Heaven knows I've made blunders like that, but I looked again, and it looks to me as if it's about 58% bonds at age 65. But "more aggressive than the aggressive curve" is being unreasonably over-precise, let's just say it's near the aggressive end of the range.john94549 wrote:Nisi, maybe I'm mis-reading the chart, but for a 65 year old, isn't 60/40 "aggressive" (not "more aggressive" than "aggressive"). Perhaps you meant "more aggressive than moderate"?
Well, that's the thing about investing enthusiasts of any stamp. They like to talk about direction rather than magnitude, because the magnitude differences are too small to take seriously. But, they say, "it's HIGHER! Which would you like, more money, or less money?" And then of course they take the tiny difference and compound it out for thirty years. And, yes, I think that applies to costs as well. The difference between a Vanguard 0.10% ER and a Fidelity Freedom 0.75% ER is minuscule compared hundreds of random life events, like spending nine years in grad school (me) versus six.steve r wrote:My spreadsheet for 41 years (72 to 12) using Simba data ... the steepness of the efficiency frontier is not that impressiveKulak wrote:S&P breaks 1500 and suddenly we're talking 100% stocks again. I've seen this show before! ... Next week ... leverage. Why not ... interest rates are at historic lows.
Oh, it's fine as long as you cranked in the phonus-balonus first. It's only data mining if you actually peek at the results and they come out wrong so you change the portfolio or the endpoints after peeking.(ok ... I data mined ... LTT did great during this period ... I excluded emerging markets which did great ... who knows the future, both these assets will probably do worse in the next 41 years than the last 41 years ... particularly LTT ... again, who knows) ... that said, the risk reduction from bonds is likely to stay.
(And yes, I think people do that. I really do think that people used to say "EAFE adds hugely beneficial diversification," and then when the results started to come out wrong they pretended they'd never said that and just did a switcheroo to "International including emerging markets." And that when "small" came out wrong they pretended they'd never really claimed there was a small-company effect and made a switcheroo to small value. And from "value" to "value ex-utilities." Just like the people who believe in the Hindenburg omen keep refining and changing the definition, so that the current definition is always highly predictive of the past even though past definitions weren't.)