Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
rascott
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by rascott » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:43 am

Plenty of us are 100% stocks, and older than you. I for one see no need for bonds personally until starting maybe a decade out from retirement.

I'm in a similar situation to yours, but not nearly as a big a number as your parents. I don't count on anything, and try to pretend it's not there, but would be lying if I said it wasn't in the back of mind. That said, people live a very long time, so you may be well into your own retirement before you see any of this. I have a grandparent still alive in their mid 90s.

mak1277
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by mak1277 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:49 am

We all make bets on the future...when I was in my 20s, I "knew" that I'd be successful and make a high salary in my 30s/40s, so I didn't feel the need to save anything. If I "knew" I was going to get a large inheritance, my strategy would be to spend all the money I make, and not save anything. So from that perspective, you're being prudent, regardless of what your investment strategy may end up being.

Topic Author
hp12see
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:39 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by hp12see » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:55 am

mak1277 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:49 am
We all make bets on the future...when I was in my 20s, I "knew" that I'd be successful and make a high salary in my 30s/40s, so I didn't feel the need to save anything. If I "knew" I was going to get a large inheritance, my strategy would be to spend all the money I make, and not save anything. So from that perspective, you're being prudent, regardless of what your investment strategy may end up being.
Oof, did the high salary come to fruition in yours 30s/40s?

I'm definitely familiar with that mentality. When I got out of school at 22 and was making $45,000/yr I said "yeah, I'll contribute a tiny amount to my IRA but I really can't afford it now so it'll have to wait". And I knew all about compound interest and the importance of saving early! I'm so impressed with the 18-22 year old kids I see online talking about investing strategy and building sizable accounts on $35K a year.

mak1277
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by mak1277 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:59 am

hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:55 am
mak1277 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:49 am
We all make bets on the future...when I was in my 20s, I "knew" that I'd be successful and make a high salary in my 30s/40s, so I didn't feel the need to save anything. If I "knew" I was going to get a large inheritance, my strategy would be to spend all the money I make, and not save anything. So from that perspective, you're being prudent, regardless of what your investment strategy may end up being.
Oof, did the high salary come to fruition in yours 30s/40s?

I'm definitely familiar with that mentality. When I got out of school at 22 and was making $45,000/yr I said "yeah, I'll contribute a tiny amount to my IRA but I really can't afford it now so it'll have to wait". And I knew all about compound interest and the importance of saving early! I'm so impressed with the 18-22 year old kids I see online talking about investing strategy and building sizable accounts on $35K a year.
Yes, the higher salary definitely came through. The missed contributions/company matches/compounding from my 20s wouldn't even be a blip in my total net worth now.

EvanRude
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:44 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by EvanRude » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:05 am

100% equities provides nothing with which to rebalance in case of a market correction. 90/10% can over time provide a better return than 100%.

Waiting for or expecting an inheritance can be corrosive to your soul. Go live your life and chart your own path. You have already inherited much from your parents that will guide you to success, Grasshopper!

J295
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:40 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by J295 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:17 am

Answer: it depends.

However, generally speaking I’d say if one wishes to be more aggressive in your investing then reasonably expected inheritances can be a factor.

AA of course is situational and not one size fits all.

Good luck.

User avatar
N1CKV
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:18 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by N1CKV » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:19 am

EvanRude wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:05 am
100% equities provides nothing with which to rebalance in case of a market correction. 90/10% can over time provide a better return than 100%.
I came here to say the same thing. The ability to re-balance/ hold "dry powder" from bonds/fixed income can prove very useful.

I say be aggressive, but 100% equities is more than "aggressive". I am in line for a nice government pension, it will replace my current income. I do not need even that much. Because of this I am more aggressive with my investments because they are all lagniappe. However, my asset allocation is nowhere near 100/0.

RadAudit
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by RadAudit » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:22 am

hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:50 am
Yeah, I've got a couple of kids like that, too. (Not as much money though.) Boy, are they going to be surprised.

Are they going to be surprised because you intend to spend it or give it away?
I don't know. Life happens.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.

delamer
Posts: 8688
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:13 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by delamer » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:23 am

With parental assets in the $50 million range, you can invest your own funds at whatever allocation you want (given that they’ve explicitly said that they plan to leave your an inheritance).

If 100% stocks is a level that you are comfortable holding, then do so.

Here’s a chart that shows returns and volatility for various allocations: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... llocations

HeelaMonster
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:46 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by HeelaMonster » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:35 am

hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:33 am
Thanks for the warm welcome! That 45-50 range is about what I had in mind but for me that's only backed up by "yeah it feels right".

My folks are in their mid-60s and their net worth is approx. $50 million. Gross income is approx. $2.5 million and they live on about $120-150k/yr. I have an advanced degree and earn a low six-figure income right now but I see that growing in the future. I'm really not trying to shirk my duty to save, but rather looking for permission to stay in equity index funds and delay investing in bonds (and it sounds like this isn't a contentious idea even without inheritance entering the picture).
I'm new here myself, so it may not be my place to welcome you, but I think you are being responsible in your approach and clear in your intent (in bold). You are in a nice situation, and I hope it all works out for you and family. Take the seemingly-negative responses and cautionary tales as well-intended reality checks, and proceed "eyes wide open." But with a justified bounce in your step!

FWIW, I was heavily weighted toward equities from age 30-50. I didn't have access to Vanguard for my primary retirement account, so 100% went into the CREF Stock Account. I contributed more every month, rode it up and down, and it served me well. I have backed off that allocation now, moving into retirement, but that approach has put me in position to (a) retire earlier than planned, (b) live life as I want, and (c) pass something along to my own children (not as much as your parents may, but enough to give them more freedom someday).

I think you already have the takehome message... with or without inheritance, you can afford to be more aggressive in your early years.

Topic Author
hp12see
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:39 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by hp12see » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:02 am

delamer wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:23 am
Here’s a chart that shows returns and volatility for various allocations: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... llocations
Thanks for that - I hadn't seen those graphs before. Interesting that the 20/80 stocks/bonds has fewer down years than the 100% bonds approach. #diversification
HeelaMonster wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:35 am
I'm new here myself, so it may not be my place to welcome you, but I think you are being responsible in your approach and clear in your intent (in bold). You are in a nice situation, and I hope it all works out for you and family. Take the seemingly-negative responses and cautionary tales as well-intended reality checks, and proceed "eyes wide open." But with a justified bounce in your step!

FWIW, I was heavily weighted toward equities from age 30-50. I didn't have access to Vanguard for my primary retirement account, so 100% went into the CREF Stock Account. I contributed more every month, rode it up and down, and it served me well. I have backed off that allocation now, moving into retirement, but that approach has put me in position to (a) retire earlier than planned, (b) live life as I want, and (c) pass something along to my own children (not as much as your parents may, but enough to give them more freedom someday).

I think you already have the takehome message... with or without inheritance, you can afford to be more aggressive in your early years.
Thank you for the warm welcome and kind words. I appreciate it and congratulations to you on your risk tolerance and ability to retire earlier than planned.

Fallible
Posts: 6980
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Fallible » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:08 am

Welcome to the forum and you've stated your case well. I think it would help if we knew at least approximately the size of the anticipated inheritance, but that's your call.

Whether you can go 100% stocks (as you say you would like) based on the possibility/probability of a future inheritance, is something no one can know for certain. Investing is already about the future and about uncertainty and that's where much of the risk comes in. You add to that risk when you invest based on another future (an inheritance) you can't predict.
"John Bogle has changed a basic industry in the optimal direction. Of very few can this be said." ~Paul A. Samuelson

stoptothink
Posts: 6055
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by stoptothink » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:17 am

StormShadow wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:54 pm
hp12see wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:12 pm
I know anything can happen and I hope my parents both live for a very long time to come, but I'd peg the odds of this inheritance coming through (i.e. not being squandered, spent down, or given away to the circus) at 99%.
Umm, about that...
Goal33 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:39 pm
after my parents divorced, my dad married a woman 30 years younger... you can figure out the rest.
+1000

My advice... hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

It makes the most sense to assume you will get nothing and proceed from there. Hey, if you end up getting a sizeable inheritance then terrific (except, you know, that your folks will be gone).
My grandfather remarried shortly after mom left home. When grandpa died, everything was left to his 2nd wife. When she died (~5yrs ago) virtually everything was left to my mother's youngest (adopted, doesn't really matter, but nonetheless it added to the drama) sister, who did not have any relationship with stepmom until about a year before she passed and mysteriously became executor of the will. My aunt inherited low-7-figures in cash and 3 properties with a value of $4M+, my mom and her other 5 siblings didn't get a penny. Literally tore apart a once close family. My mom has admitted that she was banking on inheritance, so now at 58 she (and my stepfather, both who have health conditions which may force them into retirement soon) have $0 in retirement and it's looking like taking care of them will be up (at least partially) to my wife and I.

Can't express enough the importance of planning like it wasn't there.

Topic Author
hp12see
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:39 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by hp12see » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:44 am

Fallible wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:08 am
Welcome to the forum and you've stated your case well. I think it would help if we knew at least approximately the size of the anticipated inheritance, but that's your call.

Whether you can go 100% stocks (as you say you would like) based on the possibility/probability of a future inheritance, is something no one can know for certain. Investing is already about the future and about uncertainty and that's where much of the risk comes in. You add to that risk when you invest based on another future (an inheritance) you can't predict.
Thank you. Obviously I can't begin to predict the size of an inheritance I may or may not receive in 30+ years but their net worth today is ~$50 million and they're regularly adding capital to that pot. Suffice it to say I think there's a reasonable possibility of receiving an amount that could materially affect our retirement. It's also enough that end of life care alone is unlikely to deplete it, but of course markets can tank and humans can do human things like changing their mind about what to do with their money so I understand any inheritance is far from certain. Of course neither are stock market returns so fundamentally this is a question about evaluating risk and responding to it. Your points are good ones and well taken.

Topic Author
hp12see
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:39 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by hp12see » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:45 am

stoptothink wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:17 am
StormShadow wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:54 pm
hp12see wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:12 pm
I know anything can happen and I hope my parents both live for a very long time to come, but I'd peg the odds of this inheritance coming through (i.e. not being squandered, spent down, or given away to the circus) at 99%.
Umm, about that...
Goal33 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:39 pm
after my parents divorced, my dad married a woman 30 years younger... you can figure out the rest.
+1000

My advice... hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

It makes the most sense to assume you will get nothing and proceed from there. Hey, if you end up getting a sizeable inheritance then terrific (except, you know, that your folks will be gone).
My grandfather remarried shortly after mom left home. When grandpa died, everything was left to his 2nd wife. When she died (~5yrs ago) virtually everything was left to my mother's youngest (adopted, doesn't really matter, but nonetheless it added to the drama) sister, who did not have any relationship with stepmom until about a year before she passed and mysteriously became executor of the will. My aunt inherited low-7-figures in cash and 3 properties with a value of $4M+, my mom and her other 5 siblings didn't get a penny. Literally tore apart a once close family. My mom has admitted that she was banking on inheritance, so now at 58 she (and my stepfather, both who have health conditions which may force them into retirement soon) have $0 in retirement and it's looking like taking care of them will be up (at least partially) to my wife and I.

Can't express enough the importance of planning like it wasn't there.
Oooof, I'm sorry to hear that. The whole situation sounds brutal and it's really unfortunate how much financial matters can affect families - even those that have always been close. We're a very tight knit family and all of us are close to one another but I still get chills when I hear horror stories of families squabbling over money when someone passes.

BillWalters
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:21 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by BillWalters » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:58 pm

Grandparent founded a publicly traded company. Watched parents wait 20 years to inherit, messed up their lives and marriage.

The 99% comment indicates a problematic perspective. Parent 1 dies, Parent 2 remarries and predeceases spouse #2, whose kids get all the money. Happens ALL THE TIME.

KyleAAA
Posts: 7368
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by KyleAAA » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:17 pm

Sure, I could see justifying a moderately more aggressive allocation based on that (assuming parents aren't 100% invested in pork belly futures). I wouldn't go crazy, but an extra 10% in stock seems reasonable.

Wakefield1
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Wakefield1 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:26 pm

BillWalters wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:58 pm
Grandparent founded a publicly traded company. Watched parents wait 20 years to inherit, messed up their lives and marriage.

The 99% comment indicates a problematic perspective. Parent 1 dies, Parent 2 remarries and predeceases spouse #2, whose kids get all the money. Happens ALL THE TIME.
A very very wealthy parent,who wants to make sure that their child(ren) will benefit from that wealth eventually,should not depend upon inheritance or succession. That parent should do something to create some sort of endowment or trust for the child NOW.

As Lady Geek said,one should probably never stake their fortune on inheriting one penny. Might not happen.

JackoC
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by JackoC » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:52 pm

Watty wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:20 am
hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:02 am
Follow-up question: for folks who do promote investing in 100% equities when you're younger,.....
You need to take the 100% equities comments with a huge grain of salt.

The stock market is still near a record high and we are in a ten+ year bull market so frankly a lot of what is being said sounds like bubble talk.
I agree but for another reason as well as yours. A lot of 'I'm 100% in equities' comments on this forum seem to be with significant exclusions: except my 'emergency fund', except my house, etc. things that could be a significant % of the person's actual allocation as I'd count it.

CascadiaSoonish
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:44 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by CascadiaSoonish » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:59 pm

Anything can happen. Long-term care can be frighteningly expensive, beneficiaries can be changed, investments can go south. But if investing is a bet based on probabilities, I see no problem in making some reasonable assumptions about future inheritances. The numbers posted by OP ($50MM NW for parents) certainly point to a likely significant material change in OP's net worth in the future. Is it guaranteed? Of course not. There are no guarantees. But there's a strong likelihood sufficient to serve as a foundation for planning.

In our case, knowing the assets and intentions of our parents, we assume nothing inheritance-$-wise but still plan with their intentions in mind. One parent has offered financial assistance for college for our kids, for example, so we're contributing enough to realize the full 529 tax benefit but otherwise aren't shoveling in additional cash -- it goes to taxable instead. We also feel free to make long-term investments that lock up capital because we know we're extraordinarily unlikely to end up sleeping under a bridge if there was another recession like the one a decade ago. Arguably we're taking more risk here but it's a question of investment strategies and asset allocations for the most part. We're not blowing all our cash in Vegas.

I'm relatively junior here on the board and will certainly acknowledge the amazing expertise shared by other posters. That said, I sometimes think the Bogleheads orthodoxies get in the way. If parents and children can have conversations and understandings about multigenerational wealth and how to collectively plan and manage that wealth, I think it's perfectly reasonable to act based on those understandings.

JackoC
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by JackoC » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:11 pm

Ben Mathew wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:11 pm
ohai wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:50 pm
All the arguments above aside regarding the potential instability in inheritance, the fact of the matter is that if you are a normal risk averse individual, the presence of potential large inheritance increases your expected net worth and your tolerance for loss. Therefore, your utility maximizing portfolio should rationally be more risky than it would be without the inheritance.
Wealth increases one's tolerance for loss, but also reduces the benefit from the gain. So on net, it's hard to get a clear direction for the relationship between wealth and risk level. A person with CRRA preferences would keep risk constant regardless of wealth.
That's also my main question about the OP's premise and most of the responses. Who says you should take more risk because you're wealthier? It seems many people imagine they'd take more risk if they were wealthier but it's not necessarily the case when people actually get wealthier, or much wealthier, well beyond the point where minimal short term reserves are a significant % of assets.

Also like most such threads there's not much detail about how much money we're talking about, either OP's situation or parents'. So people read into it their own assumptions and draw conclusions based on those situations which might vary widely from OP's actual one.

Nothing is certain. Maybe you'll get eaten by a shark next time you go swimming at the beach. But you don't assume that as the base case or necessarily let it affect your plans at all. The posts saying how about mom/dad dumps the other and takes up with whoever x decades younger and spends it all...is assuming people who might be very different from OP's own personal knowledge of parents. Going in the other direction, our kids are very likely to inherit enough never to struggle with money (assuming reasonably responsible spending by them). Assuming we were people who might suddenly squander the money would not make sense for our kids, even if it might for some other people. Likewise again long term care...out of what size asset base? It matters. In short, disembodied voices on the internet telling you about specific people you know, and they don't, is worthless for making an individual decision. But it's also impossible to give useful advice to people who aren't willing to specify their actual situations even anonymously.

But since a) there's no determinate connection between wealth and net risk appetite and b) as others have mentioned a '100%' (even if somewhat figurative, often seems to not count this that and the other thing) stock allocation at that age isn't extremely high, OP's specific knowledge would not necessarily affect investing in financial assets that much even with all the info filled in. I think where it can have more impact is career choice (high paying field, service oriented field) and willingness to take crash-and-burn career risk. In the latter respect I don't see that it makes a lot of sense to assume you'll inherit nothing if that's clearly highly unlikely.

NotWhoYouThink
Posts: 2621
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:19 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by NotWhoYouThink » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:34 pm

What does your spouse think?

Your parents, if they leave money to anyone, will likely leave it in trusts to you and your descendants, not to your spouse. So how much risk is your spouse willing to take? You could get hit by a bus tomorrow (so you need life insurance) or run off with your barista next week. Your parents aren't going to take care of your spouse if either of those things happen. So plan for the family you have now, and make sure there is a plan in place that takes care of all family members.

My 2 xBILs had different plans. One saved nothing for retirement because the men in his family usually die in their 50s. He's pushing 70.
The other saved little because he was waiting for the family inheritance. Again, he's pushing 70 and just inherited. Made retiring early not a great plan.

Fallible
Posts: 6980
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Fallible » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:43 pm

hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:44 am
Fallible wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:08 am
Welcome to the forum and you've stated your case well. I think it would help if we knew at least approximately the size of the anticipated inheritance, but that's your call.

Whether you can go 100% stocks (as you say you would like) based on the possibility/probability of a future inheritance, is something no one can know for certain. Investing is already about the future and about uncertainty and that's where much of the risk comes in. You add to that risk when you invest based on another future (an inheritance) you can't predict.
Thank you. Obviously I can't begin to predict the size of an inheritance I may or may not receive in 30+ years but their net worth today is ~$50 million and they're regularly adding capital to that pot. Suffice it to say I think there's a reasonable possibility of receiving an amount that could materially affect our retirement. It's also enough that end of life care alone is unlikely to deplete it, but of course markets can tank and humans can do human things like changing their mind about what to do with their money so I understand any inheritance is far from certain. Of course neither are stock market returns so fundamentally this is a question about evaluating risk and responding to it. ...
Agree, and also a question of how much risk is right for you and your family, how much of it you can and want to handle - the final and often toughest question.
Last edited by Fallible on Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"John Bogle has changed a basic industry in the optimal direction. Of very few can this be said." ~Paul A. Samuelson

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 21092
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:45 pm

Sandtrap wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:45 am
hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:33 am

Thanks for the warm welcome! That 45-50 range is about what I had in mind but for me that's only backed up by "yeah it feels right".

My folks are in their mid-60s and their net worth is approx. $50 million. Gross income is approx. $2.5 million and they live on about $120-150k/yr. I have an advanced degree and earn a low six-figure income right now but I see that growing in the future. I'm really not trying to shirk my duty to save, but rather looking for permission to stay in equity index funds and delay investing in bonds (and it sounds like this isn't a contentious idea even without inheritance entering the picture).
At age 30, given available data, (a portfolio review would be better per forum format, consider doing this), an aggressive allocation is common and works for many.

You've got a good idea. Go with it.

As for the $50 mil.
It's amazing and interesting what can happen over the next 40 years, or less.

j :happy
How much will estate taxes take of the $50 million (both federal and local), how about the lawyers, accountants, other middlemen? Will there be any other claims on the estate? Don't count your chickens until they've hatched and are in your possession without any encumberances.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

User avatar
Wiggums
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:02 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Wiggums » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:55 pm

JoeRetire wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:24 am
hp12see wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:12 pm
I'm in my early 30s and increasingly interested in personal finance and planning for the future. About a year ago I began having detailed discussions with my parents about their finances and it turns out they a) have built a sizable net worth, b) live on a fraction of their income so that net worth continues to grow, and c) intend to pass it on to me and my two siblings.

I know anything can happen and I hope my parents both live for a very long time to come, but I'd peg the odds of this inheritance coming through (i.e. not being squandered, spent down, or given away to the circus) at 99%.
Sorry, no.

Unless your parents have already funded an irrevocable trust for you, your odds are not 99%. You are seeing only what you want to see. (And this is why some parents don't want to discuss their wealth with their family.)
That said, my wife and I are still saving for retirement as if we're on our own. I know that's the only responsible way to live and I'm certainly not looking to cut off retirement savings in order to live some kind of lavish lifestyle. Instead my question is this: can the high probability of a large inheritance be valid justification for investing in a riskier (i.e. 100% stock index funds) portfolio?
Sure. You could bet that your retirement will be rescued by mom and dad. Maybe it will work out for you, maybe not. But it's your bet to make.

It's not something I would do.
+1. It’s not something I would do.

JackoC
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by JackoC » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:09 pm

Grt2bOutdoors wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:45 pm
Sandtrap wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:45 am
hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:33 am

Thanks for the warm welcome! That 45-50 range is about what I had in mind but for me that's only backed up by "yeah it feels right".

My folks are in their mid-60s and their net worth is approx. $50 million. Gross income is approx. $2.5 million and they live on about $120-150k/yr.
At age 30, given available data, (a portfolio review would be better per forum format, consider doing this), an aggressive allocation is common and works for many.
How much will estate taxes take of the $50 million (both federal and local), how about the lawyers, accountants, other middlemen? Will there be any other claims on the estate? Don't count your chickens until they've hatched and are in your possession without any encumberances.
I didn't notice that useful specifics were later given, like how much the parents have. I guess other people also didn't notice or posted based on the original lack of info, for example pointing to long term care costs. Those could be a significant factor for people worth up to a few million maybe, not people worth $50 million.

At that level the estate tax question would strongly suggest stuff the parents should probably do now if they intend to leave money to heirs. Like for example gift, now, into irrevocable trust $22+mil (2* the current combined estate/gift tax exclusion, one for each of the couple) for heirs, thereby locking in today's exclusion, removing the uncertainty the parents will change their minds about the bequest or squander that portion of the money, as well as shielding heirs from a future big increase in the estate tax (decrease in the exclusion and/or increase in the rate). And if spending $150k/yr the parents can easily live on the other $28mil, though that amount might then be entirely subject to whatever estate tax prevails at their death, which is not predictable for people only in their 60's in good health. It's of course not a child's place to tell his or her parents to do that, and not exactly the question asked, but I think it's highly relevant to the overall situation at that asset level.

The parents could eliminate substantial elements of uncertainty various posts have given as reasons to ignore the potential bequest altogether in OP's own planning, though I don't accept that as a rational answer even without such risk reducing actions by the parents. Not with the parents worth *that* much, and saying they intend to leave it to kids.

BillWalters
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:21 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by BillWalters » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:26 pm

In my experience almost all people in the 8 figure club and up hate giving up control of anything and love manipulating people with their money, especially their kids. Efficient estate planning necessarily involves giving up control, hence the common scenario where no brainer actions (lock in the historically high $22 million exclusion) aren’t taken.

delamer
Posts: 8688
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:13 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by delamer » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:12 pm

CascadiaSoonish wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:59 pm
Anything can happen. Long-term care can be frighteningly expensive, beneficiaries can be changed, investments can go south. But if investing is a bet based on probabilities, I see no problem in making some reasonable assumptions about future inheritances. The numbers posted by OP ($50MM NW for parents) certainly point to a likely significant material change in OP's net worth in the future. Is it guaranteed? Of course not. There are no guarantees. But there's a strong likelihood sufficient to serve as a foundation for planning.

In our case, knowing the assets and intentions of our parents, we assume nothing inheritance-$-wise but still plan with their intentions in mind. One parent has offered financial assistance for college for our kids, for example, so we're contributing enough to realize the full 529 tax benefit but otherwise aren't shoveling in additional cash -- it goes to taxable instead. We also feel free to make long-term investments that lock up capital because we know we're extraordinarily unlikely to end up sleeping under a bridge if there was another recession like the one a decade ago. Arguably we're taking more risk here but it's a question of investment strategies and asset allocations for the most part. We're not blowing all our cash in Vegas.

I'm relatively junior here on the board and will certainly acknowledge the amazing expertise shared by other posters. That said, I sometimes think the Bogleheads orthodoxies get in the way. If parents and children can have conversations and understandings about multigenerational wealth and how to collectively plan and manage that wealth, I think it's perfectly reasonable to act based on those understandings.
The problem is that “conversations and understandings” don’t pay the bills.

In the case of this OP, some of comments are overblown. His parents have a net worth of $50 million AND he is asking about the appropriate allocation for his savings, not whether he should be saving any money at all.

You’ll find other threads here, though, about more modest inheritances that were lost to long-term care costs or to second husbands of mother after a father’s death. Or grandparents who said “they wanted to help” with college expenses but invested poorly or ended up using the money for their own medical bills.

In my parents’ case, they gave my kids a fixed dollar amount each year which was intended for and deposited in their 529 accounts (that I controlled). These gifts in total ended up covering about a year’s worth of college for each kid. Yet many grandparents are reluctant to do that, because they have control issues or because they really aren’t sure if they’ll “need the money.” I’d rather have $5,000 today than a promise of $10,000 in 10 years; life is uncertain.

Juice3
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:40 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Juice3 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:33 am

hp12see wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:12 pm
can the high probability of a large inheritance be valid justification for investing in a riskier (i.e. 100% stock index funds) portfolio?
Risk is not an either or. You are (at least) talking about increasing volatility risk, increasing duration risk, and decreasing returns risk.

Other posts have hinted at this and I'll say it directly, you need to develop a more sophisticated model of risk.

J

Topic Author
hp12see
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:39 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by hp12see » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:10 am

Juice3 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:33 am
hp12see wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:12 pm
can the high probability of a large inheritance be valid justification for investing in a riskier (i.e. 100% stock index funds) portfolio?
Risk is not an either or. You are (at least) talking about increasing volatility risk, increasing duration risk, and decreasing returns risk.

Other posts have hinted at this and I'll say it directly, you need to develop a more sophisticated model of risk.

J
You make some good points. This post has me thinking I still don't know what I don't know - better start reading through the Wiki here and try to change that. I strive to at least be aware of my ignorance(s) :)

getthatmarshmallow
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:43 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by getthatmarshmallow » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:39 am

I'd say no, don't change your AA, but my reasoning is different. See what you think. Let's consider two options:
1) Your parents leave you nothing, due to whatever lurid scenario you imagine. In that case, you'll want to have stuck to your asset allocation.
2) Your parents leave you an eight-figure inheritance in your mid 40s. In that case, the extra 5%of risk will be dwarfed by the inheritance, so you might as well stick to your original asset allocation.

Realistically, it should make little difference to your plans. What will help is the knowledge that your parents can fend for themselves, which allows you to live your own life without financial worries about them. LBYM, as you plan, so that when you do come into your inheritance, you'll have the skills to manage it.

Van Down By Da River
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed May 22, 2019 2:27 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Van Down By Da River » Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:12 am

I would actually take less risk if I knew I was 'guaranteed' an inheritance. If you know you are going to receive $10+ million, you don't really 'need' to take unnecessary risks to maximize your compound growth and there is really no need to take any stock market risk, you could just invest all your money in bonds and be fine. In my opinion, at your 'projected' future wealth level, it is more important to preserve your capital, not grow it

JackoC
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by JackoC » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:36 pm

BillWalters wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:26 pm
In my experience almost all people in the 8 figure club and up hate giving up control of anything and love manipulating people with their money, especially their kids. Efficient estate planning necessarily involves giving up control, hence the common scenario where no brainer actions (lock in the historically high $22 million exclusion) aren’t taken.
That's a reasonable point. Actually reflection by OP on the (apparent) fact that OP's parents haven't put any of their huge NW (relative to their spending, OP said they spend $150k/yr max of $50mil NW) into trust might tell OP something about parents that's not otherwise apparent. I mean in contrast to 'one of them may dump the other and go off with a floozy/gigolo and blow it all' which might be a ridiculous scenario based on OP's long personal knowledge of the people in question.

Back to risk though. Let's say the parents did put $22mil in trust and it was stock/bond financial assets, let's say 90% stocks. With the uncertainties removed as far as whether you'd really be the heir, whether they'd spend the money out from under you, etc. would having a large 90% stock portfolio waiting for you really mean you'd want to shift your own savings (from 'low six figure income', IOW tiny by comparison) to 100% stocks? :shock: Many people on Bogleheads forum think the (US particularly) stock market must always perform well in the long run, but if it doesn't actually have to, might not, and you can't come back and get a refund from them if it doesn't. :happy

If I were OP and *if* the situation was such that the inheritance were really nailed down (like an irrevocable trust for my benefit) and if the assets in the trust were predominantly stocks, I'd probably shift my own savings toward safer assets, not toward stocks. If the assets in the trust were predominantly low risk/return assets I might shift my savings toward stocks. Seems straight forward to me, that you have to know the risk profile of the assets in the prospective inheritance (as well as the likelihood you'll inherit them, but not *just* the likelihood you'll inherit them) to know what effect it should have on your own allocation, if any. Plus, having a lot of money can reasonably make one either more or less inclined to take risk to make even more money, a strictly personal preference. Many posts are based on the idea that having a lot of money means you automatically want to take more stock market risk with it: not necessarily.

quisp65
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:44 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by quisp65 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:59 pm

I rationalize being a little more aggressive and I'm a couple of years from retirement and my parents are 87/86 and I think I can guarantee their inheritance increasing my portfolio at least by 50% from a conservative estimate, though it could easily be 3-4 times as much. Though we have talked about it for a long time and we even get max gift amounts every year, so there are no secrets or drama in our family. I'm 75/25 VTSAX/CDs and oneway balance into CDs. Though I'm also going on the fact the S&P has hit a high at least every 7 years since 1950 and I feel a lot of the rules that people are going on were made when bonds made better than 2%. So I'll manage with 7-10 years in CDs and if a long bear market hits longer than 7, I'll live on the cheap. Though there is always that slight chance my parents will go crazy at old age and I lose the money, so I also have one more back up where I would sell my condo and go back to live in the Philippines again and live cheaply. So it's still a personal decision where you will have to weigh everything out.

However bond rules were made under different circumstances and old rules can take a while to disappear. If you are 30, I wouldn't even think about bonds till 10 years from retirement.
Last edited by quisp65 on Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

illumination
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:13 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by illumination » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm

I think in the situation the OP outlined, yes, I would invest more aggressively. Maybe that's reckless, but there's people here that don't have a backstop like that that go 100% equities outside their emergency funds.

Just don't "spend" like there's a huge windfall on its way. And don't start "gambling" like making big bets on individual stocks, etc. But in funds designated for investment, I would be close to 100% equities long term.

I will say I have extended family members had what they thought was a really big windfall on its way and it turns out and its not nearly what they thought it was. It's still a good deal of money, but it's more like what a nice 401k would have at retirement, not "lottery" money. Still, had their investment money been 100% equities, they would have been richer without the backstop of any inheritance.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 12631
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:24 pm

AlohaJoe wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:10 pm
Sure, it can be a justification. Much of investing is based around probabilities, not certainties.

My old boss is currently worth $8 billion. His kid might not inherit all $8 billion but would be equally ridiculous to tell the kid that they need to invest in bonds for stability.

But there are no bright lines or hard & fast rules. Just as people need to take human capital & Social Security into account when investing, I don't see anything wrong with taking dynastic wealth into account, so long as they understand the huge amounts of variance that are possible in the absence of actual, real estate planning.

And a lot of people would see it the other way around: If you're so sure about inheriting so much money...why bother investing in stocks at all? What's the point? Put your money in 100% bonds.

Anyway, contrary to what you might think by reading Bogleheads, lots of people in their 30s & 40s are 100% equities, even without having dynastic wealth to fall back on.
:thumbsup Excellent post!
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 15048
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by abuss368 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:42 pm

Nothing is assured. Develop your own plan.
John C. Bogle: "You simply do not need to put your money into 8 different mutual funds!"

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 8288
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Sandtrap » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:13 am

N1CKV wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:19 am
EvanRude wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:05 am
100% equities provides nothing with which to rebalance in case of a market correction. 90/10% can over time provide a better return than 100%.
I came here to say the same thing. The ability to re-balance/ hold "dry powder" from bonds/fixed income can prove very useful.

I say be aggressive, but 100% equities is more than "aggressive". I am in line for a nice government pension, it will replace my current income. I do not need even that much. Because of this I am more aggressive with my investments because they are all lagniappe. However, my asset allocation is nowhere near 100/0.
What is "lagniapple" ??

j
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 8288
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by Sandtrap » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:18 am

abuss368 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:42 pm
Nothing is assured. Develop your own plan.
+1
Brings to mind group conversations (maybe over beer in dark places with interesting smells. . . or picnics) where folks ponder how they and they're lives might change if they had 10 million dollars and didn't have to work. "What I would do if. . . "?

Meanwhile, there's one quiet fellow (drives a 10 year old Toyota, mortgage paid off) in the group who's worth 20 million and nobody knows it. Smiles. Chats. Says little. Knowing that the reality is far different than the conversational conjecture.

j
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know

Topic Author
hp12see
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:39 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by hp12see » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:20 am

Sandtrap wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:13 am
N1CKV wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:19 am
EvanRude wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:05 am
100% equities provides nothing with which to rebalance in case of a market correction. 90/10% can over time provide a better return than 100%.
I came here to say the same thing. The ability to re-balance/ hold "dry powder" from bonds/fixed income can prove very useful.

I say be aggressive, but 100% equities is more than "aggressive". I am in line for a nice government pension, it will replace my current income. I do not need even that much. Because of this I am more aggressive with my investments because they are all lagniappe. However, my asset allocation is nowhere near 100/0.
What is "lagniapple" ??

j
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagniappe

Sounds like it's the frosting on the cake, so to speak. Not the person who used it though so can't speak to their thoughts.

User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 15048
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by abuss368 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:27 am

Sandtrap wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:18 am
abuss368 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:42 pm
Nothing is assured. Develop your own plan.
+1
Brings to mind group conversations (maybe over beer in dark places with interesting smells. . . or picnics) where folks ponder how they and they're lives might change if they had 10 million dollars and didn't have to work. "What I would do if. . . "?

Meanwhile, there's one quiet fellow (drives a 10 year old Toyota, mortgage paid off) in the group who's worth 20 million and nobody knows it. Smiles. Chats. Says little. Knowing that the reality is far different than the conversational conjecture.

j
Very true indeed. Reminds me of the book "Millionaire Next Door".
John C. Bogle: "You simply do not need to put your money into 8 different mutual funds!"

ignition
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:28 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by ignition » Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:20 am

hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:02 am
Follow-up question: for folks who do promote investing in 100% equities when you're younger, is there a recommended age at which you start to diversify into bonds? 25 years before retirement? 10 years? Or is this also a function of risk tolerance and it varies for everyone?
Even in retirement, high equity allocations have worked well historically (better than high bond allocations). 10-20% in bonds/cash might be useful in retirement when equities crash so you're not forced to sell equities at bottom prices.
hp12see wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:02 am
I've seen someone on Reddit say saving for retirement is 90% savings rate and the rest of what we discuss with regards to portfolio allocations and the like is just attempting to optimize for that last 10%. Does that ring true?
An 80/20 or 100/0 stock/bond allocation probably won't make a huge difference. It's true that savings rate is more important.

bltn
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:32 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by bltn » Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:53 am

rossington wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:35 am
LadyGeek wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:57 pm
hp12see wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:12 pm
Instead my question is this: can the high probability of a large inheritance be valid justification for investing in a riskier (i.e. 100% stock index funds) portfolio?
Welcome! The answer is "No". There are far too many situations that will take that near-certain probability to zero. What happens if they need the money to live on? Or, they simply change their mind and want to spend it all? Or, a sibling contests the will? Or, they get divorced and change the will?

Invest like you would without the inheritance. Consider it a windfall if it does come to you at a later time.
Agreed 100%, it's not your money now.
You did not inform us how much you "expect" to receive. But it is divided 3 ways what ever it is.
You didn't say what what 100% stocks will mean...Funds or individual stocks? (100% better at your age than later in life but how much of a market drop can you stomach?). Bonds and/or fixed income/cash help mitigate stock market volatility....it's your decision.
Put any potential inheritance thoughts in the back of your mind...your concern now should be for your parents not their money.
I strongly agree with the above advice. Your becoming wealthy has more to do with developing proper personal accumulation habits than trying to accomplish something unusual due to an unusual situation . I would ignore your family estate and treat any later inheritance as a bonus in addition to your personal accumulation. Although it may be unlikely, the chance of less inheritance than you expect is significant.
Your learning with traditional methods of accumulation now will help you with your management of any inheritance later.

bltn
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:32 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by bltn » Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:03 am

Sandtrap wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:18 am
abuss368 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:42 pm
Nothing is assured. Develop your own plan.
+1
Brings to mind group conversations (maybe over beer in dark places with interesting smells. . . or picnics) where folks ponder how they and they're lives might change if they had 10 million dollars and didn't have to work. "What I would do if. . . "?

Meanwhile, there's one quiet fellow (drives a 10 year old Toyota, mortgage paid off) in the group who's worth 20 million and nobody knows it. Smiles. Chats. Says little. Knowing that the reality is far different than the conversational conjecture.

j

This would be a good post in most of the threads on this forum. That guy with the Toyota is my kind of guy.
Following routine rules for wealth accumulation is much more likely to be successful than trying something unusual to achieve the unusual.

User avatar
N1CKV
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:18 am

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by N1CKV » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:07 am

hp12see wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:20 am
Sandtrap wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:13 am
N1CKV wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:19 am
EvanRude wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:05 am
100% equities provides nothing with which to rebalance in case of a market correction. 90/10% can over time provide a better return than 100%.
I came here to say the same thing. The ability to re-balance/ hold "dry powder" from bonds/fixed income can prove very useful.

I say be aggressive, but 100% equities is more than "aggressive". I am in line for a nice government pension, it will replace my current income. I do not need even that much. Because of this I am more aggressive with my investments because they are all lagniappe. However, my asset allocation is nowhere near 100/0.
What is "lagniapple" ??

j
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagniappe
Sounds like it's the frosting on the cake, so to speak. Not the person who used it though so can't speak to their thoughts.
That is a fair interpretation.
It is a very common term in French/Cajun culture meaning: extra, unexpected, not really necessary.

Topic Author
hp12see
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:39 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by hp12see » Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:59 pm

bltn wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:03 am
This would be a good post in most of the threads on this forum. That guy with the Toyota is my kind of guy.
Following routine rules for wealth accumulation is much more likely to be successful than trying something unusual to achieve the unusual.
I'm not wealthy so I'm certainly not the proverbial 'guy with the Toyota' but I am a guy with a '99 Toyota with no interest in upgrading!

Are cars still the status symbols they once were? I'm sort of out of touch on that front.

dachshunddad
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:22 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by dachshunddad » Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:28 pm

1. First, you seem to be on the right track in my opinion (I would be asking my parents for a Porsche for Christmas if I were you :D ). I think a good rule of thumb to start is age -20 for bonds if you want to be aggressive. For ease, if you are 30 then 10% bonds. You could do age - 30 or all stocks and then glide path into bonds like you said. You are talking about a little more return and a little more volatility. But this will not upset your path. Selling in a panic will. So just make sure you can handle your impulses and you will fare well. But in general, plan as if you were on your own.

2. When I read your story, the first thing that comes to my mind is that your parents should really have a detailed plan/will/trust set up. You are talking about significant wealth. A lot of the doomsday scenarios could be avoided with proper planning. I would encourage them to have every detail laid out with an attorney. Also, I would see if they leave it to you in a trust if that would protect you in the unfortunate case of divorce after you receive the inheritance. IMHO, if they preplan all of these details it may save you a big headache down the line.

ZWorkLess
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Can having wealthy parents be a justification for a more aggressive investment strategy?

Post by ZWorkLess » Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:28 pm

IMHO, it's fine to invest aggressively (100% stock) until you are 15-20 years out from retirement, as long as you have the stomach for it. I don't think having wealthy parents has anything to do with it. Nearly all models show that up to 20 years out, you'd be better off being 100% stock invested. The 80/20 thing is really just to reduce heart burn.

Personally, I can be aggressive as I know I won't panic sell or try to time the market. I just don't.

I put all our kids' college money (not huge, but significant) 100% stock from Day1 (20+ years ago). I've been in the market for decades, and I am pretty unimpressed by any upturn or downturn. We didn't NEED that money to get them through college. It just helps make it easier. So, I accepted higher risk for higher return.

I am now still around 80/20 for our retirement funds even though we're about 16 year out (so, a few percentage points higher in stocks that the normal recommendation of about 76% stocks that is our target fund). By 10 years out, I'll probably shift closer to the Target Date standards. In fact, if we had any major health scares or any other issue that made me think retirement would be sooner than 2035, I'd probably move the 100% stock index funds right into the Target fund right then. That's my plan. But, for now, I'm fine being more aggressive because we are well diversified (a good amount of real estate plus a business), and we don't have any reasonably expected reason to HAVE to retire at any particular date (and we have plenty of disability insurance if that happens really early), so I feel comfortable being aggressive to play the odds that will mean we have more when we do retire and/or can retire a bit earlier than if I played it safer.

These things come down to your personal risk tolerance. Be honest with yourself. Same for your spouse. If you have high risk tolerance, you can stay 100% stocks for longer. If you have very low risk tolerance, than even the "norms" may not be comfortable.

(FTR, reality check: We spent down many hundreds of thousands of dollars of my mom's money in her last 2 years of life. Burned through money in a couple years that could have supported her pre-illness for decades. She had dementia, and we wanted her to have the BEST of everything. She could afford it, and so we spent her money on her behalf during her life, especially when we knew it was short. Private duty nurse = $20-40/hr. Multiply that by 365x24 and you will see that it's very easy to spend a LOT. Flying in your out of state kid/wife to visit you on no notice, repeatedly, due to health crises . . . $$$$ Private horse back riding lessons, art lessons, yoga classes . . . fine dining . . . cleaning services, expensive travel, shopping trips buying lots of unneeded stuff . . . but when someone has dementia and always enjoyed shopping . . . what the heck, you let them shop if they can afford it. So, anyway, unless you are talking 10s of millions . . . a couple spare million can get burned through in a couple years with ONE ill person, let alone TWO. So, definitely don't count on that inheritance. You don't want any of the "kids" to try to be frugal with THEIR money when they need it or could enjoy it. So, IMHO, it's critical that adult "kids" never count on, expect, or even anticipate inheritances. If they could afford to give it to you, they can do so NOW. If they're holding on to it, there's a reason for that.)

Post Reply