Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
bfeenix44
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:05 pm

Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by bfeenix44 »

I first heard of Bogleheads from financial journalist, Jane Bryant Quinn.
Her comments in the linked interview mention reducing stock allocation toward retirement, but then gradually increasing it again afterward?
I would be interested in hearing some BH opinions on this -- thanks.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengens ... 90f2627e64

How should investors think about stock allocation during retirement?

Jane Bryant Quinn: "The typical way, and the way target-date funds do it, is to reduce stock allocation as time goes by. That I think is the least optimal. All the research on withdrawal rates has been done on the premise that you never change your allocation. If you set 60/40 stocks and bonds you stayed 60/40 your whole life. New research says the time to reduce your allocation to stocks is in the five years or so just before you retire. Retirement day is the time of maximum risk. If you run into 2007/2008 collapse on the day you retire, that's really bad. If you reduce your stock allocation as of your retirement date that is a safety measure. Then after a couple of years you start increasing your stock allocation. You take withdrawals from your bond portion. It's a situation where you have declining stock allocation in the few years before you retire and at retirement you start gradually increasing allocation. Work has been done on that, specifically by Michael Kitces, which shows that's actually the optimal stock/bond allocation. It goes against what most people think, which is that you don't want a rising stock allocation. After I read that research, I adopted it myself."

thanks
tamara
dbr
Posts: 33842
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by dbr »

Here are some previous discussions of this:

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... =bond+tent

and a broader discussion of the problem it tries to solve, if it is a problem:

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... turns+risk

My own view is that sequence of returns risk as a specific critical issue that must be explicitly addressed is exaggerated and that Kitces while generally correct does not show a huge benefit to practicing that tactic.

An alternative to addressing retirement spending from a portfolio by adjusting asset allocation might be to adjust withdrawals as in the Variable Percentage Withdrawal Approach.

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... q=variable

Also possible is to just hold a reasonable portfolio such as 60/40 and pay attention to how much is being spent and how the portfolio is doing and adjust as life goes on.

For people that don't have much annuitized income, including Social Security delayed to age 70, some purchase of single premium immediate annuities (SPIA) might be helpful. Kitces has a paper on that as well. I am not sure how firmly he still believes in the bond tent.
Topic Author
bfeenix44
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:05 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by bfeenix44 »

dbr wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:59 pm Here are some previous discussions of this:

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... =bond+tent

and a broader discussion of the problem it tries to solve, if it is a problem:

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... turns+risk

My own view is that sequence of returns risk as a specific critical issue that must be explicitly addressed is exaggerated and that Kitces while generally correct does not show a huge benefit to practicing that tactic.

An alternative to addressing retirement spending from a portfolio by adjusting asset allocation might be to adjust withdrawals as in the Variable Percentage Withdrawal Approach.

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... q=variable

Also possible is to just hold a reasonable portfolio such as 60/40 and pay attention to how much is being spent and how the portfolio is doing and adjust as life goes on.

For people that don't have much annuitized income, including Social Security delayed to age 70, some purchase of single premium immediate annuities (SPIA) might be helpful. Kitces has a paper on that as well. I am not sure how firmly he still believes in the bond tent.

Thanks, dbr... some really great extra reading for me here... I had never run across the term "bond tent," for instance...
Appreciate your feedback and reference links!
tamara
BernardShakey
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:52 pm
Location: CA

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by BernardShakey »

bfeenix44 wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:58 pm
dbr wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:59 pm Here are some previous discussions of this:

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... =bond+tent

and a broader discussion of the problem it tries to solve, if it is a problem:

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... turns+risk

My own view is that sequence of returns risk as a specific critical issue that must be explicitly addressed is exaggerated and that Kitces while generally correct does not show a huge benefit to practicing that tactic.

An alternative to addressing retirement spending from a portfolio by adjusting asset allocation might be to adjust withdrawals as in the Variable Percentage Withdrawal Approach.

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearc ... q=variable

Also possible is to just hold a reasonable portfolio such as 60/40 and pay attention to how much is being spent and how the portfolio is doing and adjust as life goes on.

For people that don't have much annuitized income, including Social Security delayed to age 70, some purchase of single premium immediate annuities (SPIA) might be helpful. Kitces has a paper on that as well. I am not sure how firmly he still believes in the bond tent.

Thanks, dbr... some really great extra reading for me here... I had never run across the term "bond tent," for instance...
Appreciate your feedback and reference links!
tamara
Maybe true, unless you retired in 1973, early 2000, mid-2008, etc and were overexposed to equities. I certainly don't know all the intricacies here but it seems if you can swing going more conservative leading into retirement and the first few years of retirement you eliminate a risk that is maybe not all that likely to occur but could have devastating consequences if it did occur.
An important key to investing is having a well-calibrated sense of your future regret.
Katietsu
Posts: 3989
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:48 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Katietsu »

BernardShakey wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:59 pm Maybe true, unless you retired in 1973, early 2000, mid-2008, etc and were overexposed to equities. I certainly don't know all the intricacies here but it seems if you can swing going more conservative leading into retirement and the first few years of retirement you eliminate a risk that is maybe not all that likely to occur but could have devastating consequences if it did occur.
This is how I feel, whether it is rational or not. Additionally, I think, for our family, it would be a hellish decision as to whether or not to retire when you have just lost half your net worth. So, you had enough to retire in May but not in December? That does not make sense either. But leaving a job that wants to continue to pay me when I now have 1 million instead of 2 million would be extremely difficult. So, I feel a need, be it mathematical or behavioral, to be more conservative now. But 10 years from now, if I have an average decade of performance, I have social security that I can claim earlier than expected, if I need to, I suspect I will be willing to bump up the risk.
User avatar
Peter Foley
Posts: 5112
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:34 am
Location: Lake Wobegon

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Peter Foley »

This approach is sometimes called a "rising equity glide path." Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces have both researched this approach and written about it.

It was the approach I took just because I wanted a larger safety margin. I retired a couple years after the great recession and was worried about a double dip recession. I was 45/55 AA when my wife and I retired. I let it rise to 55/45 before rebalancing. We were very fortunate to have a good sequence of returns.
Last edited by Peter Foley on Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dandy
Posts: 6355
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Dandy »

There are many factors to consider -- here are some:

1. Age of retirement and will you or your employer make that decision?
2. Health - current and projected based on parental health? Do you have/need LTC insurance?
3. What dollar draw down be needed cover your "normal" expenses.
4. Will you have a pension?
5. When will you collect SS?
6. How will #4 and #5 affect your draw down needs?
7. What % of your investments will be needed to meet #3?
8. How many years will you be retired if you live until --say age 85?
9. How will you get health coverage if you retire prior to 65?
10. What will be your NEED to take risk? e.g. a 5% draw down NEED might require more risk than a 2% draw NEED.
11. If equities drop 30% and don't recover for 5 years and you have withdrawn to cover normal expenses are you still in
decent shape?
GuyInFL
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 7:17 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by GuyInFL »

Peter Foley wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:53 pm This approach is sometime called a "rising equity glide path." Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces have both researched this approach and written about it.
Also a handy way to manage the gap between retirement and the start of Social Security.
Savermom
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 12:32 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Savermom »

This does not sound like a good idea to me. Sure, you can pick times where it would work. But taking on more risk when you are living off your retirement account and decreasing the amount of fixed income that you can pull from in a down market just does not seem sensible to me.

For example, you could be increasing your equities in a high market, and then you have 10 years of lower markets. I take on more risk now in the accumulation stage. Once I am close to retirement and also when I am retired, I definitely want less risk.
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 3675
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by CyclingDuo »

bfeenix44 wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:58 pmI had never run across the term "bond tent," for instance...
It's always interesting to view the concept visually.

From Michael's website...

Image

Image

There was quite the discussion on this thread entitled "Age in Bonds Fails Almost Everyone"...or the suggested subtitle - "Age in bonds" is far more conservative than the average target-date-fund glide path:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=255850

We've heard "Age in Bonds", "110 - Your Age in Bonds", "120 - Your Age in Bonds". We've also heard a lot about developing a LMP (liability matching portfolio) - https://medium.com/@justusjp/liability- ... 0in%20time.

Here is what a survey a few years ago discovered for those Bogleheads that participated with regard to stock/bond allocations...

Image

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=168337
viewtopic.php?t=190645

Others have spoken about weighing in a lot of other factors into your asset allocation including, but not limited to: pension, SS, 'Is your income from your career more "bond like" or "stock like"?', is it a single or dual income household, family health history, risk tolerance, legacy plans vs. spend it all down to nearly $0, realistic target for retirement (in your 40's, 50's, 60's, later?), other streams of income such as rental, royalty, etc... .

In other words, what may be appropriate for one investor or household, may not be for another regarding how the AA is divided in terms of percentages.

CyclingDuo
Last edited by CyclingDuo on Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel
Dottie57
Posts: 9187
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Dottie57 »

I currently have the lowest stock allocation of my life. Retired 2 years ago. Sequence of return risk is high as yearly payout is about 4%. After SS starts in 6.5 years, risk will go down and stock % will go up. I will have more ability to take risk.
smitcat
Posts: 6487
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by smitcat »

Dandy wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:03 am There are many factors to consider -- here are some:

1. Age of retirement and will you or your employer make that decision?
2. Health - current and projected based on parental health? Do you have/need LTC insurance?
3. What dollar draw down be needed cover your "normal" expenses.
4. Will you have a pension?
5. When will you collect SS?
6. How will #4 and #5 affect your draw down needs?
7. What % of your investments will be needed to meet #3?
8. How many years will you be retired if you live until --say age 85?
9. How will you get health coverage if you retire prior to 65?
10. What will be your NEED to take risk? e.g. a 5% draw down NEED might require more risk than a 2% draw NEED.
11. If equities drop 30% and don't recover for 5 years and you have withdrawn to cover normal expenses are you still in
decent shape?
Yes - well put.
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 3675
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by CyclingDuo »

Dottie57 wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:33 amI currently have the lowest stock allocation of my life. Retired 2 years ago. Sequence of return risk is high as yearly payout is about 4%. After SS starts in 6.5 years, risk will go down and stock % will go up. I will have more ability to take risk.
Dottie, I can't remember the entire details of your actual retirement, but did you retire at the age you had originally planned on retiring - at least in terms of the final 5-10 years of your pre-retirement planning?

Regardless, your post is a good example for Tamara of making sure one's AA is set in the proper way for one's circumstances so that filling the gap between taking retirement and when things like Medicare as well as beginning SS are not a difficult gap to fill when considering the sequence of returns risk.

We mull this over quite a bit more these days following a layoff I went through two years ago which opened my eyes more than they were - or perhaps should have been - at the time. In that regard, the idea of asset allocation and the bond tent along with sequence of returns risk can potentially come into play a few years earlier than initially expected in one's prior pre-retirement planning that was built upon on idea of retiring at age "XX". I do feel fortunate that two years into my new job(s), we remain on target without having to have moved the age of retirement as of yet. In spite of that, there continues to be plenty of mulling and scenario building taking place whether we remain a dual income household, become a one full time & one part-time income household, or become a single income household.

CyclingDuo
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel
Topic Author
bfeenix44
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:05 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by bfeenix44 »

Appreciate everyone's feedback and references to further discussions.

I'm aware these decisions are based on individual circumstances, as well as market conditions toward being closer to retirement. I'm 58, don't really plan on retiring or taking social security until age 70, but that's only a decade away. A decade used to seem like a long time period to me... As I learn more about investing it seems like a very short period of time!

Thanks again...
tamara
Dottie57
Posts: 9187
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Dottie57 »

CyclingDuo wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:32 am
Dottie57 wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:33 amI currently have the lowest stock allocation of my life. Retired 2 years ago. Sequence of return risk is high as yearly payout is about 4%. After SS starts in 6.5 years, risk will go down and stock % will go up. I will have more ability to take risk.
Dottie, I can't remember the entire details of your actual retirement, but did you retire at the age you had originally planned on retiring - at least in terms of the final 5-10 years of your pre-retirement planning?

Regardless, your post is a good example for Tamara of making sure one's AA is set in the proper way for one's circumstances so that filling the gap between taking retirement and when things like Medicare as well as beginning SS are not a difficult gap to fill when considering the sequence of returns risk.

We mull this over quite a bit more these days following a layoff I went through two years ago which opened my eyes more than they were - or perhaps should have been - at the time. In that regard, the idea of asset allocation and the bond tent along with sequence of returns risk can potentially come into play a few years earlier than initially expected in one's prior pre-retirement planning that was built upon on idea of retiring at age "XX". I do feel fortunate that two years into my new job(s), we remain on target without having to have moved the age of retirement as of yet. In spite of that, there continues to be plenty of mulling and scenario building taking place whether we remain a dual income household, become a one full time & one part-time income household, or become a single income household.

CyclingDuo
I retired much earlier than I expected (65 to 67) at age 61. I also went through a review with Bh 2 years earlier By asking if I was at or near retirement. The answer was that I could retire if careful. I retired when employer offered voluntary separation to age 55+. I took the package. Haven’t looked back.
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 3675
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by CyclingDuo »

bfeenix44 wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am Appreciate everyone's feedback and references to further discussions.

I'm aware these decisions are based on individual circumstances, as well as market conditions toward being closer to retirement. I'm 58, don't really plan on retiring or taking social security until age 70, but that's only a decade away. A decade used to seem like a long time period to me... As I learn more about investing it seems like a very short period of time!

Thanks again...
tamara
Twelve years is a rather decent chunk of time - especially to allow your investments to grow through additional contributions and any compound annual growth along the way. It would also mean that if you were indeed able to work until age 70, there would not be any gap years to fund between retiring at a younger age before taking SS at age 70.

Assuming you have set up a mySocialSecurity account at Social Security to be able to see what your SS payments would be based on your current years of accumulation, and you know your monthly expenses - it's a good way to calculate how much of your monthly expenses would be covered by SS in today's dollars, and see what will need to be filled beyond the SS income to cover your expenses. That helps you calculate a nest egg size and asset allocation target to be able to cover those expenses come age 70 and beyond.

Most Bogleheads would error on the side of caution that one might not be able to work all the way until age 70 or beyond (health reasons, job loss, ageism, etc...), so planning for other scenarios would be prudent.

CyclingDuo
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel
deikel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:13 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by deikel »

Savermom wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:41 am This does not sound like a good idea to me. Sure, you can pick times where it would work. But taking on more risk when you are living off your retirement account and decreasing the amount of fixed income that you can pull from in a down market just does not seem sensible to me.

For example, you could be increasing your equities in a high market, and then you have 10 years of lower markets. I take on more risk now in the accumulation stage. Once I am close to retirement and also when I am retired, I definitely want less risk.
This is not a quite accurate description of what would happen or is suggested. Yes, the suggestion is to increase your stock portion later in retirement and that may sound more risky (for the later time period). But it actually assumes that you had a good market outcome in the first 10 years of retirement already - this good market outcome has provided for extra value of your account that you can now draw from - including a downturn in the year 10 to say 15 where you draw more from stocks (that were increasing in value nicely in the 10 years before).

That is what the sequence risk of return really is. It makes a difference when the downturn hits you in your retirement years (and it does require the 4% draw of the initial portfolio value, plus inflation adjustment) - the first ten years being the most risky. And those are suggested to be covered by a higher bond portion of your portfolio.

As an aside, I really don't understand why people call bonds the fixed income portion of your portfolio. These days bonds return about as much as dividend payments from stock - so this 'fixed' income idea is a bit of a misleading label. The only difference is the risk in market value, there is nothing fixed about bonds when it comes to you drawing them down to live off them. Neither should people think in terms of principal or preserving principal IMO.
Everything you read in this post is my personal opinion. If you disagree with this disclaimer, please un-read the text immediately and destroy any copy or remembrance of it.
deikel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:13 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by deikel »

I am not surprised that Jane will adopt and promote this model - if you read her book, she is very much into the bucket models and this is a nice adjustment to your initial retirement bucket being more conservative in order to cushion the risk for the first 5-10 years

And it does make sense.

The start of your retirement makes the accumulation phase irrelevant, how you got to the portfolio value you have is irrelevant - so you could have been 100% stocks or any other allocation that suites you.

The important part is to protect the initial years of retirement and, if very successful, you have the option to shift to a more aggressive allocation later on. It is really just a slower drip from one of the buckets to another...
Everything you read in this post is my personal opinion. If you disagree with this disclaimer, please un-read the text immediately and destroy any copy or remembrance of it.
dbr
Posts: 33842
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by dbr »

deikel wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:29 pm

As an aside, I really don't understand why people call bonds the fixed income portion of your portfolio. These days bonds return about as much as dividend payments from stock - so this 'fixed' income idea is a bit of a misleading label. The only difference is the risk in market value, there is nothing fixed about bonds when it comes to you drawing them down to live off them. Neither should people think in terms of principal or preserving principal IMO.
Yes, indeed. "Fixed Income" is neither fixed nor income. But it is a historical holdover from taking income by cashing coupons on long term bond holdings or, in some countries, perpetual bonds, consoles. It is a little like referring to the wealth of a Victorian gentleman by stating the income his estates and holding would deliver rather than the value on the market of the holdings. There was no selling of estates, which may well have been entailed anyway. This also goes back to the idea of preserving principal, namely those perpetual bonds and unsellable estates, but the concept does not apply in the days of modern portfolio theory where the issue is what is the statistical distribution of returns.

On this forum these days "fixed income" is a term used to finesse the confusion about whether or not bonds means bonds but also cash and cash like things such as CDs and I bonds. In agreement with you, one could just talk about "low risk" investments. That, at least, can be made quantitative by defining risk as standard deviation of annual returns. Following that can come a two hundred post thread about what risk is.
dbr
Posts: 33842
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by dbr »

deikel wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:36 pm I am not surprised that Jane will adopt and promote this model - if you read her book, she is very much into the bucket models and this is a nice adjustment to your initial retirement bucket being more conservative in order to cushion the risk for the first 5-10 years

And it does make sense.

The start of your retirement makes the accumulation phase irrelevant, how you got to the portfolio value you have is irrelevant - so you could have been 100% stocks or any other allocation that suites you.

The important part is to protect the initial years of retirement and, if very successful, you have the option to shift to a more aggressive allocation later on. It is really just a slower drip from one of the buckets to another...
You still have to show that the range of possible outcomes for one method of managing asset allocation is different in a useful way from a that if a different method of managing asset allocation. The result is not obvious and may depend in complicated ways on things such as how fast one wants to spend the money and on whether there are large variations in that spending in different time periods (such as before and after starting Social Security). A bit of that analysis is what is in Kitces paper, the results of which have to be evaluated for significance of the whole idea.
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 3675
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by CyclingDuo »

Dottie57 wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:42 amI retired much earlier than I expected (65 to 67) at age 61. I also went through a review with Bh 2 years earlier By asking if I was at or near retirement. The answer was that I could retire if careful. I retired when employer offered voluntary separation to age 55+. I took the package. Haven’t looked back.
Ah, got it. Glad it all worked out for you with the voluntary separation package and your numbers a few years earlier than originally planned.

I am always curious to hear these individual stories. I've seen several posts this year of similar situations such as yours. It's good to hear you haven't looked back. I'm trying to work my way towards being able to not look back 100% of the time.

In my case, the original plan was a target of retiring in my 60's (in the 62-66 range). I guess that was more or less based on how I felt with my teaching success as well as what my fellow professors usually chose as a retirement age where most took some kind of a voluntary separation package a year or two early. Being let go at 56 (with no package outside of unemployment for a few month's time) due to extreme budget cutting and the slashing of 25% of faculty and staff was a bit earlier and more of a :shock: than I had originally envisioned. So I clawed my way forward with other gainful employment to stay on target with prior financial goals.

On the other hand, working from home the past six months due to Covid19 has been, or at least seems to have been acting like a facilitator to contemplate more than one scenario going forward.

When you say you went through a BH "review" to see if you could retire, do you mean you made a post of your nest egg, expenses, income streams, etc... on the forums to get feedback?

CyclingDuo
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel
deikel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:13 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by deikel »

dbr wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:47 pm
deikel wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:36 pm I am not surprised that Jane will adopt and promote this model - if you read her book, she is very much into the bucket models and this is a nice adjustment to your initial retirement bucket being more conservative in order to cushion the risk for the first 5-10 years

And it does make sense.

The start of your retirement makes the accumulation phase irrelevant, how you got to the portfolio value you have is irrelevant - so you could have been 100% stocks or any other allocation that suites you.

The important part is to protect the initial years of retirement and, if very successful, you have the option to shift to a more aggressive allocation later on. It is really just a slower drip from one of the buckets to another...
You still have to show that the range of possible outcomes for one method of managing asset allocation is different in a useful way from a that if a different method of managing asset allocation. The result is not obvious and may depend in complicated ways on things such as how fast one wants to spend the money and on whether there are large variations in that spending in different time periods (such as before and after starting Social Security). A bit of that analysis is what is in Kitces paper, the results of which have to be evaluated for significance of the whole idea.
Should be simple to run back testing on it - not sure if that was done before, and I get that past results don't predict future results, but at least that should tell us if the slightly more complicated change in asset allocation over time is or is not superior to specific fixed levels of asset allocation throughout - preference always given to the system with less degree of freedom :-)

My guess, a 100/0 portfolio will loose out, but a fixed asset allocation of 70/30 will probably do the same - but maybe its just wishful thinking since that is what I keep
Everything you read in this post is my personal opinion. If you disagree with this disclaimer, please un-read the text immediately and destroy any copy or remembrance of it.
Dottie57
Posts: 9187
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Dottie57 »

CyclingDuo wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:58 pm
Dottie57 wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:42 amI retired much earlier than I expected (65 to 67) at age 61. I also went through a review with Bh 2 years earlier By asking if I was at or near retirement. The answer was that I could retire if careful. I retired when employer offered voluntary separation to age 55+. I took the package. Haven’t looked back.
Ah, got it. Glad it all worked out for you with the voluntary separation package and your numbers a few years earlier than originally planned.

I am always curious to hear these individual stories. I've seen several posts this year of similar situations such as yours. It's good to hear you haven't looked back. I'm trying to work my way towards being able to not look back 100% of the time.

In my case, the original plan was a target of retiring in my 60's (in the 62-66 range). I guess that was more or less based on how I felt with my teaching success as well as what my fellow professors usually chose as a retirement age where most took some kind of a voluntary separation package a year or two early. Being let go at 56 (with no package outside of unemployment for a few month's time) due to extreme budget cutting and the slashing of 25% of faculty and staff was a bit earlier and more of a :shock: than I had originally envisioned. So I clawed my way forward with other gainful employment to stay on target with prior financial goals.

On the other hand, working from home the past six months due to Covid19 has been, or at least seems to have been acting like a facilitator to contemplate more than one scenario going forward.

When you say you went through a BH "review" to see if you could retire, do you mean you made a post of your nest egg, expenses, income streams, etc... on the forums to get feedback?

CyclingDuo
Yes I posted my various accounts, amount, allocation. One member was very kind in showing me one way to get to SS at 70 . I was also “forced” to really tally my expenses. I did for 1.5 years of statements. Also figured out how to account for medical and taxes. Very very helpful and doing so made me much calmer in considering retirement age. When voluntary separation became available I knew that taking it was more than possible - it was a good idea.

Wishing you well in pursuit of retirement.

Dottie
User avatar
1210sda
Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:31 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by 1210sda »

CyclingDuo wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:32 am
bfeenix44 wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:58 pmI had never run across the term "bond tent," for instance...
It's always interesting to view the concept visually.

From Michael's website...

Image

Image

There was quite the discussion on this thread entitled "Age in Bonds Fails Almost Everyone"...or the suggested subtitle - "Age in bonds" is far more conservative than the average target-date-fund glide path:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=255850

We've heard "Age in Bonds", "110 - Your Age in Bonds", "120 - Your Age in Bonds". We've also heard a lot about developing a LMP (liability matching portfolio) - https://medium.com/@justusjp/liability- ... 0in%20time.

Here is what a survey a few years ago discovered for those Bogleheads that participated with regard to stock/bond allocations...

Image

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=168337
viewtopic.php?t=190645

Others have spoken about weighing in a lot of other factors into your asset allocation including, but not limited to: pension, SS, 'Is your income from your career more "bond like" or "stock like"?', is it a single or dual income household, family health history, risk tolerance, legacy plans vs. spend it all down to nearly $0, realistic target for retirement (in your 40's, 50's, 60's, later?), other streams of income such as rental, royalty, etc... .

In other words, what may be appropriate for one investor or household, may not be for another regarding how the AA is divided in terms of percentages.

CyclingDuo
Thank you.
Lastrun
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Lastrun »

deikel wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:13 pm

Should be simple to run back testing on it - not sure if that was done before, and I get that past results don't predict future results, but at least that should tell us if the slightly more complicated change in asset allocation over time is or is not superior to specific fixed levels of asset allocation throughout - preference always given to the system with less degree of freedom :-)
The chart from the Kitces paper in the post link below is the best thing I have seen on this and it showed me there is not a huge difference either way.

viewtopic.php?p=4869390#p4869390

Image
deikel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:13 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by deikel »

Lastrun wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:07 pm
deikel wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:13 pm

Should be simple to run back testing on it - not sure if that was done before, and I get that past results don't predict future results, but at least that should tell us if the slightly more complicated change in asset allocation over time is or is not superior to specific fixed levels of asset allocation throughout - preference always given to the system with less degree of freedom :-)
The chart from the Kitces paper in the post link below is the best thing I have seen on this and it showed me there is not a huge difference either way.

viewtopic.php?p=4869390#p4869390

Image
I assume the axis are %stock allocation ? I am reading a couple of things out of this graph (and it very much aligns with the Trinity study).

- all bond portfolios are not a good choice
- all stock portfolios do better then all bond, but not optimal
- higher level bond portfolios at the start are better then lower bond% (kind of obvious with the 4% withdrawel approach)
- its pretty irrelevant at what allocation you end, the maximum difference in outcome is only 5% for a full range of ending at 0 to 100 - that kind of tanks the whole glide path model for me. If you stay somewhere in the reasonable ranges, you are actually never more then 5% from optimal.

There seems little benefit to making it any more complicated as long as you keep those above generals in mind. Just as Trinity showed, as long as you have at least 20% bond allocation (or up to 80% bond allocation) - the outcome is awfully the same - in terms of not running out of money anyways).

I think I don't need the glide path model - its adding variables for no appreciable benefit. I stay with my 70/30 stock/bond as a forever allocation.

Thanks for the table, very helpful !
Everything you read in this post is my personal opinion. If you disagree with this disclaimer, please un-read the text immediately and destroy any copy or remembrance of it.
Topic Author
bfeenix44
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:05 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by bfeenix44 »

This had been very interesting... Thank you to all who have replied so far.

tamara
BarbBrooklyn
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:33 am
Location: NYC

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by BarbBrooklyn »

bfeenix44 wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:24 am Appreciate everyone's feedback and references to further discussions.

I'm aware these decisions are based on individual circumstances, as well as market conditions toward being closer to retirement. I'm 58, don't really plan on retiring or taking social security until age 70, but that's only a decade away. A decade used to seem like a long time period to me... As I learn more about investing it seems like a very short period of time!

Thanks again...
tamara
When I was 58, I could see no reason to retire before age 70.

By the time I was midway into the year that I turned 65, I realized that my job (including the travel requirements) was providing far more stress than I was comfortable handling. I retired 2 months later.

I think that part of my decision-making was the realization that finanacially, I COULD retire. I was glad that I had read JBQ a few months prior and pulled back my equity allocation.

Because I retired on Dec 1, 2018.
BarbBrooklyn | "The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."
Kevin K
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:47 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Kevin K »

Excellent discussion!

There are two resources I'd like to recommend. Michael McClung's "Living Off Your Money" is a true tome of a book whose level of detail and complexity might intimidate anyone but Bogleheads, but it is THE most comprehensive resource I know of for looking at investing during retirement and withdrawal rates. Kitces and Pfau's work is included as a relatively small subset of a much vaster array of options. It is a phenomenally data-driven book. It's been discussed here a few times since in came out in 2015. You can download the first few chapters for free on its web site:

http://livingoffyourmoney.com

If you do decide to buy it, whatever you do buy the hard copy not the Kindle version. It is dense with complex and very useful tables and charts that are challenging enough to read in the oversized paperback.
Needless to say McClung discusses the bucket approach and rising equity glide path but they're both quite crude and simplistic strategies compared to the more sophisticated ones he recommends.

While the bulk of the book is about withdrawal strategies and lifetime income the portfolio part is also excellent. How much to have in equities is largely a function of length of retirement but never falls below 50% in any of the recommended allocations.

The other resource I wanted to recommend is the Portfolio Charts site, because its tools and above all its graphics provide a visceral sense of what it would be like to actually live with a portfolio through all kinds of different market conditions. There's a Safe Withdrawal Rate and a Perpetual Withdrawal Rate as well as historical maximum drawdown and years to recover for each allocation, and all of the numbers shown are real (after inflation) returns covering every year from 1970 to the present. If you look at, say, the Paul Merriman Ultimate, Bogleheads Three Fund, PInwheel and Golden Butterfly with the above metrics and your own risk tolerance in mind you'll see that there are plenty of portfolios out there that don't require buckets of cash on the side or a glide path to provide good returns during both the accumulation phase and retirement.

https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolios/
flyingaway
Posts: 2972
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:19 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by flyingaway »

If you have enough, why bother those complicated glide paths?

When you are in your 80s, will you have the desire, ability, and willingness to take more risk? (i.e., more equity).
smitcat
Posts: 6487
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by smitcat »

flyingaway wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:31 am If you have enough, why bother those complicated glide paths?

When you are in your 80s, will you have the desire, ability, and willingness to take more risk? (i.e., more equity).
If you are in your 80's and have more than enough yuo are investing for other generations and/or charities.
Island John
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:53 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Island John »

Kevin K wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:27 am Excellent discussion!

There are two resources I'd like to recommend. Michael McClung's "Living Off Your Money" is a true tome of a book whose level of detail and complexity might intimidate anyone but Bogleheads, but it is THE most comprehensive resource I know of for looking at investing during retirement and withdrawal rates. Kitces and Pfau's work is included as a relatively small subset of a much vaster array of options. It is a phenomenally data-driven book. It's been discussed here a few times since in came out in 2015. You can download the first few chapters for free on its web site:

http://livingoffyourmoney.com

If you do decide to buy it, whatever you do buy the hard copy not the Kindle version. It is dense with complex and very useful tables and charts that are challenging enough to read in the oversized paperback.
Needless to say McClung discusses the bucket approach and rising equity glide path but they're both quite crude and simplistic strategies compared to the more sophisticated ones he recommends.

While the bulk of the book is about withdrawal strategies and lifetime income the portfolio part is also excellent. How much to have in equities is largely a function of length of retirement but never falls below 50% in any of the recommended allocations.

The other resource I wanted to recommend is the Portfolio Charts site, because its tools and above all its graphics provide a visceral sense of what it would be like to actually live with a portfolio through all kinds of different market conditions. There's a Safe Withdrawal Rate and a Perpetual Withdrawal Rate as well as historical maximum drawdown and years to recover for each allocation, and all of the numbers shown are real (after inflation) returns covering every year from 1970 to the present. If you look at, say, the Paul Merriman Ultimate, Bogleheads Three Fund, PInwheel and Golden Butterfly with the above metrics and your own risk tolerance in mind you'll see that there are plenty of portfolios out there that don't require buckets of cash on the side or a glide path to provide good returns during both the accumulation phase and retirement.

https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolios/
+1 regarding McClung's "Living Off Your Money". As Kevin K says, there is a lot of complexity and detail in the book. But the final recommendations are not complicated and are fairly easy to implement.

The book is very focused on managing your portfolio in retirement. Most of the books I've read on portfolio management in retirement use one historical U.S. database to backtest their recommendations. McClung’s modeling uses backtesting with data from four historical databases (two sources for US data, one for UK data, and one for Japan data). Plus, he backtests using bootstrapping, which he defines as using a large number of artificial, randomly generated, historical markets. McClung’s emphasis is on the robustness of an investing methodology in retirement. He is not overly concerned with finding an investing approach that provides the highest returns in a single historical market. He focuses on a methodology that performs well over a range of possible markets, real and simulated. His goal is to eliminate strategies that are tuned to one historical data set.

I also like McClung’s approach because it separates the “harvesting” strategy from the “withdrawal” strategy; something I hadn’t really considered previously. I never got that insight from simple rebalancing. I bought a used copy on Amazon a couple of years ago for $30. It was fine. I see a used hardcover copy on Amazon for $40.95. Good deal IMHO.

I also agree with Kevin K's recommendation to get the hardcover. You won't regret it when you're reading all those charts and graphs.
HobbesMB
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:36 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by HobbesMB »

As often noted here, Big ERN at Early Retirement Now has an excellent series on withdrawal rates at his site. The man knows his number-crunching. He did a couple of posts on this rising equity glidepath concept and did some modeling of the results. His research is geared toward early retirees, but it is still helpful for those with shorter retirement horizons. He models longer and shorter horizons in his analysis.

He takes issue with some of the Kitces methodology, such as using Monte Carlo simulations instead of historical, and he thinks Kitces uses a glidepath with too low of an equity allocation. But his overall conclusion is that the rising glidepath is a good idea. It's definitely worth a read for those interested in the concept. Actually, his whole withdrawal rate series is worth a read.

The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates – Part 19: Equity Glidepaths in Retirement
The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates – Part 20: More Thoughts on Equity Glidepaths
Moreover, an equity glidepath is like an insurance policy. A hedge against a tail event! On average it will cost you money, but if and when you need it the most it will likely pay off. Exactly when the static stock/bond allocation paths had their worst sustainable safe withdrawal rates you get slightly better results but you also give up some of the upside if the equity market “decides” to rally some more right after your retirement. But that’s a good problem to have!
Last edited by HobbesMB on Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GreenLawn
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:58 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by GreenLawn »

HobbesMB wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:34 pm As often noted here, Big ERN at Early Retirement Now has an excellent series on withdrawal rates at his site. The man knows his number-crunching. He did a couple of posts on this rising equity glidepath concept and did some modeling of the results. His research is geared toward early retirees, but it is still helpful for those with shorter retirement horizons. He models longer and shorter horizons in his analysis.

He takes issue with some of the Kitces methodoloy, such as using Monte Carlo simulations instead of historical, and he thinks Kitces uses a glidepath with too low of an equity allocation. But his overall conclusion is that the rising glidepath is a good idea. It's definitely worth a read for those interested in the concept. Actually, his whole withdrawal rate series is worth a read.

The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates – Part 19: Equity Glidepaths in Retirement
The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates – Part 20: More Thoughts on Equity Glidepaths
Moreover, an equity glidepath is like an insurance policy. A hedge against a tail event! On average it will cost you money, but if and when you need it the most it will likely pay off. Exactly when the static stock/bond allocation paths had their worst sustainable safe withdrawal rates you get slightly better results but you also give up some of the upside if the equity market “decides” to rally some more right after your retirement. But that’s a good problem to have!
Agreed, it is an excellent presentation. I took the time to read it months ago and if I ever need a refresher on glide path, I'll be back on his site and reading it again. If I did, I'd stick to his summary, his numbers and reasoning appeared sound to me the first time around, no need to jump back into the weeds.
palaheel
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:35 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by palaheel »

Island John wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:35 am
Kevin K wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:27 am Excellent discussion!

There are two resources I'd like to recommend. Michael McClung's "Living Off Your Money" is a true tome of a book whose level of detail and complexity might intimidate anyone but Bogleheads, but it is THE most comprehensive resource I know of for looking at investing during retirement and withdrawal rates. Kitces and Pfau's work is included as a relatively small subset of a much vaster array of options. It is a phenomenally data-driven book. It's been discussed here a few times since in came out in 2015. You can download the first few chapters for free on its web site:

http://livingoffyourmoney.com

If you do decide to buy it, whatever you do buy the hard copy not the Kindle version. It is dense with complex and very useful tables and charts that are challenging enough to read in the oversized paperback.
Needless to say McClung discusses the bucket approach and rising equity glide path but they're both quite crude and simplistic strategies compared to the more sophisticated ones he recommends.

While the bulk of the book is about withdrawal strategies and lifetime income the portfolio part is also excellent. How much to have in equities is largely a function of length of retirement but never falls below 50% in any of the recommended allocations.

The other resource I wanted to recommend is the Portfolio Charts site, because its tools and above all its graphics provide a visceral sense of what it would be like to actually live with a portfolio through all kinds of different market conditions. There's a Safe Withdrawal Rate and a Perpetual Withdrawal Rate as well as historical maximum drawdown and years to recover for each allocation, and all of the numbers shown are real (after inflation) returns covering every year from 1970 to the present. If you look at, say, the Paul Merriman Ultimate, Bogleheads Three Fund, PInwheel and Golden Butterfly with the above metrics and your own risk tolerance in mind you'll see that there are plenty of portfolios out there that don't require buckets of cash on the side or a glide path to provide good returns during both the accumulation phase and retirement.

https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolios/
+1 regarding McClung's "Living Off Your Money". As Kevin K says, there is a lot of complexity and detail in the book. But the final recommendations are not complicated and are fairly easy to implement.

The book is very focused on managing your portfolio in retirement. Most of the books I've read on portfolio management in retirement use one historical U.S. database to backtest their recommendations. McClung’s modeling uses backtesting with data from four historical databases (two sources for US data, one for UK data, and one for Japan data). Plus, he backtests using bootstrapping, which he defines as using a large number of artificial, randomly generated, historical markets. McClung’s emphasis is on the robustness of an investing methodology in retirement. He is not overly concerned with finding an investing approach that provides the highest returns in a single historical market. He focuses on a methodology that performs well over a range of possible markets, real and simulated. His goal is to eliminate strategies that are tuned to one historical data set.

I also like McClung’s approach because it separates the “harvesting” strategy from the “withdrawal” strategy; something I hadn’t really considered previously. I never got that insight from simple rebalancing. I bought a used copy on Amazon a couple of years ago for $30. It was fine. I see a used hardcover copy on Amazon for $40.95. Good deal IMHO.

I also agree with Kevin K's recommendation to get the hardcover. You won't regret it when you're reading all those charts and graphs.
DW gave McClung's book to me as a retirement present. I'd subtitle it "A Math Nerd's Guide to Retirement." (But that's ok; I fit the description.) I'm curious as to why the book doesn't have a bigger impact. It's not in the BH list of books, and his harvesting/withdrawal strategies are not in the WIKI. Am I missing something? Is it just not necessary, or is it incorrect, or inferior to the strategies that the WIKI does list?

I'm new to the "being in retirement" state, and I haven't had time to look at other schemes.
Markets crash. Markets recover. Inflation takes your money FOREVER.
HobbesMB
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:36 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by HobbesMB »

palaheel wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:10 pm DW gave McClung's book to me as a retirement present. I'd subtitle it "A Math Nerd's Guide to Retirement." (But that's ok; I fit the description.) I'm curious as to why the book doesn't have a bigger impact. It's not in the BH list of books, and his harvesting/withdrawal strategies are not in the WIKI. Am I missing something? Is it just not necessary, or is it incorrect, or inferior to the strategies that the WIKI does list?

I'm new to the "being in retirement" state, and I haven't had time to look at other schemes.
I recently bought the McClung book, but haven't read it yet (seems like it will require some concentration.) So I can't speak to what methods he discusses in the book. But ERN also did a segment on the McClung prime harvesting method in his withdrawal rate series. You might want to give it a look.

The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates – Part 13: Dynamic Stock-Bond Allocation through Prime Harvesting
User avatar
Ben Mathew
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Ben Mathew »

I find it useful to look at this through the lens of the Samuelson-Merton lifecycle model, which solves for the optimal portfolio of a person with CRRA utility (the most reasonable of the simple utility functions.)

In that model, if a person has all of their wealth in their portfolio at the start of their life, the solution is simple: hold a fixed allocation throughout life. The fixed allocation is determined by the person's risk aversion. Just keep rebalancing the portfolio back to that same allocation.

It gets more complicated than that in most situations because our portfolio usually does not hold our entire wealth. Our future wages are outside the portfolio. To the extent that you are confident about your future wages, you can view them as bond payouts and count the present value of the wages as a real but invisible bond allocation in your total portfolio. A fixed allocation on the total portfolio then translates to a downward sloping glidepath on the visible portfolio till retirement.

If, at retirement, there will be no more money coming in, then your visible portfolio is your total portfolio and you can simply hold a fixed allocation throughout retirement. This is roughly the shape of the glidepath that Vanguard target date funds employ--downward sloping glide path before retirement and fixed after. They explicitly cite these lifecycle considerations for picking this shape.

However, if, after retirement, there are still income streams like social security and pensions that are expected to come in, then we would need to count that in the total portfolio as a bond.

If there is a delay before the social security or pension kicks in, then we will end up with a rising equity glidepath on the visible portfolio during the period before social security starts. It's actually a fixed glidepath on the total portfolio counting social security as a bond. But it shows up as a rising equity glidepath on the visible portfolio. It will look like you are consuming your bonds too fast, letting the stock percentage glide upwards. But that's only because there is a hidden bond allocation in the form of social security that is not being consumed.
Kevin K
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:47 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by Kevin K »

[/quote]

DW gave McClung's book to me as a retirement present. I'd subtitle it "A Math Nerd's Guide to Retirement." (But that's ok; I fit the description.) I'm curious as to why the book doesn't have a bigger impact. It's not in the BH list of books, and his harvesting/withdrawal strategies are not in the WIKI. Am I missing something? Is it just not necessary, or is it incorrect, or inferior to the strategies that the WIKI does list?

I'm new to the "being in retirement" state, and I haven't had time to look at other schemes.
[/quote]

I just looked at the Wiki too and agree with you that McClung's book is a major omission. His harvesting/withdrawal strategies are far more sophisticated than those in the other books listed, and his data-driven portfolio recommendations are also noteworthy.

Clearly the sheer size and density of McClung's book are going to limit its audience but he does provide succinct summaries ("the point") for every chapter and bends over backward in the introduction to provide ways for readers who just want to get the gist to do so. I personally would choose it over all of the other books on retirement in the Wiki put together.
Topic Author
bfeenix44
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:05 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by bfeenix44 »

I love this forum.
It has really boosted my confidence and lowered my investing anxiety.

It's pure gold research outsourcing!!

tamara
User avatar
22twain
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by 22twain »

Kevin K wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:15 pm I just looked at the Wiki too and agree with you that McClung's book is a major omission.
The Wiki is a volunteer effort. Who's volunteering to write up McClung's book for it? :wink:
Help save endangered words! When you write "princiPLE", make sure you don't really mean "princiPAL"!
palaheel
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:35 am

Re: Jane Bryant Quinn, stock allocation before / after retirement

Post by palaheel »

22twain wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:39 pm
Kevin K wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:15 pm I just looked at the Wiki too and agree with you that McClung's book is a major omission.
The Wiki is a volunteer effort. Who's volunteering to write up McClung's book for it? :wink:
I would not be able to do it justice. :(
Markets crash. Markets recover. Inflation takes your money FOREVER.
Post Reply