NY Times Article: New Rules For Retirees & Near Retireme

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
Topic Author
Munir
Posts: 2783
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:39 pm
Location: Oregon

NY Times Article: New Rules For Retirees & Near Retireme

Post by Munir »

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/your- ... nted=print

The article from the "Your Money" section of the NY Times June 20 issue discusses the varying advice from different planners and finance gurus, including Jack Bogle, to retirees and those near retirement. No new ground is broken for readers of this forum but it's interesting to see what different advisers are recommending after last year's debacle
User avatar
Sheepdog
Posts: 5677
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Indiana, retired 1998 at age 65

Post by Sheepdog »

Thanks for posting. Nothing new as you said, but interesting to read if you are a retiree like me.
Jim
All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
User avatar
preserve
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:13 pm

Post by preserve »

I hate rules.
sschullo
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:25 am
Location: Rancho Mirage, CA
Contact:

Post by sschullo »

preserve wrote:I hate rules.
Me too. Three years ago, I complained to my employer for having the TRP target retirement funds that started (are you sitting down) with the TRP 2010 fund with a 60% equity 40% bond allocation! I got the standard CRAPPY "old rules" that "you need equity exposure to combat inflation because you are living longer...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH."

Thank god, some of us near or in retirement learned our lessons from the 2000-2002 debacle and Adrian's formula, learned a more accurate risk tolerance of 70% bonds-30% equities three years.

We are happy campers because we did not listen to the standard rules of retirement allocation of stocks to bonds of the time.
"We have seen much more money made and kept by “ordinary people” who were temperamentally well suited for the investment process than by those who lacked this quality." Ben Graham
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 19549
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Post by VictoriaF »

The article, in my opinion, does not do the justice to TIPS. The first time they are mentioned as follows:
NY Times wrote:If inflation was their only concern, he might invest their money across a ladder of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS, which are backed by the government and keep pace with inflation.

But since retirees generally spend money on entertainment, health care and food — whose costs often exceed the general rate of inflation — he said he might invest 40 to 50 percent of their money in a portfolio of diversified stock funds (with at least 30 percent of that in international stock funds).
From this a typical retiree learns that:
1. If he worried only about inflation he'd consider TIPS, but his today's concerns are low fixed income returns and volatility of markets.
2. As he eats, entertains and gets health care, TIPS are not adequate anyway.
3. A better alternative is 40-50% in equities.

My response is that:
1. Food prices do not normally outpace inflation.
2. Web and computer-based entertainment is becoming ever cheaper.
3. While medical costs are rising, it is impossible to find an investment strategy that would reliably protect one's health related costs. These should be considered in terms of insurance, healthy lifestyle, and a large savings margin for emergencies.
4. For a retiree keeping 50% of assets in stocks is dangerous.


The second reference to TIPS is just this:
NY Times wrote:And if you are just worried about inflation protection, you can do TIPS.
If this is all you learned about TIPS, would you ever even consider them? :evil:

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
sschullo
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:25 am
Location: Rancho Mirage, CA
Contact:

Post by sschullo »

duplicated post deleted
Last edited by sschullo on Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"We have seen much more money made and kept by “ordinary people” who were temperamentally well suited for the investment process than by those who lacked this quality." Ben Graham
User avatar
Topic Author
Munir
Posts: 2783
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Bogle Quotes

Post by Munir »

Bogle quotes from the article:

"“If another decline in the market is going to bankrupt you or put you out of business or destroy your retirement account, you should not go back into the stock market,” said John C. Bogle, the founder of Vanguard and viewed by many as the father of index investing. “It’s not complicated. The stock market can go up and down a lot and nobody really knows how much and when.”

What’s worked for Mr. Bogle may not work for you, but his method isn’t a bad place to start. “I have this threadbare rule that has worked very well for me,” he said in an interview this week. “Your bond position should equal your age.” Mr. Bogle, by the way, is 80 years old."

As to those investors who got out of stocks, Mr. Bogle said it might be time for some of them to get back in. “But I would take two years to do it,” he said. “Maybe average in over eight quarters, and do an eighth each quarter. I am just not in favor of doing things in a hurry or emotionally.”

And then? “Don’t touch it,” he said, emphatically. “One of my rules is don’t do something. Just stand there.”
rb313
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:52 am
Location: VA

Post by rb313 »

JB likes rules. "One of my rules is don't do something. Just stand there."
DblDoc
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:52 pm

Post by DblDoc »

rb313 wrote:JB likes rules. "One of my rules is don't do something. Just stand there."
Of all his rules this is the hardest to follow.

DD
Post Reply