Basic question on asset allocation
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:25 am
- Location: Washington
Basic question on asset allocation
So here's a really basic question. Everyone says to diversify with bonds and stocks (The Boglehead Guide to Investing recommends 80% stocks and 20% bonds for a 'young investor', which at 26 I'm guessing I fall into).
My question is, why bonds at all? It seems to me that when people discuss this allocation scenario they just allude to the fact that someone with a bond component in their portfolio will go along 'for a less bumpy ride' should stocks hit a bear market. But if my investment horizon is long-term why does that matter? Is the idea that perhaps I'll run into some unexpected financial difficulty and want to have the ability to cash in some of my investments (but without selling the stocks while they are low)? I'm guessing that this is the answer, but asset allocation seems like such a fundamental question that I'd like to make sure I'm not missing anything.
And if I expect that either my fiancee or I will have the income to withstand any small-scale emergencies without dipping into our investments, should I go closer to 100% stocks?
Thanks fellow Bogleheads
My question is, why bonds at all? It seems to me that when people discuss this allocation scenario they just allude to the fact that someone with a bond component in their portfolio will go along 'for a less bumpy ride' should stocks hit a bear market. But if my investment horizon is long-term why does that matter? Is the idea that perhaps I'll run into some unexpected financial difficulty and want to have the ability to cash in some of my investments (but without selling the stocks while they are low)? I'm guessing that this is the answer, but asset allocation seems like such a fundamental question that I'd like to make sure I'm not missing anything.
And if I expect that either my fiancee or I will have the income to withstand any small-scale emergencies without dipping into our investments, should I go closer to 100% stocks?
Thanks fellow Bogleheads
- ddb
- Posts: 5511
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:37 am
- Location: American Gardens Building, West 81st St.
True, but a 100% equity portfolio still has a higher expected return than an 80% equity portfolio, even though you lose any sort of potential rebalancing "bonus".neverknow wrote:So you can "buy low".
Today the S&P is at 980-1000
First week in March it was at 670
If you have those bonds, you could have dumped them all into equities, that first week of March. If you are already 100% equities, what are you going to "buy low" with?
neverknow
To the original poster, there's nothing inherently wrong with 100% equities; it provides the highest expected return of any non-leveraged broad allocation. Many choose to use less than 100% equities, even for very long time horizons, either because:
1. They don't want the volatility that comes with 100% equities, or
2. They don't have a need to take risk, i.e. they don't need high returns, or
3. They don't consider a 100% equity portfolio to provide an "efficient" risk-return profile. Historically, one could have reduced their risk significantly without sacrificing much return by reducing equity exposure to 80% or even 60%.
- DDB
"We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern, and less materialism in young people." - PB
-
- Posts: 11647
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:42 am
Here's a growth chart of a hypothetical 10K investment over the last 10 years.
VTSMX - Total Stock Market
VGTSX - Total International
VBMFX - Total Bond Market
Notice how far apart stocks and bonds can diverge. Now imagine if you had some bonds which were above AA 2003. You could have sold bonds (high) to buy stocks (low) in 2003 to maintain your asset allocation. In 2008, you could have sold stocks (high) to buy bonds (low). In 2009, stocks were way down again so if you followed your asset allocation plan, you would have sold bonds to buy stocks. This wouldn't be market timing, this would be re-balancing to maintain your asset allocation which controls the level of risk you're taking.
If your contributions are large enough to restore your desired AA, you may not need to sell any stocks or bonds. The asset allocation plan would help you decide how to invest your new contributions- buy asset class that is below desired allocation.
2003 buy more stocks (stocks low, bonds high)
2008 buy more bonds (stocks high, bonds low)
2009 buy more stocks (stocks low, bonds high)
If you invested using individual funds, you would need to rebalance yourself. If you used balanced or asset allocation funds like Vanguard Target Retirement funds, the fund will automatically rebalance for you.
Who would have predicted that bonds would outperform stocks over the last 10 years? Nobody know what returns will be for the next 10, 20, 30 yrs.
VTSMX - Total Stock Market
VGTSX - Total International
VBMFX - Total Bond Market
Notice how far apart stocks and bonds can diverge. Now imagine if you had some bonds which were above AA 2003. You could have sold bonds (high) to buy stocks (low) in 2003 to maintain your asset allocation. In 2008, you could have sold stocks (high) to buy bonds (low). In 2009, stocks were way down again so if you followed your asset allocation plan, you would have sold bonds to buy stocks. This wouldn't be market timing, this would be re-balancing to maintain your asset allocation which controls the level of risk you're taking.
If your contributions are large enough to restore your desired AA, you may not need to sell any stocks or bonds. The asset allocation plan would help you decide how to invest your new contributions- buy asset class that is below desired allocation.
2003 buy more stocks (stocks low, bonds high)
2008 buy more bonds (stocks high, bonds low)
2009 buy more stocks (stocks low, bonds high)
If you invested using individual funds, you would need to rebalance yourself. If you used balanced or asset allocation funds like Vanguard Target Retirement funds, the fund will automatically rebalance for you.
Who would have predicted that bonds would outperform stocks over the last 10 years? Nobody know what returns will be for the next 10, 20, 30 yrs.
Last edited by DSInvestor on Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
"My question is, why bonds at all?"
Read "The Four Pillars of Investing" by William Bernstein.
Read "The Four Pillars of Investing" by William Bernstein.
Chaz |
|
“Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen |
|
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Hi Gamma,
Most investors keep bonds in tax-advantaged accounts. These would include Traditional IRA's, Roth IRA's, and 401k's. All of these accounts have annual limits for contributions, so you may not be able to add money at opportunistic times.
When you keep bonds in the same tax advantaged account with equities then when rebalancing, money often goes from equities to bonds when the prices are high, and often goes from bonds to equities when the stock prices are low. This discipline forces you to sell high and buy low.
Another reason to own bonds is due to risk. If you were 100% equities in October 2007, and held at least through March 2009 then you would most likely have a compelling understanding of the value of cash and bonds.
It all has to do with correlations. Correlations are a statistical approximation of how often different asset groups tend to move together. If a large cap equity fund has a R Squared value of .65 then its price will change along with the S&P 500 (in this case) about 65% of the time. During other times, it will either move up more, move down more, move up less, move down less or even move up when the other is moving down. These differences create rebalancing opportunities where gains are harvested, and underperforming assets are bought.
Correlations are usually not rigid relationships. Most often (during normal market conditions) they resemble a random walk relative to each other.
Most investors keep bonds in tax-advantaged accounts. These would include Traditional IRA's, Roth IRA's, and 401k's. All of these accounts have annual limits for contributions, so you may not be able to add money at opportunistic times.
When you keep bonds in the same tax advantaged account with equities then when rebalancing, money often goes from equities to bonds when the prices are high, and often goes from bonds to equities when the stock prices are low. This discipline forces you to sell high and buy low.
Another reason to own bonds is due to risk. If you were 100% equities in October 2007, and held at least through March 2009 then you would most likely have a compelling understanding of the value of cash and bonds.
It all has to do with correlations. Correlations are a statistical approximation of how often different asset groups tend to move together. If a large cap equity fund has a R Squared value of .65 then its price will change along with the S&P 500 (in this case) about 65% of the time. During other times, it will either move up more, move down more, move up less, move down less or even move up when the other is moving down. These differences create rebalancing opportunities where gains are harvested, and underperforming assets are bought.
Correlations are usually not rigid relationships. Most often (during normal market conditions) they resemble a random walk relative to each other.
This graph shows what DDB is talking about. Notice how little the return goes up in relation to how much the risk goes up as you move from 80% stock to 100% stock. Investing is not as efficient at those percentages.3. They don't consider a 100% equity portfolio to provide an "efficient" risk-return profile. Historically, one could have reduced their risk significantly without sacrificing much return by reducing equity exposure to 80% or even 60%.
http://www.aaii.com/journal/200601/imag ... igure1.gif
Also, it is a mistake to assume that stocks always outperform bonds. Look again at the graph posted by DSInvestor. For most of the last 10 years, bonds have done mighty well in relation to stocks.
Link to Asking Portfolio Questions
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:25 am
- Location: Washington
Thanks for the very detailed and thorough comments everyone, that helps a lot. I had previously only thought of rebalancing as a way to keep the same amount of risk and not necessarily as a way to also force yourself to buy low and sell high, although it's a pretty obvious corollary.
That's actually next on my reading listRead "The Four Pillars of Investing" by William Bernstein
Are bonds more suitable for tax-advantaged accounts like an IRA than they are for taxable accounts (more so than the fact that everything that's taxable is better in a non-taxable account)? Would an 80-20 AA not be suitable for both a retirement account AND a general taxable account?Most investors keep bonds in tax-advantaged accounts.
Also, don't forget that lots of long term investors become short term investors due to a job loss or other unexpected event: you just might need to cash out some of your stash earlier than you thought and if that time comes when the market is tanking (like you lost your job in the last year or so) you'll be darn glad you had some in bonds.
Another thing is many folks panicked when the market tanked and bailed on such high risk allocations where with the stability of some bonds they would have been able to hold, or even if they held would have done so with less loss of sleep.
And finally, at your age you most likely have so little invested that your allocation right now is just not a significant factor in how you'll be doing decades down the road. So a more moderate allocation won't hurt and will give you some lower stress practice at being an investor so you will gain some useful life experience that will serve you well when that decades down the road becomes present tense.
Another thing is many folks panicked when the market tanked and bailed on such high risk allocations where with the stability of some bonds they would have been able to hold, or even if they held would have done so with less loss of sleep.
And finally, at your age you most likely have so little invested that your allocation right now is just not a significant factor in how you'll be doing decades down the road. So a more moderate allocation won't hurt and will give you some lower stress practice at being an investor so you will gain some useful life experience that will serve you well when that decades down the road becomes present tense.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:25 am
- Location: Washington
That's true. As my fiancee and I are in graduate school we have much less income than we'll hopefully be making in the future, but I wanted to get into the right habits, go through the right motions, etc. for when it really did matter.Rodc wrote: And finally, at your age you most likely have so little invested that your allocation right now is just not a significant factor in how you'll be doing decades down the road..
YesGammaPoint wrote:Are bonds more suitable for tax-advantaged accounts like an IRA than they are for taxable accounts (more so than the fact that everything that's taxable is better in a non-taxable account)?
Generally not.Would an 80-20 AA not be suitable for both a retirement account AND a general taxable account?
Bonds pay dividends which cause you to pay taxes if the bonds are held in a taxable account. If the bonds are held in a tax-advantaged account, the dividends are not taxed (till withdrawal). So, generally, hold tax-efficient stocks in taxable and bonds in tax-advantaged.
The exception is if you have a short term goal of 5 to 10 or even 15 years. Say, for a home down-payment. Obviously, that would be held in a taxable account. You might chose to hold bonds in taxable for this purpose to get the higher return. Your tax bracket would determine of those bonds should be taxable or tax-exempt.
Edit: When I said "obviously, that would be held in a taxable account", that was not entirely correct. You could hold some of your "house bonds" in tax-advantaged in exchange for holding some of your "retirement stocks" in taxable. But some people prefer to keep things separate and some may not have the choice of the above mentioned flip-flop.
Last edited by retiredjg on Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Link to Asking Portfolio Questions
Re: Basic question on asset allocation
Gamma,GammaPoint wrote:So here's a really basic question. Everyone says to diversify with bonds and stocks (The Boglehead Guide to Investing recommends 80% stocks and 20% bonds for a 'young investor', which at 26 I'm guessing I fall into).
My question is, why bonds at all? It seems to me that when people discuss this allocation scenario they just allude to the fact that someone with a bond component in their portfolio will go along 'for a less bumpy ride' should stocks hit a bear market. But if my investment horizon is long-term why does that matter? Is the idea that perhaps I'll run into some unexpected financial difficulty and want to have the ability to cash in some of my investments (but without selling the stocks while they are low)? I'm guessing that this is the answer, but asset allocation seems like such a fundamental question that I'd like to make sure I'm not missing anything.
And if I expect that either my fiancee or I will have the income to withstand any small-scale emergencies without dipping into our investments, should I go closer to 100% stocks?
Thanks fellow Bogleheads
I am 28 and starting investing seriouly last year when I was 27. I never believed in 100% equity and never will. Why? First, time diversity for stocks just says the expected return will be higher at some point. However, that some point can be longer than 20 years. This is evidenced by looking at 20 year windows for different global stock markets. Sometimes you will be very lucky and fall into the right window, other times you will not.
Second, as many posters have pointed out, you need bonds (and cash) to rebalance. Third, many posters have done research pointing that 80/20 or even 60/40 can give you very similar returns to 100% equity will less volatility.
Remember: the stock market is not a magic pill to create wealth. The risk it asks for is real and it can leave you high and dry.
GammaPoint
For the purpose of minimizing taxes it always wise to hold bond funds in tax deferred accounts (401k,403's, 457's,Roths).
If you have available space in the tax deferred accounts place your stock funds here as well. If you don't have space in your tax deferred accounts it is far preferable to hold your stock funds in a taxable account than to put bond funds in a taxable account.
With a Target Retirement Account try to place it in a tax deferred account if possible.
Sorry, I did not see RetiredJG's response to this ? before drafting my response to you ?.
For the purpose of minimizing taxes it always wise to hold bond funds in tax deferred accounts (401k,403's, 457's,Roths).
If you have available space in the tax deferred accounts place your stock funds here as well. If you don't have space in your tax deferred accounts it is far preferable to hold your stock funds in a taxable account than to put bond funds in a taxable account.
With a Target Retirement Account try to place it in a tax deferred account if possible.
Sorry, I did not see RetiredJG's response to this ? before drafting my response to you ?.
Last edited by Chuck T on Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chuck |
Past Performance Is Just That - bob |
For info on the SC LowCountry & Savannah GA Area Bogleheads contact me at chucktanner46@gmail.com
The difference in expected returns between an 80/20 and a 100/0 is not very significant, but the reduction in volatility is. But I think the bottom line is without bonds you are missing a major asset-class diversifier. Bonds have outperformed stocks in stretches of ten years or more. Experts like William Bernstein suggests a range of 20-80% stocks. Ben Graham suggests 25-75%.
Putting all savings into the stock market, or in any one place, is really not all that prudent. The stock market offers NO guarantee of returns. We use a general rule that says you could lose one-half of what your equity allocation is, but there is absolutely nothing that says that limit is absolute. We have experienced one drop of 90% as testimony to that fact. A 100% stock allocation seems to focus only on possible returns and not on total money management. Many inexperienced investors have complained they had too much equity going into a crash, but none have ever complained about not having enough.
Paul
Putting all savings into the stock market, or in any one place, is really not all that prudent. The stock market offers NO guarantee of returns. We use a general rule that says you could lose one-half of what your equity allocation is, but there is absolutely nothing that says that limit is absolute. We have experienced one drop of 90% as testimony to that fact. A 100% stock allocation seems to focus only on possible returns and not on total money management. Many inexperienced investors have complained they had too much equity going into a crash, but none have ever complained about not having enough.
Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.
-
- Posts: 11647
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:42 am
Hi GammaPoint,
If you have your retirement money in taxable and tax advantaged accounts, you can treat all accounts as a single portfolio and give that entire portfolio 80/20. Here's a hypothetical portolio of 100K:
Taxable (30k):
30K stocks
401k (60K):
10K Bonds
50K Stocks
ROTH-IRA (10K):
10K Bonds
Total=100K
Total Stocks = 80K
Total Bonds = 20K
AA = 80% stocks 20% bonds
Please see Principles of Tax-Efficient Fund Placement on the Bogleheads Wiki.
If considering target retirement or balanced funds that hold both stocks and bonds, they are best held in tax advantaged accounts. Balanced funds are not tax efficient and thus not recommended for taxable accounts.
If you have your retirement money in taxable and tax advantaged accounts, you can treat all accounts as a single portfolio and give that entire portfolio 80/20. Here's a hypothetical portolio of 100K:
Taxable (30k):
30K stocks
401k (60K):
10K Bonds
50K Stocks
ROTH-IRA (10K):
10K Bonds
Total=100K
Total Stocks = 80K
Total Bonds = 20K
AA = 80% stocks 20% bonds
Please see Principles of Tax-Efficient Fund Placement on the Bogleheads Wiki.
If considering target retirement or balanced funds that hold both stocks and bonds, they are best held in tax advantaged accounts. Balanced funds are not tax efficient and thus not recommended for taxable accounts.
Which is all great!GammaPoint wrote:That's true. As my fiancee and I are in graduate school we have much less income than we'll hopefully be making in the future, but I wanted to get into the right habits, go through the right motions, etc. for when it really did matter.Rodc wrote: And finally, at your age you most likely have so little invested that your allocation right now is just not a significant factor in how you'll be doing decades down the road..
I just suggest that a full asset allocation including all the major player may serve that roll best.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:25 am
- Location: Washington
Oh okay, I see. I had thought of the AA as 80-20 with regards to each respective account, not necessarily over the total account, which makes more sense. The non-liquidity of an IRA account has always muddled the picture in my head about how it should fit in with the rest.
So forget the 401K for now since as a graduate student I don't have that. And let's forget my fiancee for the time being (she loves that phrase :lol: ). So all I've got available is taxable accounts and IRAs. If I chose a 80-20 stock-bond AA then I would take the total amount of money I have to invest, and calculate what 20% of that would be. If it's, say, greater than $5,000 than I place my entire ROTH IRA contribution in a bond index fund from Vanguard say, and the remaining money perhaps in a bond fund in my taxable account. The rest goes to total stock market fund and an international fund, for example (in my taxable account). On the other hand, if it's less than $5,000 (say $3K) then perhaps I put $3k in a bond fund in my Roth IRA and the remaining $2k that I could contribute perhaps a small-value stock fund (higher returns + less tax-efficient + the need to keep my AA 80-20; forget for now that $2k is probably below the minimum to open a small-value stock fund). Sound like I have the right idea?
To put it another way, if I was making say, $200k a year my ROTH IRA would probably have a 100% bond allocation (assuming I don't use other tax-disadvantaged vehicles like REITs, TIPS,etc.) since 20% of $200k is $40k, which is greater than the maximum contribution of $5k (again assuming that I don't have a 401K or anything along those lines, although of course someone making 200k may very well have one)?
So forget the 401K for now since as a graduate student I don't have that. And let's forget my fiancee for the time being (she loves that phrase :lol: ). So all I've got available is taxable accounts and IRAs. If I chose a 80-20 stock-bond AA then I would take the total amount of money I have to invest, and calculate what 20% of that would be. If it's, say, greater than $5,000 than I place my entire ROTH IRA contribution in a bond index fund from Vanguard say, and the remaining money perhaps in a bond fund in my taxable account. The rest goes to total stock market fund and an international fund, for example (in my taxable account). On the other hand, if it's less than $5,000 (say $3K) then perhaps I put $3k in a bond fund in my Roth IRA and the remaining $2k that I could contribute perhaps a small-value stock fund (higher returns + less tax-efficient + the need to keep my AA 80-20; forget for now that $2k is probably below the minimum to open a small-value stock fund). Sound like I have the right idea?
To put it another way, if I was making say, $200k a year my ROTH IRA would probably have a 100% bond allocation (assuming I don't use other tax-disadvantaged vehicles like REITs, TIPS,etc.) since 20% of $200k is $40k, which is greater than the maximum contribution of $5k (again assuming that I don't have a 401K or anything along those lines, although of course someone making 200k may very well have one)?
No.Sound like I have the right idea?
Maybe it was a typo/brain fart, but you said
Other than that, I could not interpret what you plan to do. But maybe someone else could.....and the remaining money perhaps in a bond fund in my taxable account.
It is not really possible to judge what is going on because we don't know amounts or percentages. Also, are you actually working? I believe a stipend does not count as income for the purposes of contributing to Roth.
Link to Asking Portfolio Questions
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:25 am
- Location: Washington
If all of my Roth IRA and traditional IRA contributions are maxed out with bonds, and yet I haven't met my 20% bond allocation, should I not put the remaining percentage of my bonds in my taxable account? (This is an nearly impossible scenario with my current income, so maybe it's pointless to ask it).
I'm a 'graduate researcher', so I believe technically I am "working". I get paid by research grants to my advisor and not through the university (I don't take classes anymore).
And I'm not looking for an exact investing strategy, but I'm just trying to get an idea. Alternatively, it looks like a two chapters on taxes is coming up in the Boglehead Guide to Investing so maybe it's best that I read those first and come back with questions if it's still fuzzy
Thanks again everyone, you've been extremely helpful!
I'm a 'graduate researcher', so I believe technically I am "working". I get paid by research grants to my advisor and not through the university (I don't take classes anymore).
And I'm not looking for an exact investing strategy, but I'm just trying to get an idea. Alternatively, it looks like a two chapters on taxes is coming up in the Boglehead Guide to Investing so maybe it's best that I read those first and come back with questions if it's still fuzzy
Thanks again everyone, you've been extremely helpful!
Ok, I've read it in a different light and maybe you really did mean to say put the extra bonds in taxable.
It is not possible to answer your question because we cannot see the whole picture. Back to that "Asking Portfolio Questions" thing.
But maybe all this is moot, depending on the answer to this question. Do you have an emergency fund set up? If not, you need to do that before you consider your investments for retirement because those things need to be handled separately.
And in your emergency fund would also be money you will need at the end of your studies for moving, clothing for new job, wedding, honeymoon, security deposits, etc.
It is not possible to answer your question because we cannot see the whole picture. Back to that "Asking Portfolio Questions" thing.
But maybe all this is moot, depending on the answer to this question. Do you have an emergency fund set up? If not, you need to do that before you consider your investments for retirement because those things need to be handled separately.
And in your emergency fund would also be money you will need at the end of your studies for moving, clothing for new job, wedding, honeymoon, security deposits, etc.
Link to Asking Portfolio Questions
-
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:25 am
- Location: Washington
Sure sure. While sometimes I think it's nice to just talk 'loosely' I respect the commitment in this forum for posters to not suggest anything without getting the whole picture first, as surely many newcomers would take any advice without thinking twice.It is not possible to answer your question because we cannot see the whole picture. Back to that "Asking Portfolio Questions" thing.
I'll continue reading and if I still have the question I'll repost it with a more accurate and detailed portfolio picture. This thread sort of got off-topic from my initial post which was answered successfully
-
- Posts: 11647
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:42 am
Here's an online book that I found helpful which I believe was written by pkcrafter who responded in this thread.
http://investingessentials.blogspot.com/
Here's a link with some good recommendations for investing books:
http://www.bogleheads.org/readbooks.htm
http://investingessentials.blogspot.com/
Here's a link with some good recommendations for investing books:
http://www.bogleheads.org/readbooks.htm
- Adrian Nenu
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:27 pm
Essential reading for any investor:
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=13
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=14
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=16
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=3
My own AA rule of thumb:
Tolerable Loss x 2 = Equity Allocation < 50%
If you decide to exceed 50% equity, make sure you fully understand the risks and consequences if you are wrong. Good luck!
Adrian
anenu@tampabay.rr.com
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=13
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=14
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=16
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=3
My own AA rule of thumb:
Tolerable Loss x 2 = Equity Allocation < 50%
If you decide to exceed 50% equity, make sure you fully understand the risks and consequences if you are wrong. Good luck!
Adrian
anenu@tampabay.rr.com
Last edited by Adrian Nenu on Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GP,GammaPoint wrote:If all of my Roth IRA and traditional IRA contributions are maxed out with bonds, and yet I haven't met my 20% bond allocation, should I not put the remaining percentage of my bonds in my taxable account? (This is an nearly impossible scenario with my current income, so maybe it's pointless to ask it).
You've got the basic idea. There's plenty of fine points that you can find in the Bogelhead's Wiki. (Link Below) For example, depending on income and some other factors you could also consider Tax Exempt Municipal Bonds or I Bonds for your taxable account.
All the best with you and your fiancee's future! -- Tet
What would happen if he was only wounded and survived? Blindness or paralyzation could change everything pretty quick.abuss368 wrote:I had a fellow CPA who personally was 100% equities and considered/used the cash value of his life insurance (non-taxable) as his fixed income. Another way to consider Asset Allocation.
Fortunately, it did not happen during the past calander year. That would have been even more of a disaster.
- stevewolfe
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:07 pm
Adrian,Adrian Nenu wrote:Essential reading for any investor:
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=13
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=14
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=16
http://www.evansonasset.com/index.cfm?Page=3
Thanks for posting these links - they were a very worthwhile read.
Re: Basic question on asset allocation
Well to answer your question I've attached an image...GammaPoint wrote: My question is, why bonds at all? )
This is modern portfolio theory in a nutshell. If you invest in only stocks, your risking too much for the expected rate of return.
[/img]
"Price is what you pay. Value is what you get." - Warren Buffet