest while B only has 10 and both would like to double their investment at the end of their investing period. Guy A will need a compounding rate of return of 3.6% while B will need 7.2%. Assume stocks return 6% and bonds 3%. A will need 20%/80% stocks/bonds while B, well even if B has 100% stock, he will not achieve his objective.

Obviously I am not trying to convince original poster that he should reduce his stock exposure. Not at all. If you are comfortable with the risk and you would like to shoot for 100% stock rate of return whatever that will be, then go ahead. However, if you are not comfortable with the risk but lucky enough to start your investment in your 20's or 30's or even teens, then what is wrong with letting your portfolio chug at slower speed? It's weird but in investing, sometimes even a tortoise can win the race.

My 2 cdn cents,
Jane
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

However, if you are not comfortable with the risk but lucky enough to start your investment in your 20's or 30's or even teens, then what is wrong with letting your portfolio chug at slower speed? It's weird but in investing, sometimes even a tortoise can win the race.

My 2 cdn cents,
Jane
Jane, very well spoken. I think this POV is unassailable no matter at what valuation stocks may be selling.

When US stocks are collectively more expensive than at any time other than the market top of 2000 your approach has even more to recommend it.

Many people who blithely talk about "stock returns" may be ignoring the most important aspect of return- the value at which one makes his/her investment.

Mikey
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

This thread has piqued my interest. I wish I knew more about close-ended ETFs (CTFs?) and exactly how they interact with preferred stock. Brewer seems to be down on PF and usually he knows what he's talking about...but I wonder if a PF CTF might still have a place in one's portfolio, situated inbetween the debt and equity. Unfortunately, most of the websites I've seen are hawking these products so it's hard to get an unbiased opinion about them.
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

This thread has piqued my interest. I wish I knew more about close-ended ETFs (CTFs?) and exactly how they interact with preferred stock. Brewer seems to be down on PF and usually he knows what he's talking about...but I wonder if a PF CTF might still have a place in one's portfolio, situated inbetween the debt and equity. Unfortunately, most of the websites I've seen are hawking these products so it's hard to get an unbiased opinion about them.

What you are thinking of is closed end funds (CEFs) which can hold just about any asset class, including preferreds. These are basically actively managed ETFs, and they typically have higher expense ratios (1% and up) and trade at a discount to NAV (although they can trade at a premium too). In the case of preferred CEFs, many of these funds use leverage (borrow money). This gooses payouts, but typically leaves the investors in the fund MUCH more exposed to interest rate related movements. I'm not a fan of the leveraged ones because of the interest rate risk. If you want to own preferreds anyway and you can find an unleveraged CEF without too high an expense ratio that trades at a discount and isn't poorly managed, you probably have a winner.
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

..but I wonder if a PF CTF might still have a place in one's portfolio, situated inbetween the debt and equity.

Soupxcan, just curious, but why would you need or desire something "between debt and equity?"

The only use I can see for preferred stocks in a non-corporate portfolio is to speculate on distressed companies' cumulative preferreds. It still probably isn't a great idea.

The main purpose of fixed income in a run-off portfolio is to hedge against the need to sell equities for living expenses when they are down. Long term bonds aren't very good for this, and preferreds are even worse.

Mikey
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Currently stocks are not yielding very much in dividends, and I am concerned that the next decade may show dismal returns via capital gains due to inflated prices at the current time. If this scenario plays out, I think that it would be wise to hold some proportion of dividend generating assets (preferred stock) that would kick out a decent yield, even if the market in general continues to move sideways. This would hopefully offer higher yields than the bond portion of the portfolio by itself. Is this not a reasonable plan?

I was looking at JQC - yield of 8.4%, trading at a 8.6% discount to NAV. Expense ratio of 0.96% but it is 30% leveraged. I'm not thinking of betting the farm on it, but could it be another component in my (hopefully) well-diversified portfolio? And I noticed it trades on both the NYSE and the NASDAQ - is there any advantage to buying it in one market over the other?

I guess you're saying that something like VWEHX (vanguard high-yield corporate, yielding 7.1%) would be a better choice than JOC?

Somehow I posted my original comment in the wrong thread. It was supposed to go in the one about preferred stock. Oh well.)

The main purpose of fixed income in a run-off portfolio is to hedge against the need to sell equities for living expenses when they are down. Long term bonds aren't very good for this, and preferreds are even worse.
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Before you jump into a leveraged fund, see if you can find out what the adjusted duration is. I bet its pretty high (over 10). You would get the stuffing beaten out of you with even a modest rise in rates.
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Currently stocks are not yielding very much in dividends, and I am concerned that the next decade may show dismal returns via capital gains due to inflated prices at the current time. If this scenario plays out, I think that it would be wise to hold some proportion of dividend generating assets (preferred stock) that would kick out a decent yield, even if the market in general continues to move sideways. This would hopefully offer higher yields than the bond portion of the portfolio by itself. Is this not a reasonable plan?

Soupx-your plan may be fine. I was responding from the standard efficient market POV. I too am a long term market timer, which is what you seem to be suggesting that you are also.

When I am negative on stocks, I also try to avoid things that I think may be well correlated with stocks. Many times, one of those things is junk and or preferred stocks. And, as Brewer pointed out above, since these are marketed for yield seekers, they often use leverage, so when you get kicked kicked in the butt, you get kicked hard.

Not my cup of tea.

Mikey
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

I hear ya mikey...but then were to put my cash? If equities, preferred stock, and long term bonds are out, what does that leave? Short term bonds and real estate? I can't imagine that this is the time to get into the RE market either...and the returns on short term bonds are so low...what to do?

I checked on a few websites and couldn't find any duration info for the Nuveen funds. But you are right, rising rates will hurt twice as much with leverage and the long duration.

Soupx-your plan may be fine. I was responding from the standard efficient market POV. I too am a long term market timer, which is what you seem to be suggesting that you are also.

When I am negative on stocks, I also try to avoid things that I think may be well correlated with stocks. Many times, one of those things is junk and or preferred stocks. And, as Brewer pointed out above, since these are marketed for yield seekers, they often use leverage, so when you get kicked kicked in the butt, you get kicked hard.

Not my cup of tea.

Mikey
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Hello soupxcan! Any time is a good time to get into real estate IMHO.

JG
 
Have a long horizon or sleep at night?

I hear ya mikey...but then were to put my cash?
Hey, you're in good company. Warren Buffett claims to be sitting on $38B.

What about putting it in a money market until you find something you're comfortable with-- a low P/E like MRK (admittedly a low P/E for some very good reasons) or a sector with a lower P/E than the rest of the S&P or TSM. Or try a different screener like P/B or P/S.

I guess you have to decide which makes you sleep better at night-- being in cash while the market keeps rising despite poor fundamentals, or being fully invested while it's turbulent, sideways, & falling.

Disclaimer-- our retirement portfolio is 98% equities. Last month that looked like a bad idea, this week it's been very profitable. FWIW, my personal portfolio is locked up in last month's "losers" like Nortel (NT), Sun (SUNW), Las Vegas Sands (LVS), Overstock.com (OSTK), & Cascade Microtech (CSCD). I'm also short Build-a-Bear Workshops (BBW) & Greenfield Online (SRVY).
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

My problem with sitting on cash is that I worry I'll be sitting in cash forever. There's always a reason to avoid investing...a fear of whatever lies just over the horizon. I don't want to get stuck in "perpetual bear" mode...Come on! Making things worse is the fact that I have low expenses with a decent salary - I have too much free cash flow (I know, a terrible problem).

As for JG, I would agree with you, but the only way I can invest in RE right now is through a REIT because I have to move all the time. And articles like this only confirm my suspicion that some markets are ludicrious:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/garden/03turf.html?pagewanted=all

Properties appreciating $40k in 8 hours? Someone's in for a rude awakening.
 
This is probably preaching to the choir...

... but you already know that you LBYM, you save more than enough, and you have enough investing time to ride out anything-- even another Great Depression.

So perhaps it's time to review Bernstein's "Four Pillars", pick an asset allocation you can sleep with, and start DCA'ing into it. Leave the I bond portfolio where it is for a house down payment (or for the next crash in rental properties) and start building a new portfolio from scratch!
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Hello soupxcan! Well, if you move all the time your
real estate options are limited. However, I am 60
years old and have never seen a bubble which popped
everywhere. There are always opportunities, although
at times they are harder to find. I never owned an REIT
although I have considered it. Prefer to own direct and have control (control freak). Anyway, my asset alocation
is pretty offbeat but I like it just fine.

JG
 
Re: Have a long horizon or sleep at night?

Hey, you're in good company.  Warren Buffett claims to be sitting on $38B.  

What about putting it in a money market until you find something you're comfortable with-- a low P/E like MRK (admittedly a low P/E for some very good reasons) or a sector with a lower P/E than the rest of the S&P or TSM.  Or try a different screener like P/B or P/S.

I guess you have to decide which makes you sleep better at night-- being in cash while the market keeps rising despite poor fundamentals, or being fully invested while it's turbulent, sideways, & falling.

Disclaimer-- our retirement portfolio is 98% equities.  Last month that looked like a bad idea, this week it's been very profitable.  FWIW, my personal portfolio is locked up in last month's "losers" like Nortel (NT), Sun (SUNW), Las Vegas Sands (LVS), Overstock.com (OSTK), & Cascade Microtech (CSCD).  I'm also short Build-a-Bear Workshops (BBW) & Greenfield Online (SRVY).

Nords, can you favor us with your investment thesis to short BBW?
 
Re: Have a long horizon or sleep at night?

Nords, can you favor us with your investment thesis to short BBW?
Uh, sure: I have a kid.

I hope you weren't expecting an Asensio-style in-depth research project, complete with fraud warnings and links to organized crime. Or a Buffett-Munger DCF with heartland homilies. This "analysis" (worth what you paid for it) barely even reaches Peter Lynch's level. But I am counting on the retailing boom/bust cycle repeating itself, especially in the face of trying to manage aggressive expansion.

I see these guys as the next Krispy Kreme-- great publicity campaign, commercials that make everyone go "Aaawwww", wonderfully sweet artery-clogging product, huge expansion-- yet something that inevitably saturates your tastes and isn't fun after the first couple attempts.

I've watched the cycle several times-- we profited mightily from 4Kids Entertainment when they started distributing Poke'mon videos/movies, and then we shorted them right back down when it faded. (I was forced to watch the first Pokemon movie in a theater. Afterwards I would have paid extra to short the stock.) Same cycle-- ironically on the same company-- with Yu-Gi-Oh! products. You could almost predict when the big institutional timers investors would finally look at their credit-card statements and notice what their kids were buying.

BBW is today's version of the wave of "build your own ceramics" franchises that swept the country a few years ago. Although our kid is now 12 and way too cool to be caught dead in a BBW, we've checked with the neighborhood's younger analysts. Most of them have been invited to an affair involving this product, and have perhaps gone back on their own for one more, but where's the rest of the repeat business? How many bears can one kid persuade their parents to buy for them? This isn't Discovery Zone or Chuck E. Cheese or McDonald's. I'm sure Warren Buffett would have a handle on the American population of eight-year-old girls along with an estimate of their annual bear purchases.

I give this a year or until the death-phrase "declining same-store sales". Kids will move on to the next cool thing, same-store sales will start dropping, and marketing costs will start rising. One analyst will edge nervously to the exit and then the crowd will stampede.

$29.57 last Nov and I'm considering going back for more this month or next. All those lockups are expiring in a couple more months. I haven't done my quarterly research yet but I admit that I was relieved to see their first correction last month.

Disclaimer-- I've only been shorting for a couple years and I do it in a personal account, not the retirement portfolio's brokerage account. Due to my penchant for being early at calling the bottom/top, I have a high tolerance for volatility. Although I've made money from 4Kids, Janus, Pfizer, and the NASDAQ, I also shorted KMart at $77 and paid dearly for it.

[rant]But I'll never challenge Eddie Lampert ever again on the basis of fundamental analysis and declining same-store sales-- he manipulates buzz better than I can remain solvent. In fact if I learn that he's buying BBW shares then I'll immediately cover.[/rant]

As UncleMick has mentioned before, I suspect that this testosterone-poisoned putzing will burn out in another year or two and I'll put it all in a small-cap value ETF. Or, if I finally spend the time to develop a system that doesn't interfere with surfing, it may take me even longer to get over it...
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

My problem with sitting on cash is that I worry I'll be sitting in cash forever. There's always a reason to avoid investing...a fear of whatever lies just over the horizon. I don't want to get stuck in "perpetual bear" mode...a 20-something with $55k in I-bonds? Come on! Making things worse is the fact that I have low expenses with a decent salary - I have too much free cash flow (I know, a terrible problem).

Soup:
If you are looking for a place to put cash, you can stick up to 400k (as a couple, insured) into Penfed 5 year CDs at 5% with nice options for pulling out if interest rates go up in the meantime. (Thanks to MJ) Beats the heck out of short term corporate or anything else. Since you have free cashflow, you dont need the cash.

But your real problem is you think everything is expensive out there and so don't want to buy anything. It is a tough one -- no easy answers there. I think you just have to at some level make a DCA plan, bite the bullet, hold your nose, whatevery your image is, and 'just do it'. Get your Bernstein/CoffeeHouse research done, figure out how your current asset allocations are out of whack to an ideal asset allocation, and then ignore whether a single asset class feels "over valued" or 'Under valued" (humility from years of wrong calls makes me realize that I don't ever really know) and just get there.

Occasionally things 'feel cheap' and you can pile into them, but then you'd just have to figure out when to sell them, and you'd have a lopsided though bigger portfolio.

So you'll never get away from this conundrum. Doing nothing is its own sort of decision, too. And in this case not a r great one.

But don't worry about investing fashion or demonstrating sufficient amounts of studliness or testosterone. Bad idea to go into investments needing to prove something. Just try to own the whole world, match the markets, nothing fancy, nothing difficult. You'll have risk, but it will be diversified and so manageable. And it will be rewarded in little fractions of a percent gain here and another percent there. Easy, cool. Nothing fancy.

Good luck!
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Occasionally things 'feel cheap' and you can pile into them, but then you'd just have to figure out when to sell them, and you'd have a lopsided though bigger portfolio.
C'est dommage! Whenever any of you guys have that big lopsided portfolio problem, just call me and I'll trim it down for you. :)
Mikey
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Hi ESRBob,

How can a couple put $400k into Penfed with full
FDIC coverage? I can see $300k with "his", "hers"
and "theirs" but don't get it for the extra $100k.

Thanks,

Charlie
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

How can a couple put $400k into Penfed with full FDIC coverage?
With a credit union, technically it's NCUA coverage. But I think this naming works for any credit union or bank account:

His alone, with transfer on death (TOD) to beneficiary.
Hers alone with TOD.
His with her as joint owner.
Hers with him as joint owner.
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Thanks Nords, Now if I just had $400k .......

Cheers,

Charlie
 
Re: Question specifically for the older/wiser (50+

Hi Charlie. I never had enough money to worry about
the 100K insurance limit. I do recall once that I got up to about 125K in one account and looked up the bank's
rating just for grins. But, let's face it, it's a rare problem
and certainly way down on the list of the dangers to
a typical ER portfolio.

JG
 
Back
Top Bottom