Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Idaho

Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by Gort » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:27 pm

Interesting video/article from CNBC with Jim Cramer discussing the need for bonds (Treasuries) in your porfolio. It appears he likes the bond allocation to be age-10 or age-20 after age 30.
"Booyah"

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/30/cramer-m ... folio.html

User avatar
rustymutt
Posts: 3586
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by rustymutt » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:01 pm

And what Cramer says is reason to buy the ideal? lol he is so funny at his role as stock sensationalist. Gives me a headache to watch.
Knowledge is knowing that the Tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing better than to put the tomato in a fruit salad.

User avatar
Gort
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by Gort » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:15 pm

rustymutt wrote:And what Cramer says is reason to buy the ideal? lol he is so funny at his role as stock sensationalist. Gives me a headache to watch.
No, just interesting to note that for someone who tries so hard to promote trading stocks that he would actually promote increasing bonds in your portfolio as you age. Not too different from what many people believe in this forum. I understand the distaste many here have for Cramer and wonder if anyone actually read/listened to his remarks in the link im my original post.

User avatar
whodidntante
Posts: 2010
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:11 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by whodidntante » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:17 am

The Day the Earth Stood Still is one of my favorite movies.

RadAudit
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by RadAudit » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:08 am

From the article.

"How much of a retirement portfolio should be kept in bonds versus stocks? Cramer broke it down by age:
20s: None
30s: 10 percent of your retirement fund; 20 percent if you are conservative
40s: 20 to 30 percent bonds
50s: 30 to 40 percent
60s: 40 to 50 percent
Post-retirement: Increase bond exposure to 60 to 70 percent"

Seems reasonable. Plenty of room for debate on the specifics and individual circumstances.
"Everything will be all right in the end. If everything is not all right, then it is not the end." - The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

munemaker
Posts: 1908
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by munemaker » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:43 am

Gort wrote:Interesting video/article from CNBC with Jim Cramer discussing the need for bonds (Treasuries) in your porfolio. It appears he likes the bond allocation to be age-10 or age-20 after age 30.
"Booyah"

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/30/cramer-m ... folio.html
Why would you take advice from Cramer on bond allocation?

User avatar
stemikger
Posts: 4448
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by stemikger » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:45 am

It's very close to Jack's advice.

I wonder if he agrees with Jack about including social security as part of your bond allocation. In that case, something like 60/40 or 50/50 for life might be a good plan. I plan to leave it all in the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund for life.

I may get chicken in my 60s and 70s, which is very possible. If that happens, I will probably just put it all into the Vanguard Retirement Income Fund.

Either way, I will only have one fund for life. Which is what I love about either one of these options.
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!

TBillT
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:43 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by TBillT » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:09 am

Probably Cramer bumped into A. Gary Shilling at the Mall in North Jersey.
Shilling gave Cramer a jar of bee honey (his hobby) and told Cramer 35-yr bond bull market still alive, and might "bee" good idea if crude oil prices plummet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... oon-follow

User avatar
F150HD
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:49 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by F150HD » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:16 am

watching that guys show is like watching a cat chase a laser pointer on the floor.

User avatar
Gort
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by Gort » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:55 am

munemaker wrote:
Gort wrote:Interesting video/article from CNBC with Jim Cramer discussing the need for bonds (Treasuries) in your porfolio. It appears he likes the bond allocation to be age-10 or age-20 after age 30.
"Booyah"

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/30/cramer-m ... folio.html
Why would you take advice from Cramer on bond allocation?


Not saying I did. Found his discussion interesting with respect to the great deal of discussion on this forum from people trying to determine their asset allocations. Nothing wrong with listening to what other people think.

User avatar
Gort
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by Gort » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:01 am

whodidntante wrote:The Day the Earth Stood Still is one of my favorite movies.
Klaatu barada nikto.
:)

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 8258
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by nedsaid » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:59 am

RadAudit wrote:From the article.

"How much of a retirement portfolio should be kept in bonds versus stocks? Cramer broke it down by age:
20s: None
30s: 10 percent of your retirement fund; 20 percent if you are conservative
40s: 20 to 30 percent bonds
50s: 30 to 40 percent
60s: 40 to 50 percent
Post-retirement: Increase bond exposure to 60 to 70 percent"

Seems reasonable. Plenty of room for debate on the specifics and individual circumstances.
Cramer's advice here sounds reasonable to me too.

I happen to like Jim Cramer and I know this isn't popular here. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything he says and it doesn't mean that I advocate all his investment strategies. He was a hedge fund manager and his focus tends to be shorter term, I have a longer view. Shoot, 20% annual turnover in a stock portfolio is practically day trading to me! Agree or disagree, he is an intelligent guy. Listen and you might learn something. Again, doesn't mean you have to agree. It is good to listen to people with whom you disagree with.
A fool and his money are good for business.

User avatar
rustymutt
Posts: 3586
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by rustymutt » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:12 pm

Gort wrote:
rustymutt wrote:And what Cramer says is reason to buy the ideal? lol he is so funny at his role as stock sensationalist. Gives me a headache to watch.
No, just interesting to note that for someone who tries so hard to promote trading stocks that he would actually promote increasing bonds in your portfolio as you age. Not too different from what many people believe in this forum. I understand the distaste many here have for Cramer and wonder if anyone actually read/listened to his remarks in the link im my original post.
OK, I'll agree that I love to pile on to Cramer, as he's never helped me, and won't. But he's very entertaining to a point, then obnoxious as they get. No TV specialist has my interest in mind while helping me, religious or financial. Part of the truth is everywhere, the rest is up to us.
Knowledge is knowing that the Tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing better than to put the tomato in a fruit salad.

TravelforFun
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:05 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by TravelforFun » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:43 pm

RadAudit wrote:From the article.

"How much of a retirement portfolio should be kept in bonds versus stocks? Cramer broke it down by age:
20s: None
30s: 10 percent of your retirement fund; 20 percent if you are conservative
40s: 20 to 30 percent bonds
50s: 30 to 40 percent
60s: 40 to 50 percent
Post-retirement: Increase bond exposure to 60 to 70 percent"

Seems reasonable. Plenty of room for debate on the specifics and individual circumstances.
Why have bonds when you're retired and your pension and SS benefits more than cover your expenses? Why shouldn't you be 100% equity if you dont need to depend on your investment to live on and can stomach market downturns? I know bogleheads subscribe to the theory that the older we get, the more bonds we should have but that may not be the best way to increase wealth.

RadAudit
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by RadAudit » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:18 pm

I'm the least qualified among the posters to defend any theory some BH'ers may subscribe to.
TravelforFun wrote: Why shouldn't you be 100% equity if you dont need to depend on your investment to live on and can stomach market downturns? ... the more bonds we should have but that may not be the best way to increase wealth.
But, here goes.

It always loops around to an individual's need, ability and willingness to accept risk to achieve his goals. I know it sounds like a cop out. But, I've got enough stomach troubles all ready. I really don't need to go looking for any more than I have to. And, more importantly, I believe I don't need to take the risks necessary to make a substantial increase in wealth at this stage of the game. When I retired some seven years ago, I thought I had enough to meet my goals. Right now, I'm just trying to may be add a little padding to some margin of safety. Even so, as I age - hopefully for a number of more years, I may want to reassess. May be a more conservative AA. Or may be something like Mr. Larimore suggests - what you need in bonds to cover the expenses you are going to have to cover and the rest in stocks. Don't know how that'll turn out.

But, I do know, that's not necessarily the best way to increase wealth.
"Everything will be all right in the end. If everything is not all right, then it is not the end." - The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 6407
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by TomatoTomahto » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:21 pm

F150HD wrote:watching that guys show is like watching a cat chase a laser pointer on the floor.
:sharebeer

TravelforFun
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:05 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by TravelforFun » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:41 pm

RadAudit wrote:I'm the least qualified among the posters to defend any theory some BH'ers may subscribe to.
TravelforFun wrote: Why shouldn't you be 100% equity if you dont need to depend on your investment to live on and can stomach market downturns? ... the more bonds we should have but that may not be the best way to increase wealth.
But, here goes.

It always loops around to an individual's need, ability and willingness to accept risk to achieve his goals. I know it sounds like a cop out. But, I've got enough stomach troubles all ready. I really don't need to go looking for any more than I have to. And, more importantly, I believe I don't need to take the risks necessary to make a substantial increase in wealth at this stage of the game. When I retired some seven years ago, I thought I had enough to meet my goals. Right now, I'm just trying to may be add a little padding to some margin of safety. Even so, as I age - hopefully for a number of more years, I may want to reassess. May be a more conservative AA. Or may be something like Mr. Larimore suggests - what you need in bonds to cover the expenses you are going to have to cover and the rest in stocks. Don't know how that'll turn out.

But, I do know, that's not necessarily the best way to increase wealth.
RadAudit, I understand. We are all different so we all need to take the rules of thumb with a pinch of salt.

MCSquared
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:59 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by MCSquared » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:27 pm

TravelforFun wrote:
RadAudit wrote:From the article.

"How much of a retirement portfolio should be kept in bonds versus stocks? Cramer broke it down by age:
20s: None
30s: 10 percent of your retirement fund; 20 percent if you are conservative
40s: 20 to 30 percent bonds
50s: 30 to 40 percent
60s: 40 to 50 percent
Post-retirement: Increase bond exposure to 60 to 70 percent"

Seems reasonable. Plenty of room for debate on the specifics and individual circumstances.
Why have bonds when you're retired and your pension and SS benefits more than cover your expenses? Why shouldn't you be 100% equity if you dont need to depend on your investment to live on and can stomach market downturns? I know bogleheads subscribe to the theory that the older we get, the more bonds we should have but that may not be the best way to increase wealth.
When you retire (and your asset base is more than sufficient) there may not be a need or desire to "increase wealth."

TravelforFun
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:05 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by TravelforFun » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:05 pm

MCSquared wrote:
TravelforFun wrote:
RadAudit wrote:From the article.

"How much of a retirement portfolio should be kept in bonds versus stocks? Cramer broke it down by age:
20s: None
30s: 10 percent of your retirement fund; 20 percent if you are conservative
40s: 20 to 30 percent bonds
50s: 30 to 40 percent
60s: 40 to 50 percent
Post-retirement: Increase bond exposure to 60 to 70 percent"

Seems reasonable. Plenty of room for debate on the specifics and individual circumstances.
Why have bonds when you're retired and your pension and SS benefits more than cover your expenses? Why shouldn't you be 100% equity if you dont need to depend on your investment to live on and can stomach market downturns? I know bogleheads subscribe to the theory that the older we get, the more bonds we should have but that may not be the best way to increase wealth.
When you retire (and your asset base is more than sufficient) there may not be a need or desire to "increase wealth."
For some people,leaving a legacy is important.

MCSquared
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:59 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by MCSquared » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:11 pm

TravelforFun wrote:
MCSquared wrote:
TravelforFun wrote:
RadAudit wrote:From the article.

"How much of a retirement portfolio should be kept in bonds versus stocks? Cramer broke it down by age:
20s: None
30s: 10 percent of your retirement fund; 20 percent if you are conservative
40s: 20 to 30 percent bonds
50s: 30 to 40 percent
60s: 40 to 50 percent
Post-retirement: Increase bond exposure to 60 to 70 percent"

Seems reasonable. Plenty of room for debate on the specifics and individual circumstances.
Why have bonds when you're retired and your pension and SS benefits more than cover your expenses? Why shouldn't you be 100% equity if you dont need to depend on your investment to live on and can stomach market downturns? I know bogleheads subscribe to the theory that the older we get, the more bonds we should have but that may not be the best way to increase wealth.
When you retire (and your asset base is more than sufficient) there may not be a need or desire to "increase wealth."
For some people,leaving a legacy is important.
Yes, I agree it is for some people. I was really just offering commentary on the "best way to increase wealth" statement not being universal for all.

Thesaints
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by Thesaints » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:21 pm

Rules of thumb are oftentime not useful for the other four fingers...

I'm pretty sure out there it is full of 50-year olds who are best served by an asset allocation with 30-40 percent un bonds. Yet, there certainly will be many of their peers who are not.
The intelligent investor knows where that number "30-40%" comes from and can tell when it also applies to him and when it does not.

User avatar
whodidntante
Posts: 2010
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:11 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by whodidntante » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:33 pm

Gort wrote:
whodidntante wrote:The Day the Earth Stood Still is one of my favorite movies.
Klaatu barada nikto.
:)
8-)

aristotelian
Posts: 2570
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:05 pm

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by aristotelian » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:28 am

If Cramer is not 100% stock, I would say that is at least a good sign we are not in a bubble.

Johnnie
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 3:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Cramer makes the bull case for including bonds in your portfolio

Post by Johnnie » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:07 pm

In his daily monologue he just dissed indexers' warnings about single stock risk, and went on to pump FANG stocks.

ETA: I just realized this is a bond thread, not the Cramer talks index funds thread. Close enough though.
"I know nothing."

Post Reply