Why not 100% stocks?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Topic Author
hod928
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:36 am

Why not 100% stocks?

Post by hod928 »

Hello!

When I first setup my investment accounts after getting my first big job out of college I went with a more simplistic approach and picked the best funds I could for my 401K and target data funds for my HSA/ROTH IRA. Ill be starting out 2022 with a sizable bump in pay and am thinking its time to revisit my strategy and also look at rebalancing my 401K funds.

My risk tolerance is high as I still am young so part of my reason for wanting to split up the target date funds would be to lower my bond ratio (both funds around 10% currently). My thought is moving to a 2 fund 60% total market/40% international approach for at-least the next 5-7 years and then starting to bring in bonds. While my goal is to retire early I like to plan that I would be working until I am at-least 65. This is one of the reasons why I believe my risk tolerance is higher as I will have more time in the market to weather a down turn.

Age: 29
Risk Tolerance: High
Yearly Salary 80k

Current Allocations
Fidelity Health Savings Account: $8677.70
FFLEX - 100%
Empower-Retirement 401K: $41830.71
FSKAX - 77%
VTIAX - 22%
WFBIX - 1%
Schwab ROTH IRA: 3061.14
SWYNX - 100%

Future Allocations
Fidelity Health Savings Account
FZROX - 60%
FZILX - 40%
Empower-Retirement 401K
FSKAX - 60%
VTIAX - 40%
Schwab ROTH IRA
SWTSX - 60%
SWISX - 40%


Really just looking for a gut check here before I plan any changes. Thanks to all that view and reply!
Last edited by hod928 on Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
mikejuss
Posts: 2833
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:36 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by mikejuss »

Are you looking to exit your mixed target-date funds entirely, and move all of your existing money into the individual funds you outline here? I don't believe doing so will trigger a taxable event, so give that move some thought. Simplicity--that is, holding as few funds as is possible--is key to long-term investment success.

I initially misread your post and thought you were suggesting a 60%/40% stock/bond portfolio, but you appear to be suggesting a 60%/40% US equities/international equities portfolio. There's a ton of debate on this board about how much--if any--international exposure an investor should have. To my mind, 40% seems a little high; if I were you, I'd consider going with something like 25%. One last question: are you sure you'll be able to stomach a drop--and perhaps a sustained recession--in the equities market while holding no bonds? Many all-equities investors here like to flaunt that they're impervious to market movements. Do a gut check as to how you think you'd react, and invest accordingly.

Oh--and congrats on saving so much at such a young age. At 29, my net worth was negative. Good luck!
Last edited by mikejuss on Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
50% VTSAX | 25% VTIAX | 25% VBTLX (retirement), 25% VTEAX (taxable)
Jehousto
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 5:41 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by Jehousto »

Everyone risks tolerance is different but as young as you are, I’d suggest being more aggressive. Transition to a more conservative portfolio in 20 years.
delamer
Posts: 17453
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by delamer »

My thought is moving to a 2 fund 60/40 approach for at-least the next 5-7 years and then starting to bring in bonds.

Usually, 60/40 refers to 60% stocks and 40% bonds.

So what do you mean with this shorthand? Large cap/small cap? USA/international?
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by dbr »

I personally am an advocate in general that TD funds are actually more complicated and harder to understand than buying individual funds. For money in taxable accounts TD funds are not recommended. For money in tax protected accounts keeping rebalanced is not much of a chore. One might want to have some care at not going overboard with all kinds of different individual funds, however. Then again, it seems many TD funds include things one might not even include in a simpler array of funds. That could include international bonds, TIPS (unless you explicitly want them), and debatable choices in international equities.
Topic Author
hod928
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:36 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by hod928 »

delamer wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:39 am My thought is moving to a 2 fund 60/40 approach for at-least the next 5-7 years and then starting to bring in bonds.

Usually, 60/40 refers to 60% stocks and 40% bonds.

So what do you mean with this shorthand? Large cap/small cap? USA/international?
60% total market and 40% international. Specifically this would be my allocations moving forward.

Fidelity Health Savings Account
FZROX - 60%
FZILX - 40%
Empower-Retirement 401K
FSKAX - 60%
VTIAX - 40%
Schwab ROTH IRA
SWTSX - 60%
SWISX - 40%
Topic Author
hod928
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:36 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by hod928 »

mikejuss wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:24 am Are you looking to exit your mixed target-date funds entirely, and move all of your existing money into the individual funds you outline here? I don't believe doing so will trigger a taxable event, so give that move some thought. Simplicity--that is, holding as few funds as is possible--is key to long-term investment success.

I initially misread your post and thought you were suggesting a 60%/40% stock/bond portfolio, but you appear to be suggesting a 60%/40% US equities/international equities portfolio. There's a ton of debate on this board about how much--if any--international exposure an investor should have. To my mind, 40% seems a little high; if I were you, I'd consider going with something like 25%. One last question: are you sure you'll be able to stomach a drop--and perhaps a sustained recession--in the equities market while holding no bonds? Many all-equities investors here like to flaunt that they're impervious to market movements. Do a gut check as to how you think you'd react, and invest accordingly.

Oh--and congrats on saving so much at such a young age. At 29, my net worth was negative. Good luck!
Thanks! It does feel good and is a good reminder when I talk to my peers and realizing just how much further ahead I am then most!!
Topic Author
hod928
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:36 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by hod928 »

dbr wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:58 am I personally am an advocate in general that TD funds are actually more complicated and harder to understand than buying individual funds. For money in taxable accounts TD funds are not recommended. For money in tax protected accounts keeping rebalanced is not much of a chore. One might want to have some care at not going overboard with all kinds of different individual funds, however. Then again, it seems many TD funds include things one might not even include in a simpler array of funds. That could include international bonds, TIPS (unless you explicitly want them), and debatable choices in international equities.
I really do like the one fund approach that a target date fund brings to the table. One of the reasons I am thinking of switching is how most target dates remain at 10% bonds for the first 15-20 years before starting to be more aggressive in terms of switching over to bonds. This is where I think I can handle the extra risk by removing bonds totally from my portfolio.

I believe all my accounts are tax protected right? Work place provided 401K, HSA and Roth IRA. So I should be good if I were to leave my Target Date funds in the Roth IRA and HSA?
User avatar
Beensabu
Posts: 5657
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by Beensabu »

You'll probably end up with more money at the end if you just leave it in target date funds.
hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:48 pm One of the reasons I am thinking of switching is how most target dates remain at 10% bonds for the first 15-20 years before starting to be more aggressive in terms of switching over to bonds. This is where I think I can handle the extra risk by removing bonds totally from my portfolio.
Oh. Maybe retitle the thread to "Why not 100% stocks?".
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
rkhusky
Posts: 17763
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by rkhusky »

As long as you are all tax advantaged and have no taxable accounts, staying with the TD funds is fine. I like the idea of buying more stocks when they are down and selling stocks when they are up, which you get with the rebalancing of a TD fund.

But perhaps you like tinkering with your investments and rebalancing between US and International will scratch that itch, which is fine too.
delamer
Posts: 17453
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by delamer »

hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:32 pm
delamer wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:39 am My thought is moving to a 2 fund 60/40 approach for at-least the next 5-7 years and then starting to bring in bonds.

Usually, 60/40 refers to 60% stocks and 40% bonds.

So what do you mean with this shorthand? Large cap/small cap? USA/international?
60% total market and 40% international. Specifically this would be my allocations moving forward.

Fidelity Health Savings Account
FZROX - 60%
FZILX - 40%
Empower-Retirement 401K
FSKAX - 60%
VTIAX - 40%
Schwab ROTH IRA
SWTSX - 60%
SWISX - 40%
Got it.

Just as a FYI, people reading your posts won’t know which funds/ETFs that most of those tickers represent.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
balbrec2
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:03 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by balbrec2 »

You cannot and should not base risk tolerance on age alone. Until you have been through
a bear market, you don't know what your reaction to seeing a significant portfolio drop will be.
If you have survived a bear market, then you know already. Generally speaking, you don't need bonds until
you are 40, if can tolerate steep drops.
bgf
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by bgf »

Beensabu wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:02 pm You'll probably end up with more money at the end if you just leave it in target date funds.
hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:48 pm One of the reasons I am thinking of switching is how most target dates remain at 10% bonds for the first 15-20 years before starting to be more aggressive in terms of switching over to bonds. This is where I think I can handle the extra risk by removing bonds totally from my portfolio.
Oh. Maybe retitle the thread to "Why not 100% stocks?".
Indeed.

Below I have compared 100% stocks with VT to Vanguard's 2050 Target Date Fund with 10% bond (VFIFX). Going back to 2009, VFIFX has actually outperformed VT. The benchmark is Vanguard Balanced Investor, which they both beat, but, again, probably not by as much as you'd think.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
BackToSchoolDad
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2020 6:33 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by BackToSchoolDad »

You may also want to try what I do with my TDF focused accounts: add a couple satellite funds to complement your TDF.

For example, I have 80% of my 457 in the TDF, and then 10% each in a small cap and emerging markets fund. This serves to boost the overall equity allocation and provide some factor diversification, raising the risk allocation.
Topic Author
hod928
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:36 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by hod928 »

bgf wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:23 am
Beensabu wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:02 pm You'll probably end up with more money at the end if you just leave it in target date funds.
hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:48 pm One of the reasons I am thinking of switching is how most target dates remain at 10% bonds for the first 15-20 years before starting to be more aggressive in terms of switching over to bonds. This is where I think I can handle the extra risk by removing bonds totally from my portfolio.
Oh. Maybe retitle the thread to "Why not 100% stocks?".
Indeed.

Below I have compared 100% stocks with VT to Vanguard's 2050 Target Date Fund with 10% bond (VFIFX). Going back to 2009, VFIFX has actually outperformed VT. The benchmark is Vanguard Balanced Investor, which they both beat, but, again, probably not by as much as you'd think.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion2_2=100

Wow this is awesome! Thanks for showing me this. This paints a clear picture of why TD funds may just be the best of both worlds after all. Appreciate you showing me that plus thats a cool tool to add to my bookmarks!
Topic Author
hod928
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:36 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by hod928 »

rkhusky wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:20 pm As long as you are all tax advantaged and have no taxable accounts, staying with the TD funds is fine. I like the idea of buying more stocks when they are down and selling stocks when they are up, which you get with the rebalancing of a TD fund.

But perhaps you like tinkering with your investments and rebalancing between US and International will scratch that itch, which is fine too.
If my understanding of the tax advantaged accounts are correct all three of my accounts should be in fact tax advantaged correct?
catdoctor
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:30 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by catdoctor »

Jehousto wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:30 am Everyone risks tolerance is different but as young as you are, I’d suggest being more aggressive. Transition to a more conservative portfolio in 20 years.
+1
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by dbr »

hod928 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:34 pm
Wow this is awesome! Thanks for showing me this. This paints a clear picture of why TD funds may just be the best of both worlds after all. Appreciate you showing me that plus thats a cool tool to add to my bookmarks!
Those results don't show that one of those funds is better than another. Those results shows that those choices are not different from one another. You should probably put about a +/- 2% error bar around the CAGR numbers, maybe more as a projection of future returns. Also the risk in the balanced index fund really is less than in the other two.
abc132
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by abc132 »

The truth is that it doesn't really matter what you do at this age as long as you keep working and investing. Anything you can stick to will be fine. When your assets become significant relative to your earning potential (~10 year before earliest retirement) then asset protection becomes important to your financial plan. There are only a couple of routes to financial independence and living below your means and/or investing in your career are the most probable ways to get there.

My advice is generally a single target date fund and forget it. You may have the risk tolerance for 100% stocks or even a bit of leveraged funds, but only you know this for sure.
moneyflowin
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:14 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by moneyflowin »

balbrec2 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:13 am You cannot and should not base risk tolerance on age alone. Until you have been through
a bear market, you don't know what your reaction to seeing a significant portfolio drop will be.
If you have survived a bear market, then you know already. Generally speaking, you don't need bonds until
you are 40, if can tolerate steep drops.
Based on the size of their accounts, we can safely assume the OP as already been through the Covid bear market. A 401k invested in those funds could not have grown to $41k by now if the OP just started contributing after April 2020. Clearly, they must have started long before the Covid crash
SantaClaraSurfer
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:09 am

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by SantaClaraSurfer »

My wife is early forties and her Vanguard 2045 TDF is 11% bonds. (Even 11% can add up to a substantial bond holding.)

That's about 10 years from now for you, right? So just for your reference.

It looks like the Vanguard ramp for my wife is to move slowly, but increasingly, towards bonds for the next four years to get her to 18.6% Bonds at 20 years out from retirement in her mid 40's.

You can see the whole Vanguard TDF glide path when you scroll down here.

Fwiw, in my experience, a 10% Bond Allocation in a TDF can still result in individual 401(k) contributions that tilt heavily to bonds, and vice versa when markets are down. (I recently had a 60% bond allocation 401(k) contribution, due to rebalancing with new money, even though my AA is 22% bonds!)
zapper
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by zapper »

There was a covid crash? Honest to god, I missed it entirely.
chassis
Posts: 2183
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:28 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by chassis »

No reason not to hold 100% stocks if your horizon is perpetuity.

Also you need some liquidity to run your household. So 100% stocks plus cash or cash equivalent.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by Marseille07 »

100% stocks is fine, so long as you don't panic sell. The problem is this isn't easy to know in advance.

Recently I saw a poster who had practiced passive investing for 19 years...then panicked last March, selling at the bottom.
kissmoneyblog
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by kissmoneyblog »

If you have access to cash to cover 6 to 12 months' expense needs, are confident of being employed at all times (except short gaps) and can sleep well through market swings, you can have 100% in stocks. Stocks (including reinvested dividends) have typically recovered in 29 months on an average, after a market crash. You may also want to take the investor questionnaire from Vanguard to determine your optimal asset allocation.
Last edited by kissmoneyblog on Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by Triple digit golfer »

kissmoneyblog wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:15 pmStocks (including reinvested dividends) have always recovered in 4 to 5 years after a market crash.
Always? Is this true?
000
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by 000 »

The possibility of a megacrash that never recovers in one's investment horizon is just too high.

If one is going to be 100% stocks I think one ought to adopt the mindset of a trader and have an exit planned if things get rough.
Last edited by 000 on Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kissmoneyblog
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by kissmoneyblog »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:19 pm
kissmoneyblog wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:15 pmStocks (including reinvested dividends) have always recovered in 4 to 5 years after a market crash.
Always? Is this true?
The time it takes for investors to recover their money - from the top of the market, to the bottom, and back up again - has averaged 29 months, assuming that dividends were reinvested. The longest cycle lasted a little over 5 years (August 2000 to October 2006, after the tech-stock bust). The shortest one, starting in June 1998, took a mere 5 months.
I have changed my original reply to 29 months on average. Thanks for catching this.
Last edited by kissmoneyblog on Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by Triple digit golfer »

kissmoneyblog wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:27 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:19 pm
kissmoneyblog wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:15 pmStocks (including reinvested dividends) have always recovered in 4 to 5 years after a market crash.
Always? Is this true?
The time it takes for investors to recover their money - from the top of the market, to the bottom, and back up again - has averaged 29 months, assuming that dividends were reinvested. The longest cycle lasted a little over 5 years (August 2000 to October 2006, after the tech-stock bust). The shorted one, starting in June 1998, took a mere 5 months.
I have changed my original reply to 29 months on average. Thanks for catching this.
How about the 1970s, or Great Depression, or 2008-09 crash?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
rkhusky
Posts: 17763
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by rkhusky »

hod928 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:36 pm
rkhusky wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:20 pm As long as you are all tax advantaged and have no taxable accounts, staying with the TD funds is fine. I like the idea of buying more stocks when they are down and selling stocks when they are up, which you get with the rebalancing of a TD fund.

But perhaps you like tinkering with your investments and rebalancing between US and International will scratch that itch, which is fine too.
If my understanding of the tax advantaged accounts are correct all three of my accounts should be in fact tax advantaged correct?
Yes.
kissmoneyblog
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by kissmoneyblog »

Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:34 pm
kissmoneyblog wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:27 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:19 pm
kissmoneyblog wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:15 pmStocks (including reinvested dividends) have always recovered in 4 to 5 years after a market crash.
Always? Is this true?
The time it takes for investors to recover their money - from the top of the market, to the bottom, and back up again - has averaged 29 months, assuming that dividends were reinvested. The longest cycle lasted a little over 5 years (August 2000 to October 2006, after the tech-stock bust). The shorted one, starting in June 1998, took a mere 5 months.
I have changed my original reply to 29 months on average. Thanks for catching this.
How about the 1970s, or Great Depression, or 2008-09 crash?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
After 2008-9 crash, it took less than 5 years (including dividends). I do not know how long it took after 1970s crash. You may want to look it up and post your findings here. Thanks!
delamer
Posts: 17453
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by delamer »

kissmoneyblog wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:27 pm
Triple digit golfer wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:19 pm
kissmoneyblog wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:15 pmStocks (including reinvested dividends) have always recovered in 4 to 5 years after a market crash.
Always? Is this true?
The time it takes for investors to recover their money - from the top of the market, to the bottom, and back up again - has averaged 29 months, assuming that dividends were reinvested. The longest cycle lasted a little over 5 years (August 2000 to October 2006, after the tech-stock bust). The shorted one, starting in June 1998, took a mere 5 months.
I have changed my original reply to 29 months on average. Thanks for catching this.
Is that real or nominal?
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
MathWizard
Posts: 6560
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by MathWizard »

At 29, there is nothing wrong with 100% stocks, just make sure you don't bail in a 50% drop.

We were nearly 100% stocks for decades.

I had to open the statements during 2008/09 because my wife couldn't stomach the losses.

She is actually more aggressive than me now, but nearing 64 is not the same as 29.
KlangFool
Posts: 31525
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by KlangFool »

OP,

1) What is your annual expense?

2) What is the size of your emergency fund?

3) How do you know that you would not be unemployed in the coming recession?

4) How do you know how long your future unemployment would last?

5) If the stock market drops 50% in the coming recession and you are unemployed, how long can you last?

"Why not 100% stock?"

6) " Man plan, God laugh!"
- Yiddish proverb

KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
Robert20
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:51 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by Robert20 »

hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:11 am Hello!

When I first setup my investment accounts after getting my first big job out of college I went with a more simplistic approach and picked the best funds I could for my 401K and target data funds for my HSA/ROTH IRA. Ill be starting out 2022 with a sizable bump in pay and am thinking its time to revisit my strategy and also look at rebalancing my 401K funds.

My risk tolerance is high as I still am young so part of my reason for wanting to split up the target date funds would be to lower my bond ratio (both funds around 10% currently). My thought is moving to a 2 fund 60% total market/40% international approach for at-least the next 5-7 years and then starting to bring in bonds. While my goal is to retire early I like to plan that I would be working until I am at-least 65. This is one of the reasons why I believe my risk tolerance is higher as I will have more time in the market to weather a down turn.

Age: 29
Risk Tolerance: High
Yearly Salary 80k

Current Allocations
Fidelity Health Savings Account: $8677.70
FFLEX - 100%
Empower-Retirement 401K: $41830.71
FSKAX - 77%
VTIAX - 22%
WFBIX - 1%
Schwab ROTH IRA: 3061.14
SWYNX - 100%

Future Allocations
Fidelity Health Savings Account
FZROX - 60%
FZILX - 40%
Empower-Retirement 401K
FSKAX - 60%
VTIAX - 40%
Schwab ROTH IRA
SWTSX - 60%
SWISX - 40%


Really just looking for a gut check here before I plan any changes. Thanks to all that view and reply!
100% stocks perfectly fine at your age - as long as you keep investing weekly/monthly/whatever frequency you choose. If u never touch that till 60+yrs age then its perfectly fine.
carminered2019
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by carminered2019 »

at your age there is nothing wrong with 100% in stocks. From my first W-2 paycheck to my last W-2 paycheck at the age of 50 I was 100% in stocks. My daughter is currently 25 and 100% in stocks.
Topic Author
hod928
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:36 am

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by hod928 »

KlangFool wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:05 pm OP,

1) What is your annual expense?

2) What is the size of your emergency fund?

3) How do you know that you would not be unemployed in the coming recession?

4) How do you know how long your future unemployment would last?

5) If the stock market drops 50% in the coming recession and you are unemployed, how long can you last?

"Why not 100% stock?"

6) " Man plan, God laugh!"
- Yiddish proverb

KlangFool
Great questions! Here are my answers

1. 18000$ in yearly expenses if I look at just my monthly reoccurring bills
2. I have 10k in a HYSA
3. My company is pretty recession proof. We had better years in both 2008-2009 aswell as 2020-2021. I work for a third party hardware data center maintenance company. People come to us to save money.
4. I could make it about 7 months on emergency fund without cutting things
5. same as above!
Topic Author
hod928
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:36 am

Re: Switch from target date funds to individual funds?

Post by hod928 »

moneyflowin wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:28 pm
balbrec2 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:13 am You cannot and should not base risk tolerance on age alone. Until you have been through
a bear market, you don't know what your reaction to seeing a significant portfolio drop will be.
If you have survived a bear market, then you know already. Generally speaking, you don't need bonds until
you are 40, if can tolerate steep drops.
Based on the size of their accounts, we can safely assume the OP as already been through the Covid bear market. A 401k invested in those funds could not have grown to $41k by now if the OP just started contributing after April 2020. Clearly, they must have started long before the Covid crash
Correct have been chipping away since 2016
KlangFool
Posts: 31525
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by KlangFool »

hod928 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:05 pm
KlangFool wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:05 pm OP,

1) What is your annual expense?

2) What is the size of your emergency fund?

3) How do you know that you would not be unemployed in the coming recession?

4) How do you know how long your future unemployment would last?

5) If the stock market drops 50% in the coming recession and you are unemployed, how long can you last?

"Why not 100% stock?"

6) " Man plan, God laugh!"
- Yiddish proverb

KlangFool
Great questions! Here are my answers

1. 18000$ in yearly expenses if I look at just my monthly reoccurring bills
2. I have 10k in a HYSA
3. My company is pretty recession proof. We had better years in both 2008-2009 aswell as 2020-2021. I work for a third party hardware data center maintenance company. People come to us to save money.
4. I could make it about 7 months on emergency fund without cutting things
5. same as above!
hod928,

1) What if you are wrong, then what?

Telecom was a 100+ years old industry. It was one of the most stable industry until Telecom Bust. How old is your industry? Can you "Sleep Well At Night" (SWAN) with 100% stock if your employer start laying off people in the coming recession? Can you SWAN if you know that you can only last 7 months with your EF until you have to sell your stock at a huge loss?

<< 1. 18000$ in yearly expenses if I look at just my monthly recurring bills>>

2) What is your actual annual expense? It should be more than 18K per year.

3) What is your annual savings/investment?

KlangFool
Last edited by KlangFool on Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
ejman
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:36 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by ejman »

I don't recall seeing any guarantees that the US stock market won't experience a crash like Japan where even after 30 years their stock markets have not regained the level it had December 1989 - 38957. Today 28,860. The US has had an exceptional run being the dominant world power for over 70 years. I hope it continues but as I said, no guarantees. So I don't hold 100% stocks.
carminered2019
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by carminered2019 »

OP, looks like you have a very high saving rate, and secure job so going 100% in stock is a good move. The important thing is to stay the course and just keep adding to the account regardless of the markets up or down.
ZWorkLess
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by ZWorkLess »

I think 100% stock is just fine, especially if you were in the market in 2020 and weren't tempted to do anything stupid (sell stuff) when the market stumbled in the spring. That's what I did with my kids' educational IRAs which were started 15-18 years ahead of college . . . Still have them at 100% stock now that our last kid is in college. To me, it's a no brainer that long term funds that you aren't terribly dependent on should be all stocks, AS LONG AS your stomach can handle it.

Personally, our own portfolio was 100% stock until we were 45 & 50 years old. Then we moved to 80/20. Six years later, we're at 75/25 (and nudging down 1% a year until we retire (probably 4-8 years from now) when we'll go 60/40 -- with the first $3M, any extra beyond that will probably be all stocks, because that "extra" will be "fun money," not money we'd rely on to support ourselves.
KlangFool
Posts: 31525
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by KlangFool »

carminered2019 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:46 pm
OP, looks like you have a very high saving rate,
carminered2019,

Why do you think that to be true?

In fact, looking at the actual numbers, the saving rate has to be very low.

<< Age: 29
Yearly Salary 80k
EF = 10K
Portfolio = 52K to 53K>>

KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
User avatar
ruralavalon
Posts: 26351
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by ruralavalon »

hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:11 amAge: 29
Risk Tolerance: High
Yearly Salary 80k
You probably didn't have large (or any) investments during the last prolonged market crash which started in 2008, when you were just 16 years old old.

So you have no actual experience to know the level of your risk tolerance.

It's easy to say you can tolerate a huge drop in your investments without selling in a panic, it's harder to do.

I suggest that you read Your Money and Your Brain, by Jason Zweig.


hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:11 amMy risk tolerance is high as I still am young so part of my reason for wanting to split up the target date funds would be to lower my bond ratio (both funds around 10% currently). My thought is moving to a 2 fund 60% total market/40% international approach for at-least the next 5-7 years and then starting to bring in bonds. While my goal is to retire early I like to plan that I would be working until I am at-least 65. This is one of the reasons why I believe my risk tolerance is higher as I will have more time in the market to weather a down turn.
Using an allocation fund seems to inoculate the investor against behavioral errors, and so produce higher investor returns. Morningstar (8/15/2019), "Mind the Gap 2019".
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link: Bogleheads® investment philosophy
carminered2019
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by carminered2019 »

KlangFool wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:17 pm
carminered2019 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:46 pm
OP, looks like you have a very high saving rate,
carminered2019,

Why do you think that to be true?

In fact, looking at the actual numbers, the saving rate has to be very low.

<< Age: 29
Yearly Salary 80k
EF = 10K
Portfolio = 52K to 53K>>

KlangFool
Expenses is 18K making 80K per year is pretty darn good if you ask me.
BernardShakey
Posts: 1147
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:52 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by BernardShakey »

hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:11 am Hello!

When I first setup my investment accounts after getting my first big job out of college I went with a more simplistic approach and picked the best funds I could for my 401K and target data funds for my HSA/ROTH IRA. Ill be starting out 2022 with a sizable bump in pay and am thinking its time to revisit my strategy and also look at rebalancing my 401K funds.

My risk tolerance is high as I still am young so part of my reason for wanting to split up the target date funds would be to lower my bond ratio (both funds around 10% currently). My thought is moving to a 2 fund 60% total market/40% international approach for at-least the next 5-7 years and then starting to bring in bonds. While my goal is to retire early I like to plan that I would be working until I am at-least 65. This is one of the reasons why I believe my risk tolerance is higher as I will have more time in the market to weather a down turn.

Age: 29
Risk Tolerance: High
Yearly Salary 80k

Current Allocations
Fidelity Health Savings Account: $8677.70
FFLEX - 100%
Empower-Retirement 401K: $41830.71
FSKAX - 77%
VTIAX - 22%
WFBIX - 1%
Schwab ROTH IRA: 3061.14
SWYNX - 100%

Future Allocations
Fidelity Health Savings Account
FZROX - 60%
FZILX - 40%
Empower-Retirement 401K
FSKAX - 60%
VTIAX - 40%
Schwab ROTH IRA
SWTSX - 60%
SWISX - 40%


Really just looking for a gut check here before I plan any changes. Thanks to all that view and reply!
I acknowledge I have not read the whole thread. Why not 100% stocks ? Because the temptation to sell in the middle of a devastatingly sharp market crash (or a deep, slower market meltdown) will rear its head. And of course panic selling is about the worst thing you can do. And most of all, you really don't know how you will behave until you are actually suffering through it. Those little risk tolerance quizzes are pretty meaningless. How high, really, is your risk tolerance ? It's a question of what you will actually do when Sept 2008 comes around, then Oct 2008, and Nov 2008 and you are 45 and your $1M+ nest egg has been halved and your spouse is really nervous. Can you stomach it ? How do you know you will be able to stomach it ?
An important key to investing is having a well-calibrated sense of your future regret.
KlangFool
Posts: 31525
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by KlangFool »

carminered2019 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:31 pm
KlangFool wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:17 pm
carminered2019 wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:46 pm
OP, looks like you have a very high saving rate,
carminered2019,

Why do you think that to be true?

In fact, looking at the actual numbers, the saving rate has to be very low.

<< Age: 29
Yearly Salary 80k
EF = 10K
Portfolio = 52K to 53K>>

KlangFool
Expenses is 18K making 80K per year is pretty darn good if you ask me.
carminered2019,

1) 18K is not the total annual expense. It is ONLY the recurring expense.

2) If the annual expense is 18K per year, OP would not be having a portfolio of 52K to 53K plus EF of 10K with a gross income of 80K at 29 years old. The numbers do not add up.

KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
User avatar
novolog
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:24 pm
Location: Greater Boston

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by novolog »

OP i am 29 and i do not own any bonds.

when march 2020 happened did you:

1) get scared and contemplate selling your equities?

2) get excited and try to save as much as possible?

if you are closer to camp #2, you shouldn't own bonds at your age.

once you realize that the fed's third mandate is supporting the equities market, which in turn supports all of the retirement accounts, pensions of our entire country, as well as the overwhelming majority of the wealth of the most powerful people in this nation, then you won't have an issue with 50% corrections. the only problem is waiting them out, which older folks and retirees don't have the luxury of doing. you are 29 w/ a job so you can buy during a correction.

if you were older and closer to retirement it would be a different story and different advice.
S&P 500 + Bitcoin
chassis
Posts: 2183
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:28 pm

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by chassis »

novolog wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:10 pm OP i am 29 and i do not own any bonds.

when march 2020 happened did you:

1) get scared and contemplate selling your equities?

2) get excited and try to save as much as possible?

if you are closer to camp #2, you shouldn't own bonds at your age.

once you realize that the fed's third mandate is supporting the equities market, which in turn supports all of the retirement accounts, pensions of our entire country, as well as the overwhelming majority of the wealth of the most powerful people in this nation, then you won't have an issue with 50% corrections. the only problem is waiting them out, which older folks and retirees don't have the luxury of doing. you are 29 w/ a job so you can buy during a correction.

if you were older and closer to retirement it would be a different story and different advice.
Great post. Interesting idea about the third Fed mandate... Wealthy people around the world are invested in US equities, so the argument holds water in my view.
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15363
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Why not 100% stocks?

Post by Northern Flicker »

hod928 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:11 am Hello!

When I first setup my investment accounts after getting my first big job out of college I went with a more simplistic approach and picked the best funds I could for my 401K and target data funds for my HSA/ROTH IRA. Ill be starting out 2022 with a sizable bump in pay and am thinking its time to revisit my strategy and also look at rebalancing my 401K funds.

My risk tolerance is high as I still am young so part of my reason for wanting to split up the target date funds would be to lower my bond ratio (both funds around 10% currently). My thought is moving to a 2 fund 60% total market/40% international approach for at-least the next 5-7 years and then starting to bring in bonds. While my goal is to retire early I like to plan that I would be working until I am at-least 65. This is one of the reasons why I believe my risk tolerance is higher as I will have more time in the market to weather a down turn.

Age: 29
Risk Tolerance: High
Yearly Salary 80k

Current Allocations
Fidelity Health Savings Account: $8677.70
FFLEX - 100%
Empower-Retirement 401K: $41830.71
FSKAX - 77%
VTIAX - 22%
WFBIX - 1%
Schwab ROTH IRA: 3061.14
SWYNX - 100%

Future Allocations
Fidelity Health Savings Account
FZROX - 60%
FZILX - 40%
Empower-Retirement 401K
FSKAX - 60%
VTIAX - 40%
Schwab ROTH IRA
SWTSX - 60%
SWISX - 40%


Really just looking for a gut check here before I plan any changes. Thanks to all that view and reply!
I would strongly prefer FSKAX to FZROX for the greater transparency of tracking an index managed by a 3rd party, but that's my preference.

It's all fine as long as you have the nerve to stay the course with 100% equities.
Post Reply