Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Here me out.
Suppose you are retired at age 55 with a NW=X and you determined that a 50/50 allocation met your risk tolerance. A 50% drop in stocks leaves you with 75% of your assets. You we’re all set for a long retirement!
Now what if unexpectedly you received a windfall equal to X making your NW=2X. If you changed your AA to 100% stocks a 50% drop leaves you with X which is more than .75X assuming the old AA and no inheritance.
You might make the argument that your living standards would immediately scale to the doubled NW and therefore the original 50/50 risk tolerance would apply. But what if you left your living standards at 0.5X?
Initially you won’t reap the full benefits of higher living standards of the new NW but if you can hang in there for a long period of time, that other half of stock will grow and grow and leave you a lot better off with significantly higher living standards.
So this had me thinking. Maybe it’s wiser to scale up stock allocations once your NW creeps up?
I did this myself. A few years back at age 34 I received an unexpected windfall that was equal to my NW at the time. I threw it all in the market and went 100%.
Suppose you are retired at age 55 with a NW=X and you determined that a 50/50 allocation met your risk tolerance. A 50% drop in stocks leaves you with 75% of your assets. You we’re all set for a long retirement!
Now what if unexpectedly you received a windfall equal to X making your NW=2X. If you changed your AA to 100% stocks a 50% drop leaves you with X which is more than .75X assuming the old AA and no inheritance.
You might make the argument that your living standards would immediately scale to the doubled NW and therefore the original 50/50 risk tolerance would apply. But what if you left your living standards at 0.5X?
Initially you won’t reap the full benefits of higher living standards of the new NW but if you can hang in there for a long period of time, that other half of stock will grow and grow and leave you a lot better off with significantly higher living standards.
So this had me thinking. Maybe it’s wiser to scale up stock allocations once your NW creeps up?
I did this myself. A few years back at age 34 I received an unexpected windfall that was equal to my NW at the time. I threw it all in the market and went 100%.
Last edited by teuton33 on Wed Aug 11, 2021 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
It is *generally* wise, except when we walk into 1929 or 1989-Japan.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
With dividend reinvestment I think 1929 recovered in 15 years? Dividends were high then. And this assumes you put the money in at the peak.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:14 pm It is *generally* wise, except when we walk into 1929 or 1989-Japan.
-
- Posts: 4387
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
- Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Not that it matters; but, I put the amount I didn't spend in the annual budget in to a total world stock mutual fund. So, if I live another 30 years it might make a difference in the AA. I'm 74.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
- 3CT_Paddler
- Posts: 3485
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:28 pm
- Location: Marietta, GA
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Go back in time 10 years on the Bogleheads forum and nobody was talking like that. When the next correction inevitably occurs there is going to be a lot of paper wealth going up in smoke.
Edit: Agree on the wealth part not the as you age part.
Edit: Agree on the wealth part not the as you age part.
Last edited by 3CT_Paddler on Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Yes, once you have 2x+ what you need to retire, you can start to take more risks again, because a stock market crash won't really affect you any more.
I probably wouldn't, because if I already have 2x "enough", why would I feel the need to risk even more for a chance of making even more? (with a possible chance of losing a good chunk)
Once I have "enough", by definition, I no longer need "more".
But it's certainly a rational move for others, especially if they are trying to max out inheritances for their kids (but taking a chance where the kids get less instead)
I probably wouldn't, because if I already have 2x "enough", why would I feel the need to risk even more for a chance of making even more? (with a possible chance of losing a good chunk)
Once I have "enough", by definition, I no longer need "more".
But it's certainly a rational move for others, especially if they are trying to max out inheritances for their kids (but taking a chance where the kids get less instead)
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
-
- Posts: 2697
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:38 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Yes. The more net worth that you have the greater level of risk that you can take. This is how $$$ Millionaires become $$$ Billionaires.teuton33 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:11 pm Here me out.
Suppose you are retired at age 55 with a NW=X and you determined that a 50/50 allocation met your risk tolerance. A 50% drop in stocks leaves you with 75% of your assets. You we’re all set for a long retirement!
Now what if unexpectedly you received a windfall equal to X making your NW=2X. If you changed your AA to 100% stocks a 50% drop leaves you with X which is more than .75X assuming the old AA and no inheritance.
You might make the argument that your living standards would immediately scale to the doubled NW and therefore the original 50/50 risk tolerance would apply. But what if you left your living standards at 0.5X?
Initially you won’t reap the full benefits of higher living standards of the new NW but if you can hang in there for a long period of time, that other half of stock will grow and grow and leave you a lot better off with significantly higher living standards.
So this had me thinking. Maybe it’s wiser to scale up stock allocations once your NW creeps up?
I did this myself. A few years back I received an unexpected windfall that was equal to my NW at the time. I threw it all in the market and went 100%.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
I think it makes sense. I like the idea of moving towards a more conservative AA some +/- years before and after retirement to avoid sequence of returns risk and then gradually scale equities back up. With that strategy, you increase risk/returns once SORR diminishes (not disappears) and your retirement horizon is shorter. Your example is another one where if you can comfortably withstand a 50% drop, why not shoot for higher returns?
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Agree. Just wanted to add that the risk is lower than if that money were to be spent during retirement, because the kids' time horizons are much longer.
This post is for entertainment or information only, and should not be construed as professional financial advice. |
|
"Invest your money passively and your time actively" -Michael LeBoeuf
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Why not? If you have favorable returns, and you get to say age 80 with more money than you can spend in your remaining years, you're investing for heirs and/or charity. Then it can absolutely make sense to have a higher stock allocation. Here's a detailed discussion of "rising glidepaths": https://www.kitces.com/blog/should-equi ... ly-better/3CT_Paddler wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:23 pm Go back in time 10 years on the Bogleheads forum and nobody was talking like that. When the next correction inevitably occurs there is going to be a lot of paper wealth going up in smoke.
Edit: Agree on the wealth part not the as you age part.
- Svensk Anga
- Posts: 1612
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:16 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
I retired 5.5 years ago with a 58/42 AA. I've been spending down the bonds and not rebalancing. Currently we're 77/28. I think I'm rational.
Bull markets in our last working years had us over-shoot our number. I put away enough fixed income to get us to age 70 and claiming maximal SS benefits. Still 8 years to go and we have plenty of fixed income left. Continuing strong stock returns have swelled the portfolio about 50% since we retired. I think of our portfolio as two parts: a very conservative one intended to see us through plus a very aggressive one intended for heirs or self -indulgent splurges. Dividends from the aggressive part are earmarked for our routine spending however, per the advice of Bill Bernstein in "Ages of the Investor".
Bull markets in our last working years had us over-shoot our number. I put away enough fixed income to get us to age 70 and claiming maximal SS benefits. Still 8 years to go and we have plenty of fixed income left. Continuing strong stock returns have swelled the portfolio about 50% since we retired. I think of our portfolio as two parts: a very conservative one intended to see us through plus a very aggressive one intended for heirs or self -indulgent splurges. Dividends from the aggressive part are earmarked for our routine spending however, per the advice of Bill Bernstein in "Ages of the Investor".
-
- Posts: 10433
- Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
It is rational if you are willing to take the risk.
It is consistent with not holding in stocks money you'll need in say, 10 years.
It is consistent with not holding in stocks money you'll need in say, 10 years.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
One aspect of personal investing that is oftentimes overlooked is the dependency of financial objectives and risk tolerance on one's assets size.
With that in mind, getting into a riskier asset allocation following a windfall can certainly be a rational choice and getting into a less risky one can also be rational. It all depends one's targets.
With that in mind, getting into a riskier asset allocation following a windfall can certainly be a rational choice and getting into a less risky one can also be rational. It all depends one's targets.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
There was an interesting thread by user "Uncorrelated" a couple years ago on this subject with some cool charts in it:
viewtopic.php?t=293469
viewtopic.php?t=293469
-
- Posts: 6561
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
As your portfolio grows, your ability to take risk goes up, bit your need to take risk goes down.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
OP,
Only if your net worth is 50 times your current annual expense or higher. Then, you can do whatever you want. Until then, you are not rich enough.
KlangFool
Only if your net worth is 50 times your current annual expense or higher. Then, you can do whatever you want. Until then, you are not rich enough.
KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Did Japan in 1929 really do that poorly?Marseille07 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:14 pm It is *generally* wise, except when we walk into 1929 or 1989-Japan.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52216
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
It's not a question of "rationality." It's a question of whether you have increasing relative risk aversion or decreasing relative risk aversion.
There is no objectively correct amount of risk aversion. It is an input to financial economics equations, not an output.
If you have decreasing relative risk aversion, then as you reach the point where you have more than enough wealth to take care of your needs and your important wants, you say "I can afford to gamble the rest of it, because it doesn't matter if I lose it."
If you have increasing relative risk aversion, then you say "When you've won the game, why keep on playing? I don't need to take risk at this point, and I prefer not to."
If you have constant relative risk aversion, then you say "As best I can judge, losing half my wealth suddenly now would hurt just about as badly as it would have years ago. So nothing has really changed, and I prefer to maintain a constant risk profile."
What to do with the extra money that you do not "need" is a personal choice.
There is no objectively correct amount of risk aversion. It is an input to financial economics equations, not an output.
If you have decreasing relative risk aversion, then as you reach the point where you have more than enough wealth to take care of your needs and your important wants, you say "I can afford to gamble the rest of it, because it doesn't matter if I lose it."
If you have increasing relative risk aversion, then you say "When you've won the game, why keep on playing? I don't need to take risk at this point, and I prefer not to."
If you have constant relative risk aversion, then you say "As best I can judge, losing half my wealth suddenly now would hurt just about as badly as it would have years ago. So nothing has really changed, and I prefer to maintain a constant risk profile."
What to do with the extra money that you do not "need" is a personal choice.
Last edited by nisiprius on Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
It depends on the intended use of the money.
Suppose that you retire with the intention of using your whole portfolio. But after ten years of a bull market, your standard of living has not changed, and your portfolio is now twice what you need to retire. It would be rational at that point to invest half the portfolio with an asset allocation appropriate for your own retirement, and the other half with an asset allocation appropriate for your heirs (which could be all stock if it is for the retirement of your still-working children and the college funds of your not-yet-born great-grandchildren).
Suppose that you retire with the intention of using your whole portfolio. But after ten years of a bull market, your standard of living has not changed, and your portfolio is now twice what you need to retire. It would be rational at that point to invest half the portfolio with an asset allocation appropriate for your own retirement, and the other half with an asset allocation appropriate for your heirs (which could be all stock if it is for the retirement of your still-working children and the college funds of your not-yet-born great-grandchildren).
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:01 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Yes,but only if your net worth is large relative to the amount required to support your expenses. The core portion of your portfolio—the part that supports your lifestyle and expenses over retirement—should have an appropriate risk off investments to protect against sales during a down equities year and or to minimize volatility. The non-core portion of your portfolio is more or less money that you never expect to spend on yourself and basically is what your heirs should expect to inherit. Assuming your heirs are young, there’s an argument that the non-core portion should be invested entirely/heavily in equities. So it’s not that the portfolio should be invested more aggressively, it’s that as your NW grows, you in effect have two portfolios serving two purposes. One other way of basically saying the same point is that if your portfolio is large relative to your expenses, you can tolerate more volatility and sales in down years and still be able to meet your retirement needs.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Truly an educated response! Of course, I think it would be quite atypical for someone who has satisfied their life spending need to have increasing relative risk aversion. Since their need for incremental spending has been decreasing before that point of wealth, it seems that they would need a humped utility curve. This is not to say that it can't happen, just that it would be kind of a weird person. Increasing portfolio volatility also means that they must consider the slope between two distant points on the utility curve, not just the tangential slope, to find marginal utility.nisiprius wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:44 pm It's not a question of "rationality." It's a question of whether you have increasing relative risk aversion or decreasing relative risk aversion.
There is no objectively correct amount of risk aversion. It is an input to financial economics equations, not an output.
If you have decreasing relative risk aversion, then as you reach the point where you have more than enough wealth to take care of your needs and your important wants, you say "I can afford to gamble the rest of it, because it doesn't matter if I lose it."
If you have increasing relative risk aversion, then you say "When you've won the game, why keep on playing? I don't need to take risk at the point, and I prefer not to."
If you have constant relative risk aversion, then you say "As best I can judge, losing half my wealth suddenly now would hurt just about as badly as it would have years ago. So nothing has really changed, and I prefer to maintain a constant risk profile."
What to do with the extra money that you do not "need" is a personal choice.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
But you might want to invest it in safe stuff if it's your grandchildren who are only 5 years from college-age....grabiner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:49 pm It depends on the intended use of the money.
Suppose that you retire with the intention of using your whole portfolio. But after ten years of a bull market, your standard of living has not changed, and your portfolio is now twice what you need to retire. It would be rational at that point to invest half the portfolio with an asset allocation appropriate for your own retirement, and the other half with an asset allocation appropriate for your heirs (which could be all stock if it is for the retirement of your still-working children and the college funds of your not-yet-born great-grandchildren).
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
- 9-5 Suited
- Posts: 1307
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:14 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
There is definitely some truth to this concept and I intend to follow it to a degree. As the marginal utility of money declines with higher net worth, you face a paradox of have higher ability to take risk and lower need to take risk. Everyone gets to decide for themselves on which of those will prevail.
One quibble with the extreme proposition in the post though: it makes that common cardinal sin of implicitly assuming a lower limit of 50% for stock declines. Use 80% instead and that hypothetical looks a lot scarier. So I wouldn’t go to 100% stock because you MUST consider not just the probability of loss but the potential catastrophic nature of the loss.
One quibble with the extreme proposition in the post though: it makes that common cardinal sin of implicitly assuming a lower limit of 50% for stock declines. Use 80% instead and that hypothetical looks a lot scarier. So I wouldn’t go to 100% stock because you MUST consider not just the probability of loss but the potential catastrophic nature of the loss.
-
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:20 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Sorry, meant to also quote this one too by Tjat:Triple digit golfer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:55 pm It is rational if you are willing to take the risk.
It is consistent with not holding in stocks money you'll need in say, 10 years.
I think it makes sense. I like the idea of moving towards a more conservative AA some +/- years before and after retirement to avoid sequence of returns risk and then gradually scale equities back up. With that strategy, you increase risk/returns once SORR diminishes (not disappears) and your retirement horizon is shorter. Your example is another one where if you can comfortably withstand a 50% drop, why not shoot for higher returns?
Based on memory, isn't this the Glide10 or Glide20 from the fiphysician?
I actually think his data is pretty compelling and supports what you're suggesting. Someone can chime in if I am wrong. Too tired to research.
Last edited by jello_nailer on Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32842
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Bogleheads:
About age 80, we bought two single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs), which together with our Social Security and my government pension, provided more income than we needed. Since then (my wife died), I don't pay much attention to my asset-allocation which is heavy in stocks.
Best wishes.
Taylor
About age 80, we bought two single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs), which together with our Social Security and my government pension, provided more income than we needed. Since then (my wife died), I don't pay much attention to my asset-allocation which is heavy in stocks.
Best wishes.
Taylor
Jack Bogle's Words of Wisdom: “Successful investing doesn’t require sophistication and complexity; all that’s necessary is a healthy dose of common sense.”
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Yes, when you became $$$ Billionaires, the next step is $$$Trillionare and ....Trader Joe wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:37 pmYes. The more net worth that you have the greater level of risk that you can take. This is how $$$ Millionaires become $$$ Billionaires.teuton33 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:11 pm Here me out.
Suppose you are retired at age 55 with a NW=X and you determined that a 50/50 allocation met your risk tolerance. A 50% drop in stocks leaves you with 75% of your assets. You we’re all set for a long retirement!
Now what if unexpectedly you received a windfall equal to X making your NW=2X. If you changed your AA to 100% stocks a 50% drop leaves you with X which is more than .75X assuming the old AA and no inheritance.
You might make the argument that your living standards would immediately scale to the doubled NW and therefore the original 50/50 risk tolerance would apply. But what if you left your living standards at 0.5X?
Initially you won’t reap the full benefits of higher living standards of the new NW but if you can hang in there for a long period of time, that other half of stock will grow and grow and leave you a lot better off with significantly higher living standards.
So this had me thinking. Maybe it’s wiser to scale up stock allocations once your NW creeps up?
I did this myself. A few years back I received an unexpected windfall that was equal to my NW at the time. I threw it all in the market and went 100%.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
My preference is "when you have won the game, why keep on playing?".nisiprius wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:44 pm It's not a question of "rationality." It's a question of whether you have increasing relative risk aversion or decreasing relative risk aversion.
There is no objectively correct amount of risk aversion. It is an input to financial economics equations, not an output.
If you have decreasing relative risk aversion, then as you reach the point where you have more than enough wealth to take care of your needs and your important wants, you say "I can afford to gamble the rest of it, because it doesn't matter if I lose it."
If you have increasing relative risk aversion, then you say "When you've won the game, why keep on playing? I don't need to take risk at the point, and I prefer not to."
If you have constant relative risk aversion, then you say "As best I can judge, losing half my wealth suddenly now would hurt just about as badly as it would have years ago. So nothing has really changed, and I prefer to maintain a constant risk profile."
What to do with the extra money that you do not "need" is a personal choice.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
One aspect I have not seen addressed: once you have your needs met, why not think of others? If I was in the position of having assets well in excess of my desired standard of living, I would happily take more risk with the remainder in order to generate funds for charitable giving.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Why wouldn't you invest the windfall according to your 50/50 AA?
Then a 50% drop in equities would still leave you with 1.5X.
You could immediately double your annual expenses, if you wanted to.
Then a 50% drop in equities would still leave you with 1.5X.
You could immediately double your annual expenses, if you wanted to.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 2377
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:56 am
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
The bolded is the key. A 55 year old may only have 10 more years of good health and high functioning to enjoy. Good chance they only live another 20 years, although the mean would be more like 35. If they continue their living standard as if they had not received the windfall for an extended period, there's a high chance they will die before realizing any benefit from your strategy or die shortly after you've allowed them to increase their spending.teuton33 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:11 pm Here me out.
Suppose you are retired at age 55 with a NW=X and you determined that a 50/50 allocation met your risk tolerance. A 50% drop in stocks leaves you with 75% of your assets. You we’re all set for a long retirement!
Now what if unexpectedly you received a windfall equal to X making your NW=2X. If you changed your AA to 100% stocks a 50% drop leaves you with X which is more than .75X assuming the old AA and no inheritance.
You might make the argument that your living standards would immediately scale to the doubled NW and therefore the original 50/50 risk tolerance would apply. But what if you left your living standards at 0.5X?
Initially you won’t reap the full benefits of higher living standards of the new NW but if you can hang in there for a long period of time, that other half of stock will grow and grow and leave you a lot better off with significantly higher living standards.
So this had me thinking. Maybe it’s wiser to scale up stock allocations once your NW creeps up?
I did this myself. A few years back at age 34 I received an unexpected windfall that was equal to my NW at the time. I threw it all in the market and went 100%.
I'd say your 50-50 AA for a 55YO is too conservative anyways. If I was 55 and trying to maximize my lifetime spending, I'd probably still be 80-20. If I got a windfall that doubled my NW, I'd still be 80-20. By age 65 or 70 I'd be 60-40. But the windfall has changed nothing in the AA.
There are complex models on how to maximize lifetime spending... they are the basis for the glidepaths you see in target date retirement funds. You're trying to outsmart these models with back of the envelope calculations, but it won't work. Your principal mistakes are that 1) a 55 may not live that much longer, and even their mean life expectancy may be barely long enough to see stocks outperform bonds in a major ber market and 2) a small bond allocation may act as balast and allow them to rebalance into stocks at market lows and actually enhance returns. Thus a more typical allocation for a 55 YO would be 80-20, no matter their NW.
At 34 you should have been 90%+ stocks anyways with or without a windfall.
- quantAndHold
- Posts: 10141
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Yes, I think that’s perfectly reasonable. It’s about need, ability, and willingness to take risk.
If you’re at 2x+ what you need to retire, then yes, you now have the ability to take more risk, because a crash, while unfortunate, isn’t going to make your retirement “fail.” As far as need, it seems reasonable that at that point, you’re investing the amount beyond 1x for your legacy, which is a longer timeline. To preserve assets on a long timeline, you would have the need to take more risk with that part of the portfolio.
I would also say, though, that at 34, your retirement portfolio should be at 90%+ stock anyway, and getting a windfall wouldn’t change that. But a 65 year old with a 50/50 portfolio who has exactly enough for retirement and gets a windfall that doubles their net worth, could probably go to 60/40, figuring that the “retirement” half of the portfolio stays at 50/50, and the “legacy” half of the portfolio is a perpetual 70/30.
If you’re at 2x+ what you need to retire, then yes, you now have the ability to take more risk, because a crash, while unfortunate, isn’t going to make your retirement “fail.” As far as need, it seems reasonable that at that point, you’re investing the amount beyond 1x for your legacy, which is a longer timeline. To preserve assets on a long timeline, you would have the need to take more risk with that part of the portfolio.
I would also say, though, that at 34, your retirement portfolio should be at 90%+ stock anyway, and getting a windfall wouldn’t change that. But a 65 year old with a 50/50 portfolio who has exactly enough for retirement and gets a windfall that doubles their net worth, could probably go to 60/40, figuring that the “retirement” half of the portfolio stays at 50/50, and the “legacy” half of the portfolio is a perpetual 70/30.
- climber2020
- Posts: 2708
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:06 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
I like this concept, but how often does it actually work?TJat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:44 pm I think it makes sense. I like the idea of moving towards a more conservative AA some +/- years before and after retirement to avoid sequence of returns risk and then gradually scale equities back up. With that strategy, you increase risk/returns once SORR diminishes (not disappears) and your retirement horizon is shorter.
There could be a scenario where the best stock market returns of one's investing life occur during those few years when the person has the most conservative AA (missing a significant amount of gains in the process), followed by a decade of lousy years when the stock percentage goes back up.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52216
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Why share an Olympic gold medal when you have the option of competing again in a tie-breaker round?
--William Blake, "Proverbs of Hell"You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.
Last edited by nisiprius on Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
It seems to me that once you have 10 years of expenses in bonds or safe assets it's silly to put more in. That would be my cutoff for increasing stock allocation as one ages.
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Right; it is rational either way as long as this is about excess money. I am in the "decreasing relative risk aversion" group, but part of this is because I will never spend high excesses. As I continue to make more money, my spending is not increasing along with it (because I am happy with my life without spending much). Maybe some day I will know what to do with it (if I end up with it).nisiprius wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:44 pm It's not a question of "rationality." It's a question of whether you have increasing relative risk aversion or decreasing relative risk aversion.
There is no objectively correct amount of risk aversion. It is an input to financial economics equations, not an output.
If you have decreasing relative risk aversion, then as you reach the point where you have more than enough wealth to take care of your needs and your important wants, you say "I can afford to gamble the rest of it, because it doesn't matter if I lose it."
If you have increasing relative risk aversion, then you say "When you've won the game, why keep on playing? I don't need to take risk at this point, and I prefer not to."
If you have constant relative risk aversion, then you say "As best I can judge, losing half my wealth suddenly now would hurt just about as badly as it would have years ago. So nothing has really changed, and I prefer to maintain a constant risk profile."
What to do with the extra money that you do not "need" is a personal choice.
Sadly, so many people talk as if the market is a casino and investing is a game... I guess I take things seriously.
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
-
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:38 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
80% is extremely improbable, although not impossible.9-5 Suited wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 8:51 pm There is definitely some truth to this concept and I intend to follow it to a degree. As the marginal utility of money declines with higher net worth, you face a paradox of have higher ability to take risk and lower need to take risk. Everyone gets to decide for themselves on which of those will prevail.
One quibble with the extreme proposition in the post though: it makes that common cardinal sin of implicitly assuming a lower limit of 50% for stock declines. Use 80% instead and that hypothetical looks a lot scarier. So I wouldn’t go to 100% stock because you MUST consider not just the probability of loss but the potential catastrophic nature of the loss.
-
- Posts: 8626
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:31 am
- Location: West coast of Florida, near Champa Bay !
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
I started at a 50% equities / 50% bonds AA when I took my pension lump-sum in August of 2015.
Last year, I changed to a 55% equity/45% bond AA. When I reach the end of another 5 years I will move to 60% equities / 40% bond AA, probably final AA.
We have a very well-funded retirement, and my primary reason is for legacy. All in all, even a 60% equity / 40% bond AA isn't that out of line.
When we do hit the 60/40 AA, we will have moved 10 years further along our retirement length, with 10 fewer years remaining.
Broken Man 1999
Last year, I changed to a 55% equity/45% bond AA. When I reach the end of another 5 years I will move to 60% equities / 40% bond AA, probably final AA.
We have a very well-funded retirement, and my primary reason is for legacy. All in all, even a 60% equity / 40% bond AA isn't that out of line.
When we do hit the 60/40 AA, we will have moved 10 years further along our retirement length, with 10 fewer years remaining.
Broken Man 1999
“If I cannot drink Bourbon and smoke cigars in Heaven then I shall not go." - Mark Twain
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Yes.
(This does not mean that other asset allocations are irrational)
(This does not mean that other asset allocations are irrational)
Ram
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
The wealthier I get the more comfortable I find my 100 percent stock allocation. A 50 percent fall doesn’t hurt so much as net worth goes up. Obviously the absolute dollar amount of a 50 percent fall is larger, but the remaining cushion is higher too.
-
- Posts: 801
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:09 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
^^^^ same. 50%, theoretical or real, is easier to swallow when you are 4x, 8x, 10x etc
-
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 pm
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Folks on this forum put lot of effort for growing, persevering and minimizing the assets which they don't even need! Some go to extra-ordinary efforts to achieve that goal. It makes perfect sense once you don't need your portfolio to live as your living expenses are covered by social security, pension, interest, dividend and rental income.HomerJ wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:27 pm Yes, once you have 2x+ what you need to retire, you can start to take more risks again, because a stock market crash won't really affect you any more.
I probably wouldn't, because if I already have 2x "enough", why would I feel the need to risk even more for a chance of making even more? (with a possible chance of losing a good chunk)
Once I have "enough", by definition, I no longer need "more".
But it's certainly a rational move for others, especially if they are trying to max out inheritances for their kids (but taking a chance where the kids get less instead)
Do I need to take names?
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
We have been using this approach for several years and feel increasingly comfortable with it. Our retirement portfolio is currently 30/70 and “should” last us for the rest of our lives - barring a situation where both of us would require nursing home care for 5 or more years (we’re in our late 70s). Our non-retirement portfolio, which is slightly larger than our retirement portfolio, is currently 85/15. Combining the two portfolios gives us approximately a 60/40 allocation. It’s entirely possible that, if we hold our total equity exposure to 60%, our retirement portfolio may decline to a 100% fixed income allocation.grabiner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:49 pm It depends on the intended use of the money.
Suppose that you retire with the intention of using your whole portfolio. But after ten years of a bull market, your standard of living has not changed, and your portfolio is now twice what you need to retire. It would be rational at that point to invest half the portfolio with an asset allocation appropriate for your own retirement, and the other half with an asset allocation appropriate for your heirs (which could be all stock if it is for the retirement of your still-working children and the college funds of your not-yet-born great-grandchildren).
Would it be better to hold at least 25% equity in our retirement portfolio? As I recall, history suggests that a small allocation to equity is preferable to a 100% fixed income portfolio.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
By “retirement” and “non-retirement” do you meant tax-deferred vs taxable accounts?
You really only have one portfolio, despite mental bucketing schemes, so it’s better to manage it as one combined portfolio.
You really only have one portfolio, despite mental bucketing schemes, so it’s better to manage it as one combined portfolio.
Crom laughs at your Four Winds
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Legally, they are separate and distinct portfolios. Our retirement portfolio consists of his and her tax deferred Individual Retirement Accounts. Our non-retirement accounts consist of his and her fully taxable accounts. Both we and the Internal Internal Service clearly distinguish the retirement and non retirement accounts. We keep them separate because we live on our Social Security income and the cash flow (RMDs) from our retirement accounts. The non-retirement account income and principal are only utilized to the extent that Social Security income and RMD cash flow are insufficient for periodic extraordinary expenses, like car purchases and home remodeling/additions.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
It doesn't matter what is in which account (except for tax purposes). Since you are retired, you can spend money from either your non-retirement account or your retirement account as appropriate, and then rebalance to the correct overall allocation. If you would like to maintain your stock allocation, but the money you want to spend is a stock dividend from the taxable account, you can move money from bond funds to stock funds in your IRA.dkturner wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:43 amWe have been using this approach for several years and feel increasingly comfortable with it. Our retirement portfolio is currently 30/70 and “should” last us for the rest of our lives - barring a situation where both of us would require nursing home care for 5 or more years (we’re in our late 70s). Our non-retirement portfolio, which is slightly larger than our retirement portfolio, is currently 85/15. Combining the two portfolios gives us approximately a 60/40 allocation. It’s entirely possible that, if we hold our total equity exposure to 60%, our retirement portfolio may decline to a 100% fixed income allocation.grabiner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:49 pm It depends on the intended use of the money.
Suppose that you retire with the intention of using your whole portfolio. But after ten years of a bull market, your standard of living has not changed, and your portfolio is now twice what you need to retire. It would be rational at that point to invest half the portfolio with an asset allocation appropriate for your own retirement, and the other half with an asset allocation appropriate for your heirs (which could be all stock if it is for the retirement of your still-working children and the college funds of your not-yet-born great-grandchildren).
Would it be better to hold at least 25% equity in our retirement portfolio? As I recall, history suggests that a small allocation to equity is preferable to a 100% fixed income portfolio.
And if you are planning to leave a large amount to your heirs (or to charity), it's better to avoid selling stocks in your taxable account, as this will avoid the capital gain on any stocks you leave to your heirs. It would be reasonable to sell bonds from the taxable account, and let the taxable account become all-stock.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Unless you like playing.spanky123 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:38 pmMy preference is "when you have won the game, why keep on playing?".nisiprius wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:44 pm It's not a question of "rationality." It's a question of whether you have increasing relative risk aversion or decreasing relative risk aversion.
There is no objectively correct amount of risk aversion. It is an input to financial economics equations, not an output.
If you have decreasing relative risk aversion, then as you reach the point where you have more than enough wealth to take care of your needs and your important wants, you say "I can afford to gamble the rest of it, because it doesn't matter if I lose it."
If you have increasing relative risk aversion, then you say "When you've won the game, why keep on playing? I don't need to take risk at the point, and I prefer not to."
If you have constant relative risk aversion, then you say "As best I can judge, losing half my wealth suddenly now would hurt just about as badly as it would have years ago. So nothing has really changed, and I prefer to maintain a constant risk profile."
What to do with the extra money that you do not "need" is a personal choice.
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
Under current tax law. The stretch IRA went away (many Bogleheads who were using it for legacy planning were very disappointed), and this could, too.grabiner wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 2:48 pmIt doesn't matter what is in which account (except for tax purposes). Since you are retired, you can spend money from either your non-retirement account or your retirement account as appropriate, and then rebalance to the correct overall allocation. If you would like to maintain your stock allocation, but the money you want to spend is a stock dividend from the taxable account, you can move money from bond funds to stock funds in your IRA.dkturner wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:43 amWe have been using this approach for several years and feel increasingly comfortable with it. Our retirement portfolio is currently 30/70 and “should” last us for the rest of our lives - barring a situation where both of us would require nursing home care for 5 or more years (we’re in our late 70s). Our non-retirement portfolio, which is slightly larger than our retirement portfolio, is currently 85/15. Combining the two portfolios gives us approximately a 60/40 allocation. It’s entirely possible that, if we hold our total equity exposure to 60%, our retirement portfolio may decline to a 100% fixed income allocation.grabiner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:49 pm It depends on the intended use of the money.
Suppose that you retire with the intention of using your whole portfolio. But after ten years of a bull market, your standard of living has not changed, and your portfolio is now twice what you need to retire. It would be rational at that point to invest half the portfolio with an asset allocation appropriate for your own retirement, and the other half with an asset allocation appropriate for your heirs (which could be all stock if it is for the retirement of your still-working children and the college funds of your not-yet-born great-grandchildren).
Would it be better to hold at least 25% equity in our retirement portfolio? As I recall, history suggests that a small allocation to equity is preferable to a 100% fixed income portfolio.
And if you are planning to leave a large amount to your heirs (or to charity), it's better to avoid selling stocks in your taxable account, as this will avoid the capital gain on any stocks you leave to your heirs. It would be reasonable to sell bonds from the taxable account, and let the taxable account become all-stock.
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Is it actually rational to have a higher stock allocation as you age and become richer?
You should compare 75% stocks with 2X assets, to 50% stocks with X assets because in both cases you have X/2 in bonds.teuton33 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:11 pm Here me out.
Suppose you are retired at age 55 with a NW=X and you determined that a 50/50 allocation met your risk tolerance. A 50% drop in stocks leaves you with 75% of your assets. You we’re all set for a long retirement!
Now what if unexpectedly you received a windfall equal to X making your NW=2X. If you changed your AA to 100% stocks a 50% drop leaves you with X which is more than .75X assuming the old AA and no inheritance.
You might make the argument that your living standards would immediately scale to the doubled NW and therefore the original 50/50 risk tolerance would apply. But what if you left your living standards at 0.5X?
Initially you won’t reap the full benefits of higher living standards of the new NW but if you can hang in there for a long period of time, that other half of stock will grow and grow and leave you a lot better off with significantly higher living standards.
So this had me thinking. Maybe it’s wiser to scale up stock allocations once your NW creeps up?
I did this myself. A few years back at age 34 I received an unexpected windfall that was equal to my NW at the time. I threw it all in the market and went 100%.