The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Hey folks,
Don't get nervous, this is not whether I should go into a 100% stock portfolio. I was looking at the Vanguard Target Retirement Income fund which settles at 30% stocks and I remember in another thread Taylor was saying how 60/40 Balanced Index Fund is too aggressive for an older person. My plan was to settle at 50/50 or 60/40 for life because I think 30% stocks is not enough exposure if I want to leave some behind. For the record, I'm currently at 65/35.
Would love to hear where you folks plan to settle at.
Thanks
Don't get nervous, this is not whether I should go into a 100% stock portfolio. I was looking at the Vanguard Target Retirement Income fund which settles at 30% stocks and I remember in another thread Taylor was saying how 60/40 Balanced Index Fund is too aggressive for an older person. My plan was to settle at 50/50 or 60/40 for life because I think 30% stocks is not enough exposure if I want to leave some behind. For the record, I'm currently at 65/35.
Would love to hear where you folks plan to settle at.
Thanks
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Interestingly I'm at 35% equities now, too. In the back of my mind I've always thought that 80/20 would be a good choice when I got older, though. The trick is accumulating enough in assets to make the return from that liveable, particularly given the tax treatment of bond interest.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm still a long way from retirement but I plan on about 50/50 at retirement.
I plan to have enough to survive with just the fixed income of the portfolio. As long as the market doesn't crash very severely immediately after retirement, then the value of equity portion of the portfolio will likely rise gradually. As long as the FI portion alone can provide the baseline minimum income, I plan to let the equity portion grow as I age.
This will increase the equity exposure with age, but thought about in terms of "ability to take risk" it makes sense.
I plan to have enough to survive with just the fixed income of the portfolio. As long as the market doesn't crash very severely immediately after retirement, then the value of equity portion of the portfolio will likely rise gradually. As long as the FI portion alone can provide the baseline minimum income, I plan to let the equity portion grow as I age.
This will increase the equity exposure with age, but thought about in terms of "ability to take risk" it makes sense.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I am at 50 / 50 rights now. I think the lowest I would go is 25% but that would depend on the amount of assets I own and any consistent income like pensions and SS. Before retirement my plan is stay a minimum of 50% and a maximum of 60%. I'm 45 now.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Overall, 56% equity, permanently, upon retirement.
This will be produced by holding 80% of overall retirement savings in a static 70% equity/30% fixed income asset allocation "risky portfolio", and 20% in a "risk-free" portfolio, representing roughly 5 years' worth of withdrawals.
This is my way of reconciling the implications of the Trinity study, which identifies disadvantages in low equity allocations, with the need for stable liquidity in retirement.
I'm not retired yet, but I anticipate the tricky part will be timing the shifts in assets from the risky portfolio to the risk-free portfolio.
This will be produced by holding 80% of overall retirement savings in a static 70% equity/30% fixed income asset allocation "risky portfolio", and 20% in a "risk-free" portfolio, representing roughly 5 years' worth of withdrawals.
This is my way of reconciling the implications of the Trinity study, which identifies disadvantages in low equity allocations, with the need for stable liquidity in retirement.
I'm not retired yet, but I anticipate the tricky part will be timing the shifts in assets from the risky portfolio to the risk-free portfolio.
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” |—| "In finance, if you’re certain of anything, you’re out of your mind." ─William Bernstein
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
At 67 and with enough to fund retirement. My plan is to be at 40% equities at age 70 - currently at 42%. But there are two things that could affect that:
1. My final assets, income and expenses when I collect SS at age 70 and complete Roth conversions.
2. My primary goal is to have enough safe assets (a la Bernstein) to fund retirement until age 90 - that is a higher priority than
overall equity vs fixed income allocation.
I could see myself having an equity allocation a bit higher than 40% but not lower.
1. My final assets, income and expenses when I collect SS at age 70 and complete Roth conversions.
2. My primary goal is to have enough safe assets (a la Bernstein) to fund retirement until age 90 - that is a higher priority than
overall equity vs fixed income allocation.
I could see myself having an equity allocation a bit higher than 40% but not lower.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I've long been fond of Benjamin Graham's statement to stay between 25/75 and 75/25.
In retirement, don't take unnecessary risk. The exact percentage is less important than ensuring you'll be able to meet your spending needs.
In retirement, don't take unnecessary risk. The exact percentage is less important than ensuring you'll be able to meet your spending needs.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
these allocations are bount to adjust lower once a black swan hits, I will be 20/80 at max in retirement. I want to sleep well at night. Retirement is not to try multiply assets in order to leave some behind, retirement investing goal is to preserve capital to meet ones financial obligation, if your allocation needs to be more than 20/80 to do that, you simply haven't saved enough, and if you get unlucky you can run out of money...
and eat your children capital, never mind leave some behind... that's my 2c on the subject
and eat your children capital, never mind leave some behind... that's my 2c on the subject
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
60/40 stock bond
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm 58 and just starting retirement at 60/40. My plan is to reduce stocks slowly over the next 12 years and glide to 50/50 by the time I'm 70. My current thinking is to hold at 50/50 from that point forward.
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan" - Carl Von Clausewitz
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Depends on where I'm at with respect to "my number."
At my number, I'd be more conservative, say 30/70 or 40/60. Above my number, I'd be more aggressive. But, 60/40 tops.
At my number, I'd be more conservative, say 30/70 or 40/60. Above my number, I'd be more aggressive. But, 60/40 tops.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm retired and at 50/50. Right now, I don't plan to go below 40/60 but that is a soft number for me. 25/75 is a pretty hard number though.
Link to Asking Portfolio Questions
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I may drop down to 40/60 a year or two before retirement, if the market is doing well, and then move to 50/50 five or so years after retirement, or just stay at 40/60.
-
- Posts: 1278
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 6:32 am
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I am at ~ 30% equity now and expect to be at 20% - 25% in retirement. I do not believe I need to take more risk and I do not have much working time to make up any losses through salary. Biggest reason, I learned during the 2008 period that 50% equity was too much for me. I'm too risk averse.
-
- Posts: 25617
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
- Location: New York
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm 70/30 right now, aiming for 50/50 come retirement, will determine whether I stay there or move down to 40/60 at age 70.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions
- tennisplyr
- Posts: 3700
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:53 pm
- Location: Sarasota, FL
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm 65, retired and at 50/50. Plan to stay here a while, probably drop to ~40/60.
“Those who move forward with a happy spirit will find that things always work out.” -Retired 13 years 😀
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Same thoughts here.ArthurO wrote:these allocations are bount to adjust lower once a black swan hits, I will be 20/80 at max in retirement. I want to sleep well at night. Retirement is not to try multiply assets in order to leave some behind, retirement investing goal is to preserve capital to meet ones financial obligation, if your allocation needs to be more than 20/80 to do that, you simply haven't saved enough, and if you get unlucky you can run out of money...
and eat your children capital, never mind leave some behind... that's my 2c on the subject
Retiring this year at age 60. 30/70 stock/bond.
I have enough. No need to take risk. No plans for a legacy.
More interested in preserving than accumulating.
burt
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Currently retired. Have conservatively eased back from 35 to 25% over the last year. When there is a major correction, I'll ease back up to 35-40% max.
I see absolutely no reason to take more risk than necessary at this stage. I have a low annual withdrawal.
Unlike others, I have to concern myself with a legacy that will outlast me by decades. Why take chances?
I'll leave the higher stock allocations to those who have a higher withdrawal need than mine. A major downturn would be their problem, not mine.
Aesop's fable "The tortoise and the hare" has served me well these last few years.
Up until 2012, I was between 60-100% in equities and paid the price for it - several times.
I also wear a seatbelt every time I drive, too.
I see absolutely no reason to take more risk than necessary at this stage. I have a low annual withdrawal.
Unlike others, I have to concern myself with a legacy that will outlast me by decades. Why take chances?
I'll leave the higher stock allocations to those who have a higher withdrawal need than mine. A major downturn would be their problem, not mine.
Aesop's fable "The tortoise and the hare" has served me well these last few years.
Up until 2012, I was between 60-100% in equities and paid the price for it - several times.
I also wear a seatbelt every time I drive, too.
Last edited by Swampy on Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
If I have seen further, it was by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
We're at 60% equities; 40% fixed income....and moving towards 50/50 within the next 5 years and likely drift further down over time but not go lower than 40% equities.
Shawcroft
Shawcroft
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm 55/45 right now but I'm 25 years until retirement. I plan to decrease my stock allocation down to 40% over the next 5 years and stay there well into retirement.
"You really don't need leverage in this world much. If you're smart, you're going to make a lot of money without borrowing" Warren Buffet
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'll be the odd man out in this survey.
We're currently at about 28% equities. The plan is to stay in the 25 - 30% range.
The reason for remaining on the low side is that we have neither debt nor outstanding obligations and our "guaranteed" sources of income in retirement are more than sufficient for our lifestyle and actually allow us to bank a goodly percentage of that income monthly...and...since we have no real "need" (nor "willingness" despite the "ability") to take on any additional risk, it's nice to feel that we'll be able to hold on to most of our (hard earned) portfolio value during future market declines.
(For the record, we're in our early 60's and late 50's and have been retired for 11+ years. Considering that our portfolio value is the highest it's ever been, I'm confident that this methodology works for us.)
We're currently at about 28% equities. The plan is to stay in the 25 - 30% range.
The reason for remaining on the low side is that we have neither debt nor outstanding obligations and our "guaranteed" sources of income in retirement are more than sufficient for our lifestyle and actually allow us to bank a goodly percentage of that income monthly...and...since we have no real "need" (nor "willingness" despite the "ability") to take on any additional risk, it's nice to feel that we'll be able to hold on to most of our (hard earned) portfolio value during future market declines.
(For the record, we're in our early 60's and late 50's and have been retired for 11+ years. Considering that our portfolio value is the highest it's ever been, I'm confident that this methodology works for us.)
- convert949
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 8:33 am
- Location: Fort Myers, FL
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Currently 65 YO and at 35% equity. Will consider 30% at 70. Can't see going lower than that...
-
- Posts: 6972
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:46 pm
- Location: Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I/wife are age 67, with a combined portfolio target of between 60-65% equities; I hold a bit more, she holds a bit less.
As of yesterday's close, we're currently at 63% equities.
Although we're currently above the "magic 4%" withdrawal rate (and have been, since my retirement in 2007 and hers in 2012), when our individual SS begins in three years (at age 70), our initial withdrawal rate will drop to just over 2%.
Two reasons why we keep a bit more in equity than most folks at this stage of their life. The first is that we were at 90-95% equities from the time we started saving/investing for retirement in 1982 until a couple of years before my retirement, when we "cashed in" our gains from many years to fund our respective retirement cash buckets (initially at 4-5 years of gross income). We've been through a lot of market flux over the decades, so we're not bothered by downturns that last a few months (1987) or a few years (2000-02, 2008-09). We expect it and we realize that as long as we keep enough in cash to fund our retirement expenses (currently just over three years), normal market gyrations don't upset us.
The second reason is that we're not only investing for the remainder of our joint lifetimes, but also for the lifetime of our (disabled) son. Since his disability has no impact on his expected normal lifespan, we've added an additional 20 years to our retirement income forecast. That's an outlier that most (thankfully) do not have to plan for and can go with a reduced equity risk while in retirement.
FWIW,
- Ron
As of yesterday's close, we're currently at 63% equities.
Although we're currently above the "magic 4%" withdrawal rate (and have been, since my retirement in 2007 and hers in 2012), when our individual SS begins in three years (at age 70), our initial withdrawal rate will drop to just over 2%.
Two reasons why we keep a bit more in equity than most folks at this stage of their life. The first is that we were at 90-95% equities from the time we started saving/investing for retirement in 1982 until a couple of years before my retirement, when we "cashed in" our gains from many years to fund our respective retirement cash buckets (initially at 4-5 years of gross income). We've been through a lot of market flux over the decades, so we're not bothered by downturns that last a few months (1987) or a few years (2000-02, 2008-09). We expect it and we realize that as long as we keep enough in cash to fund our retirement expenses (currently just over three years), normal market gyrations don't upset us.
The second reason is that we're not only investing for the remainder of our joint lifetimes, but also for the lifetime of our (disabled) son. Since his disability has no impact on his expected normal lifespan, we've added an additional 20 years to our retirement income forecast. That's an outlier that most (thankfully) do not have to plan for and can go with a reduced equity risk while in retirement.
FWIW,
- Ron
- cheese_breath
- Posts: 11764
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Age 74 now and hovering a little over 30% equities with no plans to go below 30%
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm not sure. Due to my long term goals, I don't plan to rebalance out of stocks into bonds. After reading Deep Risk and Winning The Loser's Game, I have come to believe that inflation poses the biggest risk to my long term plans. Market volatility no doubt will cause emotional distress along the way and I will just have to deal with it. For me, market volatility induced stress/worry is not much different than many of the stresses experienced as a business owner.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm a long way away but I plan to never drop below 60/40 with my AA.
I also plan to utilize SPIA in retirement (starting with 10%-20% of my nest egg at the start of retirement and buying more every 5 years or so) that I will not consider part of that 60/40 AA.
I also plan to utilize SPIA in retirement (starting with 10%-20% of my nest egg at the start of retirement and buying more every 5 years or so) that I will not consider part of that 60/40 AA.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I'm about 48% equities at the moment and plan on staying in the 40% - 50% region.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I have been retired since 2000 (not the best year to pull the plug) and had a 60/40 stock/bond allocation for most of that time. In 2008, I began selling bonds and buying stocks as the market tanked (the last of my losses are being written off this year!). At the very bottom of the market, I could no longer pull the trigger as it just felt too scary. At that point, I was 40% stocks/60% bonds.
I have left it that way ever since.
I have left it that way ever since.
No matter how long the hill, if you keep pedaling you'll eventually get up to the top.
- tuckeverlasting
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:50 pm
- Location: The Emerald City
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Not lower than 30/70 nor higher than 40/60. 65 years old.
It's Good To Be A Boglehead
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
It really depends the most on two things I think:
- How much savings do you have, i.e. how low is your withdrawal rate
- How well do you react to market swings emotionally
Once your withdrawal rate for expenses is low enough it turns out "survival rate" for your portfolio is almost independent of allocation. Anywhere from 25/75 to 75/25 results in the same low failure rate of a few percent or less. So at that point it really comes down to emotion. Some people would prefer to just "stop playing the game" since they already "won" and will do for a very low equity allocation. Others figure a higher allocation leaves no real additional risk for failure and would prefer to have the higher expected return and will tolerate the volatility. Of those folks fit into the category of wanting to leave a legacy, but to me I still don't understand why they think their heirs prefer a volatile legacy to a more predictable one - but I digress. Anyway, at a certain amount of savings the allocation really doesn't matter beyond your emotional reaction to market swings.
At lower amounts of savings the only path to safety is to go with lower equity allocations and reduce spending to match the lower expected return. But again, even at these points it rarely makes any sense to go below 25% equity allocation because failure rates actually start to get worse at lower allocations than that.
Personally I'm managing a family member's retirement and they fortunately have enough saved to not be at any significant risk of portfolio failure. They've weathered some nasty downturns emotionally just fine but nonetheless would prefer not to take undo risk. They are actually more fearful of longevity risk more than anything. So we are targeting an equity allocation of around 40 to 50 percent as that best attacks the longevity concern (and associated long term unexpected inflation concern) and we know they can emotionally weather the two or three more big market collapses they should expect to see in their remaining lifetime.
- How much savings do you have, i.e. how low is your withdrawal rate
- How well do you react to market swings emotionally
Once your withdrawal rate for expenses is low enough it turns out "survival rate" for your portfolio is almost independent of allocation. Anywhere from 25/75 to 75/25 results in the same low failure rate of a few percent or less. So at that point it really comes down to emotion. Some people would prefer to just "stop playing the game" since they already "won" and will do for a very low equity allocation. Others figure a higher allocation leaves no real additional risk for failure and would prefer to have the higher expected return and will tolerate the volatility. Of those folks fit into the category of wanting to leave a legacy, but to me I still don't understand why they think their heirs prefer a volatile legacy to a more predictable one - but I digress. Anyway, at a certain amount of savings the allocation really doesn't matter beyond your emotional reaction to market swings.
At lower amounts of savings the only path to safety is to go with lower equity allocations and reduce spending to match the lower expected return. But again, even at these points it rarely makes any sense to go below 25% equity allocation because failure rates actually start to get worse at lower allocations than that.
Personally I'm managing a family member's retirement and they fortunately have enough saved to not be at any significant risk of portfolio failure. They've weathered some nasty downturns emotionally just fine but nonetheless would prefer not to take undo risk. They are actually more fearful of longevity risk more than anything. So we are targeting an equity allocation of around 40 to 50 percent as that best attacks the longevity concern (and associated long term unexpected inflation concern) and we know they can emotionally weather the two or three more big market collapses they should expect to see in their remaining lifetime.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Your post summarizes my thoughts very well.thx1138 wrote:It really depends the most on two things I think:
- How much savings do you have, i.e. how low is your withdrawal rate
- How well do you react to market swings emotionally
Once your withdrawal rate for expenses is low enough it turns out "survival rate" for your portfolio is almost independent of allocation. Anywhere from 25/75 to 75/25 results in the same low failure rate of a few percent or less. So at that point it really comes down to emotion. Some people would prefer to just "stop playing the game" since they already "won" and will do for a very low equity allocation. Others figure a higher allocation leaves no real additional risk for failure and would prefer to have the higher expected return and will tolerate the volatility. Of those folks fit into the category of wanting to leave a legacy, but to me I still don't understand why they think their heirs prefer a volatile legacy to a more predictable one - but I digress. Anyway, at a certain amount of savings the allocation really doesn't matter beyond your emotional reaction to market swings.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Planning on 60/40 at retirement; no plans to get more conservative than that.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I naturally haven't given much thought to something that far out for me personally, but supposing I had something like about enough saved (say 30x annual spending), with today's products and conditions I suppose I might try something like 40% stocks / 10% bonds / 50% SPIAs as an early retirement allocation.
Is it more fair to call that 40/60 or 80/20? I think the former. Then again, in time the non-annuity portion would grow under most market conditions.
Is it more fair to call that 40/60 or 80/20? I think the former. Then again, in time the non-annuity portion would grow under most market conditions.
-
- Posts: 2311
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:36 pm
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Retired, 72. 85% stocks right now. May slowly take it down to 80%, but I'll need to overcome an aversion to selling stocks and buying bonds.
VT 60% / VFSUX 20% / TIPS 20%
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
It depends entirely on your particular situation, e.g. your age, your monetary needs and where you are in the investment "game".
I'm 15% stocks and 85% bonds because that fits my situation. Warren Buffet warned: "To make money they didn't need, they risked what they did have and did need." Once you have accumulated a bit more than what you think will be more than enough, why invest in stocks at all?
I'm 15% stocks and 85% bonds because that fits my situation. Warren Buffet warned: "To make money they didn't need, they risked what they did have and did need." Once you have accumulated a bit more than what you think will be more than enough, why invest in stocks at all?
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
This is an interesting conversation. The comparison between the "youngsters" looking years down the road and the "seniors" looking at the near term is especially interesting to me.
I am 75 and been retired for over 10 years and am currently at a 45% equity allocation. I don't anticipate going below 30% equity but you never know until you are there.
I am 75 and been retired for over 10 years and am currently at a 45% equity allocation. I don't anticipate going below 30% equity but you never know until you are there.
Bob
- Aptenodytes
- Posts: 3786
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
My plan calls for a minimum of 30% stocks, all in domestic small-value and international-small.
- cheese_breath
- Posts: 11764
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Some might argue why not invest the 'more than enough' in stocks since it won't matter if you lose it all.Van wrote:... Once you have accumulated a bit more than what you think will be more than enough, why invest in stocks at all?
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
In my late 40s and had stuck to 70% for more than a decade, just lowered to 65% this year. Hope to retire in 8-10 years.
My initial equity allocation in retirement will likely be 40%, possibly 50% if the market is cheap. It will then glide up over time, but no higher than 70%.
My initial equity allocation in retirement will likely be 40%, possibly 50% if the market is cheap. It will then glide up over time, but no higher than 70%.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
That's a great quote!Van wrote:Warren Buffet warned: "To make money they didn't need, they risked what they did have and did need." Once you have accumulated a bit more than what you think will be more than enough, why invest in stocks at all?
I would not go to 0% stocks myself. I want some stocks just to maintain buying power.
Link to Asking Portfolio Questions
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Agreed on both counts.retiredjg wrote:That's a great quote!Van wrote:Warren Buffet warned: "To make money they didn't need, they risked what they did have and did need." Once you have accumulated a bit more than what you think will be more than enough, why invest in stocks at all?
I would not go to 0% stocks myself. I want some stocks just to maintain buying power.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I plan on retiring (or at least being FI) at age 50. As a result, I plan to be 60% equities at that point and stay for quite some time to fight the ravages of inflation.
cheers ... -Mark |
"Our life is frittered away with detail. Simplify. Simplify." -Henry David Thoreau |
[VTI, VXUS, BND, VTEB, SV fund]
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
I also don't like risk. My allocation is between 65 and 70% equities.
To me, risk of inflation is far more of a threat than market downturns. Losses in a downturn are temporary. Losses to inflation are permanent.
To me, risk of inflation is far more of a threat than market downturns. Losses in a downturn are temporary. Losses to inflation are permanent.
Kolea (pron. ko-lay-uh). Golden plover.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
We are thinking we will stay at 50/50. We might go down as low as 40 stocks. DH will have a COLA 'd pension that combined with two SS chks will be a good floor for us. We are not that far out from retirement.
- elgob.bogle
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:29 pm
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
If we've "won the game" (have accumulated 50 x estimated annual expenses) by the time wife retires in 5 years at age 65 (I'll be 72), we plan to downsize our equity position from 35% to 25% and hold at that level.
elgob
elgob
- in_reality
- Posts: 4529
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:13 am
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Nice post thx1138!thx1138 wrote:Others figure a higher allocation leaves no real additional risk for failure and would prefer to have the higher expected return and will tolerate the volatility. Of those folks fit into the category of wanting to leave a legacy, but to me I still don't understand why they think their heirs prefer a volatile legacy to a more predictable one - but I digress.
Btw, I don't think the thinking is heirs prefer a volatile legacy, I think the thinking goes heirs have a much longer investment window and as such can take advantage of the equity premium by being able hold through a rough stretch.
I mean why does anyone prefer volitility? Because we all think that long term it makes more sense than holding "safe" assets.
If heirs do have an immediate need, perhaps that is better addressed through another means than inheritance since the timing of the inheritance can't really be predicted.
-
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:17 pm
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Today I'm at 80/20. Current thinking is I'll stay there til I retire, at which point I'll move to 60/40. At about age 75 I'll move to 40/60.
So to be concise, I think the lowest I'll go is 40% equities.
So to be concise, I think the lowest I'll go is 40% equities.
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
Exactly.cheese_breath wrote:Some might argue why not invest the 'more than enough' in stocks since it won't matter if you lose it all.Van wrote:... Once you have accumulated a bit more than what you think will be more than enough, why invest in stocks at all?
Data doesn't mean much without knowing age and expected % withdrawal.
Some folks live comfortably on SS and Pension.
I suppose they can roll the dice on savings if they so choose.
burt
Re: The lowest stock allocation you plan to stay with
We will be at 50/50 at retirement and will never be lower than 40/60.