Treating your portfolio as a whole

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
gte939h
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by gte939h »

I have recently made adjustments to my portfolio to get out of actively managed funds and embraced the 3 fund boglehead strategy. For a little background on me, I have a TSP account, Roth IRA and taxable account. There has been a lot of discussion over the past few days about 100% equities and as I have read those threads it brought up some questions. Mainly these questions stem from using bond money in the event of a stock market drop to rebalance my porfolio. If these questions have come up in the recent past, I apologize in advance.

If I treat my porfolio as a whole as opposed to breaking up each account into the 3 fund approach, won't I loose some options when it comes to rebalancing my accounts? Say for example my AA was something like this without percentages:

Roth IRA - Total International

TSP - C + S Fund to represent Total Stock Market
- G Fund for bond exposure

Taxable - Total Stock Market

If the market were to drop 50%, I would only be able to use my TSP bond money to adjust my portfolio in the TSP. If one of the goals of my AA is to be able to rebalance my portfolio and buy low and sell high, wouldn't I want to have that option in each account individually? I can add money to the taxable account to buy low (if I had it), but I won't be able to adjust my Roth IRA if I have reached the limit for the year.

Maybe I am missing some fundamental concept here, I just feel that treating the whole portfolio as one investment limits my options. Does anyone else feel this way or does everyone treat their portfolio as a whole?
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by livesoft »

I see no problem using your G fund to rebalance into equities in your TSP.

Furthermore, after a 50% drop, you will be selling any losing positions in your taxable acount anyways in a tax-loss harvesting move. For example, you may exchange total stock market index into large-cap index (but only those shares with unrealized losses and maybe minor gains for simplicity).

You might do the math with real numbers and even your real number of shares to see how this works out.

OTOH, not everyone treats their portfolio as a whole. There are many mental accounting and psychological issues with doing that.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
Call_Me_Op
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by Call_Me_Op »

livesoft wrote: OTOH, not everyone treats their portfolio as a whole. There are many mental accounting and psychological issues with doing that.
And there are some very valid reasons to have separate portfolios, including convenience, early retirement, and asset protection. You can have separate tax-advantaged and taxable portfolios and still maintain good tax efficiency.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein
Dandy
Posts: 6701
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by Dandy »

I would have some fixed income in your Roth to make rebalancing simple and put some international in taxable if needed. I would consider some fixed income in taxable also or use contributions to re balance whenever possible.
Topic Author
gte939h
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by gte939h »

It seems that it would make sense to me to treat my taxable account as one portfolio and tax-advantaged accounts as another. That way, if early retirement were an option, I would be able to utilize the funds in the taxable account immediately. However, everything I read about where to put certain funds (taxable or tax-advantaged) for tax reasons differs from this idea. I'm guessing that is because it is assuming the individual will be retiring after 59.5.
Call_Me_Op
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by Call_Me_Op »

gte939h wrote:It seems that it would make sense to me to treat my taxable account as one portfolio and tax-advantaged accounts as another. That way, if early retirement were an option, I would be able to utilize the funds in the taxable account immediately. However, everything I read about where to put certain funds (taxable or tax-advantaged) for tax reasons differs from this idea. I'm guessing that is because it is assuming the individual will be retiring after 59.5.
Those are general guidelines, and are generally applicable. But they do not account for all variables. For example, let's say you decide on an 50-50 AA. Let's also assume you have equal tax-advantaged and taxable space. The conventional wisdom would have you buy stock (index) funds in taxable, and bond funds in tax-advantaged. While doing so might be better for tax efficiency, I would rather hold a balanced AA in tax-deferred in order to expand that space at a faster rate, providing me much greater assets that have strong asset protection. In the taxable account, I can use municipal bonds to improve tax efficiency.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein
Topic Author
gte939h
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by gte939h »

Dandy wrote:I would have some fixed income in your Roth to make rebalancing simple and put some international in taxable if needed. I would consider some fixed income in taxable also or use contributions to re balance whenever possible.
That was just an example of what I typically see as recommendations on here or how I read it on the wiki.

Here is what I have:

Roth IRA: TSM, TISM, TBM

TSP: C + S fund, I fund, F fund, G fund

Taxable: TSM, TISM

I was thinking about getting rid of my I fund in TSP since there EM are not represented and increase the amount of TISM in my roth IRA (which would basically remove TSM from IRA). I was also going to get rid of TBM in Roth IRA and increase F and G fund in TSP. The dilema this brings up is if my Roth IRA drops significantly, I don't have bond money to use to buy more TISM so would have to buy I fund in my TSP (which is not the end of the world).

Then in my taxable, I don't have any bond money to use to rebalance in the event TSM and TISM drops. I would have to use my retirement investments to rebalance the overall portfolio. If I wanted to treat the taxable as it's own portfolio I should really add some bonds to allow me to rebalance. However, this goes against all the tax advice I have gotten on here.

I know this is nitpicky stuff, but I want to make sure I set these accounts up properly now so I won't have to mess with it much in the future and set me up for long term success.
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by livesoft »

gte939h wrote:It seems that it would make sense to me to treat my taxable account as one portfolio and tax-advantaged accounts as another. That way, if early retirement were an option, I would be able to utilize the funds in the taxable account immediately. However, everything I read about where to put certain funds (taxable or tax-advantaged) for tax reasons differs from this idea. I'm guessing that is because it is assuming the individual will be retiring after 59.5.
Where does this 59.5 myth come from? One can withdraw from tax-advantaged accounts without penalty before age 59.5 if one follows the rules.

Let me say this: If stock markets drop 50% then one is going to be rethinking about retiring early unless they have a pension or lots and lots of money. If they have lots and lots of money, then they will have no problems. Otherwise, if stock markets drop 50%, then I think one will be rethinking their idea of retiring early and will wait and see what happens. So there really is no problem whatsoever with all equities in taxable and retiring early.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
User avatar
Jay69
Posts: 1801
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:42 pm

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by Jay69 »

gte939h wrote: I know this is nitpicky stuff, but I want to make sure I set these accounts up properly now so I won't have to mess with it much in the future and set me up for long term success.
I don't see this as nitpicky stuff at all, one should understand why they are doing what they are doing, its the best way to stay the course as we the say.
"Out of clutter, find simplicity” Albert Einstein
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by nisiprius »

gte939h wrote:...There has been a lot of discussion over the past few days about 100% equities and as I have read those threads it brought up some questions. Mainly these questions stem from using bond money in the event of a stock market drop to rebalance my portfolio....
Maybe, but I think a much more important question is whether you have properly gauged your personal risk tolerance.

And this isn't a good time to be doing it. A good time to be doing it would have been, say, in 2011, after a 2000-point drop in the Dow that didn't look any different from the drop that occurred in 2008 a few months before the big plunge.

Image
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Topic Author
gte939h
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by gte939h »

I remember both of those times and was invested aggressively then like I am now, just with actively managed funds. And, money still went into those accounts and none came out. I have properly judged my risk tolerance and know it is high but that isn't the question at hand. I am not in 100% equities and it was only that discussion and arguments of using fixed income money to rebalance that brought me to this question. The ability or inability to move money between the accounts is the problem. In the next few years, my IRA will have significantly less percentage and will be shadowed by my TSP due to the amount I am able to invest each year. I am just looking for a good argument as to why the whole portfolio should be treated as one. I love the ability to move money around in my TSP or Roth IRA to rebalance without having any fees/charges/taxes. That isn't the case in the taxable account due to tax considerations so I want to make sure I get that account right for the long term. Maybe I should just post my currrent portfolio and ask for inputs, may cover it... Thanks for all the inputs so far, it has just made me think more about keeping the taxable and tax-deferred accounts as seperate portfolios but with the same AA.
Dandy
Posts: 6701
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by Dandy »

However, this goes against all the tax advice I have gotten on here.

Ah yes we usually all share a basic view but there is often a healthy difference getting to the finer points. There is a trusted money manager that posts on this board that keeps his client's equity/bond allocation the same in taxable and non taxable. Now he probably uses muni bonds in taxable. I know this second hand from a client of his.

I think the general advice is to try to manage your portfolio as a whole and to keep it as simple as possible. You have to decide if having some fixed income in all three accounts makes sense for you. A lot depends on avoiding taxes when you need to rebalance. When the equity market drops I rebalance taxable into equities and when it drops I rebalance equity rebalance out of equities in my IRA. So far I have not incurred any taxes due to re balancing prior to and in retirement.
feh
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by feh »

livesoft wrote:So there really is no problem whatsoever with all equities in taxable and retiring early.
If somebody is willing to use the 72(t) option, I think this is true. For an early retiree that wants to avoid that scenario, the size of the taxable account is an important factor for whether 100% equities is acceptable or not. A series of bad return years could deplete the taxable account before planned.
Topic Author
gte939h
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by gte939h »

feh,

If I didn't want to use 72t I could use the roth IRA contributions without penalty if I wanted to retire early. I assumed this is what livesoft was referring to and figure by then I would have put in upwards of $200k+ between myself and my wife. So, that could cover us for a few years depending on what our spending rate in retirement was.
feh
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by feh »

gte939h wrote:feh,

If I didn't want to use 72t I could use the roth IRA contributions without penalty if I wanted to retire early. I assumed this is what livesoft was referring to and figure by then I would have put in upwards of $200k+ between myself and my wife. So, that could cover us for a few years depending on what our spending rate in retirement was.
Yes, Roth IRA contributions are another source of money that could be used.

However, the success of that plan still rests on the size of non-72t monies available (taxable and Roth contributions). Depending on that balance and the number of years before 59.5, it could be a dicey situation.

Personally, as a future early-retiree, I'm gonna have 3-5 years of expenses available in short-term vehicles (I-bonds, CDs, short-term munis). I will sleep better at night.
pastafarian
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:55 am

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by pastafarian »

...............
Last edited by pastafarian on Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Groundhog
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:10 pm

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by Groundhog »

gte939h: Maybe this will help. I have the following accounts/funds…

His TSP: G, C, S, I (C&S held at 3:1 ratio)
Her TSP: G
Roth IRA: Total Stock Market, Total International
Taxable: Total Stock Market, Total International, and some others (Savings Bonds, Muni’s)

I treat my portfolio as a whole and use His TSP account for all our rebalancing. I have a spreadsheet that tells me what % I need in each of the 4 funds to rebalance our entire portfolio. One TSP interfund transfer and I'm done. Rebalancing is a breeze!

I realize the TSP I Fund is not a total international fund but it is only about 20% of my international stock holdings.
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 27850
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by abuss368 »

Call_Me_Op wrote:
livesoft wrote: OTOH, not everyone treats their portfolio as a whole. There are many mental accounting and psychological issues with doing that.
And there are some very valid reasons to have separate portfolios, including convenience, early retirement, and asset protection. You can have separate tax-advantaged and taxable portfolios and still maintain good tax efficiency.
Very well said.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 27850
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by abuss368 »

I prefer the "equal location" approach rather than "asset location" approach as recommended by Rick Ferri.

All roads lead to Rome.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 35307
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by grabiner »

gte939h wrote:If the market were to drop 50%, I would only be able to use my TSP bond money to adjust my portfolio in the TSP. If one of the goals of my AA is to be able to rebalance my portfolio and buy low and sell high, wouldn't I want to have that option in each account individually? I can add money to the taxable account to buy low (if I had it), but I won't be able to adjust my Roth IRA if I have reached the limit for the year.
You can increase any asset class regardless of which account holds the new money. If you want to buy $10,000 in bonds but you prefer to hold bonds in the TSP rather than the taxable account (probably a good idea because the G fund is much better than any bond fund you can hold elsewhere), you can make a new stock investment in the taxable account, and sell $10,000 worth of C and S funds in the TSP to buy more bonds. The net effect is that your portfolio is $10,000 larger and holds the same amount of stock and $10,000 more bonds.

Similarly, if you want to sell $10,000 in bonds but don't have any bonds in your taxable account, you can sell $10,000 from taxable stock, and move $10,000 from the G fund into a stock fund in the TSP.
Wiki David Grabiner
letsgobobby
Posts: 12073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by letsgobobby »

grabiner wrote:
gte939h wrote:If the market were to drop 50%, I would only be able to use my TSP bond money to adjust my portfolio in the TSP. If one of the goals of my AA is to be able to rebalance my portfolio and buy low and sell high, wouldn't I want to have that option in each account individually? I can add money to the taxable account to buy low (if I had it), but I won't be able to adjust my Roth IRA if I have reached the limit for the year.
You can increase any asset class regardless of which account holds the new money. If you want to buy $10,000 in bonds but you prefer to hold bonds in the TSP rather than the taxable account (probably a good idea because the G fund is much better than any bond fund you can hold elsewhere), you can make a new stock investment in the taxable account, and sell $10,000 worth of C and S funds in the TSP to buy more bonds. The net effect is that your portfolio is $10,000 larger and holds the same amount of stock and $10,000 more bonds.

Similarly, if you want to sell $10,000 in bonds but don't have any bonds in your taxable account, you can sell $10,000 from taxable stock, and move $10,000 from the G fund into a stock fund in the TSP.
Right on. I find holding only one or two investments per account to be elegant and soothing.

20% Roth/HSA - small cap value, international small
40% traditional - fixed income
40% taxable - TSM, TISM, I bonds

I've never had a problem rebalancing. If I need more stocks I sell fixed income in traditional or use new money to buy stocks in taxable. If I need more bonds I buy I bonds or muni bonds in taxable. I won't waste Roth or HSA space on fixed income, and I won't share my future stock market gains with the government in my traditional. Call me irrational.
Topic Author
gte939h
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by gte939h »

grabiner wrote:You can increase any asset class regardless of which account holds the new money. If you want to buy $10,000 in bonds but you prefer to hold bonds in the TSP rather than the taxable account (probably a good idea because the G fund is much better than any bond fund you can hold elsewhere), you can make a new stock investment in the taxable account, and sell $10,000 worth of C and S funds in the TSP to buy more bonds. The net effect is that your portfolio is $10,000 larger and holds the same amount of stock and $10,000 more bonds.

Similarly, if you want to sell $10,000 in bonds but don't have any bonds in your taxable account, you can sell $10,000 from taxable stock, and move $10,000 from the G fund into a stock fund in the TSP.
Thank you for that, this idea makes good sense and not sure why it wasn't clear in the first place. I think one of the major issues I have is that most of the money I treat as my bond allocation (about 10% of my portfolio) is in a Roth IRA holding a flexible premium deferred annuity that I started when I was younger. It is great in the sense that it guarantees a minimum of 4% interest but I won't use that cash to rebalance my portfolio.

What I am going to do now is move the international portion of my TSP to my IRA to take advantage of the EM piece missing from the TSP I fund and add some more F/G funds in the TSP to allow for future rebalancing. I appreciate all the advice and discussion on this thread.
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 27850
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by abuss368 »

grabiner wrote: You can increase any asset class regardless of which account holds the new money. If you want to buy $10,000 in bonds but you prefer to hold bonds in the TSP rather than the taxable account (probably a good idea because the G fund is much better than any bond fund you can hold elsewhere), you can make a new stock investment in the taxable account, and sell $10,000 worth of C and S funds in the TSP to buy more bonds. The net effect is that your portfolio is $10,000 larger and holds the same amount of stock and $10,000 more bonds.

Similarly, if you want to sell $10,000 in bonds but don't have any bonds in your taxable account, you can sell $10,000 from taxable stock, and move $10,000 from the G fund into a stock fund in the TSP.
This is one problem with "asset location" compared to "equal location". Granted there are advantages and disadvantages to both strategies. With "asset location", you are constantly selling and incurring additional tax that is not necessary. Over a lifetime of investing this adds up. Compound that with regular changes to the tax code.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
letsgobobby
Posts: 12073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: Treating your portfolio as a whole

Post by letsgobobby »

abuss368 wrote:
grabiner wrote: You can increase any asset class regardless of which account holds the new money. If you want to buy $10,000 in bonds but you prefer to hold bonds in the TSP rather than the taxable account (probably a good idea because the G fund is much better than any bond fund you can hold elsewhere), you can make a new stock investment in the taxable account, and sell $10,000 worth of C and S funds in the TSP to buy more bonds. The net effect is that your portfolio is $10,000 larger and holds the same amount of stock and $10,000 more bonds.

Similarly, if you want to sell $10,000 in bonds but don't have any bonds in your taxable account, you can sell $10,000 from taxable stock, and move $10,000 from the G fund into a stock fund in the TSP.
This is one problem with "asset location" compared to "equal location". Granted there are advantages and disadvantages to both strategies. With "asset location", you are constantly selling and incurring additional tax that is not necessary. Over a lifetime of investing this adds up. Compound that with regular changes to the tax code.
despite using asset location, I have never had to incur tax by selling a gain in taxable.
Post Reply