A time to EVALUATE your jitters

[runner540]

Why in the world would you think the possibility of a downturn isn't priced in? Every other post in this thread is hand-wringing about where political changes are taking us. Every investor in the market sees the same news you do. Is it simply because the market isn't performing as poorly as you believe it should?

Long term / structural change impact is harder to price/predict, and for me that's where the disconnect comes in. I don't know if the stock market is the best scorecard for that evaluation, although it's the one we've got.

THIS

[rog7]

Well, I did do something. I posted on this forum against my better judgement, knowing beforehand the sorts of replies I would get. Nothing thoughtful, just a rehash of the investing philosophy prevalent here, which I have practiced myself for many years. But sometimes a little thoughtfulness about the general state of things would be nice, instead of the same old knee-jerk reaction.

The panic you’re displaying is the literal definition of knee-jerk tho

Panic? I made a qualified general observation and threw out some thoughts. To say THAT is a "panic" is absurd! Did I say I had actually done anything? Thanks for proving my point, though!

[rockstar]

The panic you’re displaying is the literal definition of knee-jerk tho

Panic? I made a qualified general observation and threw out some thoughts. To say THAT is a "panic" is absurd! Did I say I had actually done anything? Thanks for proving my point, though!

Worst case is deer in headlights if you just stand there.

There is no easy answer. Everyone is not going to have the same response to the sell off.

[DrPayItBack]

The panic you’re displaying is the literal definition of knee-jerk tho

Panic? I made a qualified general observation and threw out some thoughts. To say THAT is a "panic" is absurd! Did I say I had actually done anything? Thanks for proving my point, though!

I recommend browsing old posts, you’ll see your thoughts a thousand times over from a thousand accounts. Sit back and learn before doing anything rash.

[TheRoundHeadedKid]

You guys are all wrong. The CNN Fear and Greed Index is at 15 out of 100. IT IS TIME TO PANIC...
... panic buy that is. I am emptying out my checking and savings account as much as I can before it is too late. I am even going to dip into my emergency fund.

[EnjoyIt]

I see a few posts in the last couple of weeks pointing towards politics and then relaying some concern. Politics are off topic nor do I care to discuss them. All I am saying is that opinion news pieces on one side tell you things are awesome and the other side telling you the US will crumble. I'm sure reality is somewhere in the middle. All I can tell you is that you are better off shutting off the political news. Stop watching and reading opinion pieces that are designed to generate emotion out of you. And most importantly don't make drastic changes to your portfolio. We invest for decades which is far longer than a 4 year term.

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. It's prudent with respect to one's portfolio sure, but our lives do not begin and end with our portfolio balances. There are more important things in life, and I don't consider them best served by burying my head in the sand. Particularly when "political news" starts intersecting with and directly impacting *my* choices for the future.

This is a personal finance forum where politics are off topic. Despite that, reading about pundit opinion pieces is not news. They are opinion pieces designed to get people rilled up and keep watching/coming back. Unfortunately sometimes it is hard to tell the two apart which is by design.

Nothing wrong with actually knowing about current events and real news.

[EnjoyIt]

If political events are making you nervous about your portfolio then maybe you had the wrong portfolio to begin with.

I dunno. I just retired and am not panicking about finances - because what could I do other than hold my best guess at an appropriate asset allocation, including a couple of years worth of cash. But I’m sure as heck nervous about retiring at what may turn out to be a very poor time.

Anytime can be a poor time to retire. We need to succumb to the truth that we can’t predict the future and therefore should have a portfolio in retirement (and pre-retirement) that can tolerate “poor time.”

[EnjoyIt]

This does not seem like just a "normal market correction" - if there actually is such thing. It seems more like a reordering of our economy, if not the world's economy, in addition to a market correction. If so how does an investor react? Normally I would just "stay the course", but this time I am not so sure that is prudent. But what one does instead, I have no idea. Increase ex-US investing and hold more cash? Or just continue to stay the course?

“This time is different” is usually not different.

Markets go down by 10-15% all the time and they are imperceivable on a timescale that includes decades.

[EnjoyIt]

Don't just stand there: do nothing.

Well, I did do something. I posted on this forum against my better judgement, knowing beforehand the sorts of replies I would get. Nothing thoughtful, just a rehash of the investing philosophy prevalent here, which I have practiced myself for many years. But sometimes a little thoughtfulness about the general state of things would be nice, instead of the same old knee-jerk reaction.

General thoughtfulness:

I think we are not very good at making predictions. I think we as humans are too near sited when it comes to economics. The general state is what it is and I think more money has been lost trying to protect oneself as opposed to just keeping your asset allocation. The same knee jerk response has made many of us who followed the doing nothing approach very wealthy and we are trying to share that thoughtfulness with you.

[jbowman]

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. It's prudent with respect to one's portfolio sure, but our lives do not begin and end with our portfolio balances. There are more important things in life, and I don't consider them best served by burying my head in the sand. Particularly when "political news" starts intersecting with and directly impacting *my* choices for the future.

This is a personal finance forum where politics are off topic. Despite that, reading about pundit opinion pieces is not news. They are opinion pieces designed to get people rilled up and keep watching/coming back. Unfortunately sometimes it is hard to tell the two apart which is by design.

Nothing wrong with actually knowing about current events and real news.

I agree with your last sentence, but I don’t know how to square it with your original advice. You can’t both know about current events and shut out the news.

The only way I can see to make that not a logical contradiction is by assuming that everyone who voiced concerns was only concerned because of “opinion” pieces and not “real” news. And that just comes off rather patronizing.

[JSPECO9]

So when evaluating jitters, when does one take action? Stay the course, of course, but if someone decides they are too aggressive, surely they can’t change asset allocation while stocks are down right? Asking for a friend…

[UNSpacy]

Asset allocation should be determined based on need, willingness and ability to take risk. These factors can change over time due to one's personal circumstances changing (getting closer to retirement, reduced human capital etc) but do not include market movements.

Having said that, if one finds that one is constantly jittery even over 2% drops (which happen frequently), this might be indicative of the current asset allocation not properly reflecting willingness to take risk. In this case, one should follow the above analysis and consider if one needs to shift to a more conservative allocation - in this case, the change in allocation would be indefinite, subject only to further personal changes in need, willingness and ability to take risk.

[rkhusky]

So when evaluating jitters, when does one take action? Stay the course, of course, but if someone decides they are too aggressive, surely they can’t change asset allocation while stocks are down right? Asking for a friend…

Yes they can and should. What’s happened in the past is water under the bridge (it’s a cognitive bias called anchoring that often keeps us in inappropriate allocations and also the source of gamblers wanting to get back to even).

If everything was in cash right now, what would they choose? Then turn the requisite investment into cash and buy what you want. Best to make the change in tax advantaged unless you can sell at a loss in taxable.

[chazas]

I dunno. I just retired and am not panicking about finances - because what could I do other than hold my best guess at an appropriate asset allocation, including a couple of years worth of cash. But I’m sure as heck nervous about retiring at what may turn out to be a very poor time.

Anytime can be a poor time to retire. We need to succumb to the truth that we can’t predict the future and therefore should have a portfolio in retirement (and pre-retirement) that can tolerate “poor times.”

As I do, though none of us really knows how much and bad of a “poor time” they’ll ultimately have to endure or whether their preparations were sufficient. My point is that to say people shouldn’t be nervous when things are clearly going sideways is not always helpful, we’re going to be nervous no matter how much we’ve prepared. To me the better answer is, you’ve done the best you can, there’s nothing else you can do.

[rossington]

To me the better answer is, you’ve done the best you can, there’s nothing else you can do.

Sure there is: To reduce drawing down the portfolio as you had planned you can cut spending to the point of "drastically" if you need to in order to pay ALL of your bills/obligations only.

[Mainlandjones]

I’ve been sticking to my AA plan, slowly and steadily increasing my fixed % year to year. With the recent stock market run up, most of my new contributions have been going to fixed/bonds for a couple years… which hasn’t felt great as stocks continued to rise. Now with stocks heading south (my gut tells me they could go far south)… I have the luxury of preparing a plan to rebalance into stocks instead of fretting over whether to sell. It’s a great position to be in and I’m grateful to Bogleheads for helping me develop a good AA plan and stick to it.

[J295]

Spy up 108% past 5 years
Spy up 9.6% past year.
I believe these are accurate as of today (ie after recent slide)

Flying from 30,000 feet helps.

[valleyrock]

I remind myself of the data in Malkiel's book, showing the very few days over the decades that the market has gone up a lot. Missing them is costly

[sid hartha]

My plan was to get more conservative as I got older - I re-evaluated my risk (I was 100% equities) based on my age in late Jan and moved about 30% of my equities to MM (I don't like bonds) at 4.2%. I'm now feeling like I should think about moving it back at least temporarily (this is probably going to be a good opportunity) thoughts?

[investuntilimrich]

If you felt the need to move 30% out of the market, I'm not sure moving it back in makes sense. How long will it be before you decide to pull it back out again? Presumably if you sold out of a taxable account you've also created a tax issue now by having gains.

[valleyrock]

My plan was to get more conservative as I got older - I re-evaluated my risk (I was 100% equities) based on my age in late Jan and moved about 30% of my equities to MM (I don't like bonds) at 4.2%. I'm now feeling like I should think about moving it back at least temporarily (this is probably going to be a good opportunity) thoughts?

Sounds like market timing. Where has this been discussed before,?

[McDougal]

My plan was to get more conservative as I got older - I re-evaluated my risk (I was 100% equities) based on my age in late Jan and moved about 30% of my equities to MM (I don't like bonds) at 4.2%. I'm now feeling like I should think about moving it back at least temporarily (this is probably going to be a good opportunity) thoughts?

I think if you can correctly time the market it will be a great idea.

[sid hartha]

If you felt the need to move 30% out of the market, I'm not sure moving it back in makes sense. How long will it be before you decide to pull it back out again? Presumably if you sold out of a taxable account you've also created a tax issue now by having gains.

10% gain. The vast majority was not taxable in order to avoid taxes. I guess I'll just live with the sellers remorse in the short term in order to be more comfortable with my AA in the longer term. Thanks for helping me think this through everyone.

[snic]

Don't just stand there: do nothing.

Well, I did do something. I posted on this forum against my better judgement, knowing beforehand the sorts of replies I would get. Nothing thoughtful, just a rehash of the investing philosophy prevalent here, which I have practiced myself for many years. But sometimes a little thoughtfulness about the general state of things would be nice, instead of the same old knee-jerk reaction.

OK, here's hopefully something that explains the "stay the course, do nothing" advice that you're describing as "knee-jerk". There is a reason to believe that even if the world order as we know it is about to change enormously... in the long run, stocks will still go up. I posted this graph in another thread:



A lot has changed in the world order in the last 150 years. Yet what has happened to stocks? They go up and up and up, interrupted by panics, sell-offs, downturns, whatever. But they go up. If your timeframe is long enough, and you have sufficient funds in safer investments (bonds) to cover a few years of expenses, everything will be fine if you just leave your asset allocation as it is and do nothing.

The news these days is frightening to many. But put today's news in the context of WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1980s/90s, and on and on and on. Even if the current crisis, if it is one, is on the level of even the worst of those events for our country, the evidence says that, as in the past, the long-term buy-and-hold well-diversified stock investor will make out OK. Not necessarily great (see 1930-1950), but OK.

[snic]

If you felt the need to move 30% out of the market, I'm not sure moving it back in makes sense. How long will it be before you decide to pull it back out again? Presumably if you sold out of a taxable account you've also created a tax issue now by having gains.

10% gain. The vast majority was not taxable in order to avoid taxes. I guess I'll just live with the sellers remorse in the short term in order to be more comfortable with my AA in the longer term. Thanks for helping me think this through everyone.

If you're "lucky", the stock market will continue to plummet and you will be underweighted in stocks. So, good excuse to buy!

Now, I'm being partially facetious, even though many are doing just that (using maintaining asset allocation as an excuse to "buy the dip"). I'm more in favor of setting up a rebalancing policy and following it, which prevents you from doing things when you should be standing there. In my case, I've decided on semiannual rebalancing, so won't sell bonds to buy stocks until later this year, assuming stocks are still down. (But I do tweak 401K contributions to match whatever we're underweighted in - those amounts are small.)

[valleyrock]

Well, I did do something. I posted on this forum against my better judgement, knowing beforehand the sorts of replies I would get. Nothing thoughtful, just a rehash of the investing philosophy prevalent here, which I have practiced myself for many years. But sometimes a little thoughtfulness about the general state of things would be nice, instead of the same old knee-jerk reaction.

OK, here's hopefully something that explains the "stay the course, do nothing" advice that you're describing as "knee-jerk". There is a reason to believe that even if the world order as we know it is about to change enormously... in the long run, stocks will still go up. I posted this graph in another thread:



A lot has changed in the world order in the last 150 years. Yet what has happened to stocks? They go up and up and up, interrupted by panics, sell-offs, downturns, whatever. But they go up. If your timeframe is long enough, and you have sufficient funds in safer investments (bonds) to cover a few years of expenses, everything will be fine if you just leave your asset allocation as it is and do nothing.

The news these days is frightening to many. But put today's news in the context of WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1980s/90s, and on and on and on. Even if the current crisis, if it is one, is on the level of even the worst of those events for our country, the evidence says that, as in the past, the long-term buy-and-hold well-diversified stock investor will make out OK. Not necessarily great (see 1930-1950), but OK.

I'd like to see this plot showing percentage changes on the y-axis, perhaps for each decade or something. Semi-log plots are good ways to linearize data (and log-log plots are even better at it), but they make large changes appear smaller to the eye than they do without using the logarithm on the y-axis.

[Target2019]

The Aug 7, 2011 dip is barely noticeable on a phone screen today. I was maxing out retirement accounts then.

[J295]

If you felt the need to move 30% out of the market, I'm not sure moving it back in makes sense. How long will it be before you decide to pull it back out again? Presumably if you sold out of a taxable account you've also created a tax issue now by having gains.

10% gain. The vast majority was not taxable in order to avoid taxes. I guess I'll just live with the sellers remorse in the short term in order to be more comfortable with my AA in the longer term. Thanks for helping me think this through everyone.

This sounds similar to where we landed at early retirement in upon early retirement in 2013, shifting from 100% equities to 60% and then gliding down to 50%. Unquestionably there was the possibility, in fact the likelihood, that the allocation would yield less over the balance of our lives than would 100% equities. However, we had enough, so we were comfortable with this choice. Sticking to it with an IPS essentially eliminated the investing gremlin of greed (the other one, of course is fear, which is more prevalent at the present moment for many).

[snic]

OK, here's hopefully something that explains the "stay the course, do nothing" advice that you're describing as "knee-jerk". There is a reason to believe that even if the world order as we know it is about to change enormously... in the long run, stocks will still go up. I posted this graph in another thread:



A lot has changed in the world order in the last 150 years. Yet what has happened to stocks? They go up and up and up, interrupted by panics, sell-offs, downturns, whatever. But they go up. If your timeframe is long enough, and you have sufficient funds in safer investments (bonds) to cover a few years of expenses, everything will be fine if you just leave your asset allocation as it is and do nothing.

The news these days is frightening to many. But put today's news in the context of WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1980s/90s, and on and on and on. Even if the current crisis, if it is one, is on the level of even the worst of those events for our country, the evidence says that, as in the past, the long-term buy-and-hold well-diversified stock investor will make out OK. Not necessarily great (see 1930-1950), but OK.

I'd like to see this plot showing percentage changes on the y-axis, perhaps for each decade or something. Semi-log plots are good ways to linearize data (and log-log plots are even better at it), but they make large changes appear smaller to the eye than they do without using the logarithm on the y-axis.

It helps to remember that between each pair of major ticks on the Y axis, there is a 1,000% (10-fold) change. A change of that magnitude takes roughly 20 to 30 years - on the short end of that if you start in the middle of a downturn and figure out how long it takes to get to 10x that value; on the long end if you start just before the dip.

20 to 30 years is not even a full lifetime of investing, if you start young and save diligently. On that timeframe, with constant investments, you won't get a 1000% return on every dollar you put in, but you get more than you put in.

[rockstar]

My plan was to get more conservative as I got older - I re-evaluated my risk (I was 100% equities) based on my age in late Jan and moved about 30% of my equities to MM (I don't like bonds) at 4.2%. I'm now feeling like I should think about moving it back at least temporarily (this is probably going to be a good opportunity) thoughts?

Your rationale for moving out of the market is that you got older. You’re older than back in January. Now, you want to move back in because?

This boils down to simply market timing.

What if the market drops after you get back in?

[sid hartha]

My plan was to get more conservative as I got older - I re-evaluated my risk (I was 100% equities) based on my age in late Jan and moved about 30% of my equities to MM (I don't like bonds) at 4.2%. I'm now feeling like I should think about moving it back at least temporarily (this is probably going to be a good opportunity) thoughts?

Your rationale for moving out of the market is that you got older. You’re older than back in January. Now, you want to move back in because?

This boils down to simply market timing.

What if the market drops after you get back in?

Yes, I've been a set it and forget it person for a while but I hit a major birthday milestone and just took that opportunity to re-evaluate my whole risk profile etc. I did decide 100% equities was no longer appropriate and decided on 70%. Thanks everyone for the advice I will just leave things alone. But to answer your question I would just wait until I gain 10% and then start the longer term AA.

[cshell2]

But to answer your question I would just wait until I gain 10% and then start the longer term AA.

Would you be ok if that didn't happen for a decade?

[mikejuss]

Thanks everyone for the advice I will just leave things alone.

This could be the mantra for this entire message board.

[sid hartha]

But to answer your question I would just wait until I gain 10% and then start the longer term AA.

Would you be ok if that didn't happen for a decade?

No, and that was the rationale for doing it in the first place. A lost decade at my age would not be good. I put what I thought I can't afford to loose in cash at 4%. So I really needed for peace of mind to be not 100% equities. Thanks everyone for confirming my original decision correct and I should just stay the course. It's not really wise to be greedy. But it is human nature.

[Fallible]

Your rationale for moving out of the market is that you got older. You’re older than back in January. Now, you want to move back in because?

This boils down to simply market timing.

What if the market drops after you get back in?

Yes, I've been a set it and forget it person for a while but I hit a major birthday milestone and just took that opportunity to re-evaluate my whole risk profile etc. I did decide 100% equities was no longer appropriate and decided on 70%. Thanks everyone for the advice I will just leave things alone. But to answer your question I would just wait until I gain 10% and then start the longer term AA.

For some helpful advice on age and investing, there is Jane Bryant Quinn's retirement guide, How to Make Your Money Last, with sections on "Should Your Asset Allocation Change As the Years Go By?" and "How Much Risk Can You Afford?"

[EnjoyIt]

This is a personal finance forum where politics are off topic. Despite that, reading about pundit opinion pieces is not news. They are opinion pieces designed to get people rilled up and keep watching/coming back. Unfortunately sometimes it is hard to tell the two apart which is by design.

Nothing wrong with actually knowing about current events and real news.

I agree with your last sentence, but I don’t know how to square it with your original advice. You can’t both know about current events and shut out the news.

The only way I can see to make that not a logical contradiction is by assuming that everyone who voiced concerns was only concerned because of “opinion” pieces and not “real” news. And that just comes off rather patronizing.

Let me put it a little differently. About half of the population agrees with what is going on and another half who don't. Both halves consist of smart educated people who believe they have a good understanding of the world around them. I am rhetorically asking, who is right and who is wrong?

Unfortunately much of the news we see about all this has an opinion spin to it, making it very difficult to tease out the reality. But, I believe it is there. All I can say is that current events have been scaring people for decades. But, at the end, the economy moves on and over long term has been and will be doing just fine.

[EnjoyIt]

Anytime can be a poor time to retire. We need to succumb to the truth that we can’t predict the future and therefore should have a portfolio in retirement (and pre-retirement) that can tolerate “poor times.”

As I do, though none of us really knows how much and bad of a “poor time” they’ll ultimately have to endure or whether their preparations were sufficient. My point is that to say people shouldn’t be nervous when things are clearly going sideways is not always helpful, we’re going to be nervous no matter how much we’ve prepared. To me the better answer is, you’ve done the best you can, there’s nothing else you can do.

"...you’ve done the best you can, there’s nothing else you can do." I love it.

I agree, nothing wrong in being nervous. Doing something about one's nervousness is the problem.

[Iorek]

Well, I did do something. I posted on this forum against my better judgement, knowing beforehand the sorts of replies I would get. Nothing thoughtful, just a rehash of the investing philosophy prevalent here, which I have practiced myself for many years. But sometimes a little thoughtfulness about the general state of things would be nice, instead of the same old knee-jerk reaction.

OK, here's hopefully something that explains the "stay the course, do nothing" advice that you're describing as "knee-jerk". There is a reason to believe that even if the world order as we know it is about to change enormously... in the long run, stocks will still go up. I posted this graph in another thread:



A lot has changed in the world order in the last 150 years. Yet what has happened to stocks? They go up and up and up, interrupted by panics, sell-offs, downturns, whatever. But they go up. If your timeframe is long enough, and you have sufficient funds in safer investments (bonds) to cover a few years of expenses, everything will be fine if you just leave your asset allocation as it is and do nothing.

The news these days is frightening to many. But put today's news in the context of WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1980s/90s, and on and on and on. Even if the current crisis, if it is one, is on the level of even the worst of those events for our country, the evidence says that, as in the past, the long-term buy-and-hold well-diversified stock investor will make out OK. Not necessarily great (see 1930-1950), but OK.

I’m not planning on having a 150 year retirement, thank you very much

[LoveTheBogle]

OK, here's hopefully something that explains the "stay the course, do nothing" advice that you're describing as "knee-jerk". There is a reason to believe that even if the world order as we know it is about to change enormously... in the long run, stocks will still go up. I posted this graph in another thread:



A lot has changed in the world order in the last 150 years. Yet what has happened to stocks? They go up and up and up, interrupted by panics, sell-offs, downturns, whatever. But they go up. If your timeframe is long enough, and you have sufficient funds in safer investments (bonds) to cover a few years of expenses, everything will be fine if you just leave your asset allocation as it is and do nothing.

The news these days is frightening to many. But put today's news in the context of WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1980s/90s, and on and on and on. Even if the current crisis, if it is one, is on the level of even the worst of those events for our country, the evidence says that, as in the past, the long-term buy-and-hold well-diversified stock investor will make out OK. Not necessarily great (see 1930-1950), but OK.

I’m not planning on having a 150 year retirement, thank you very much

How did you interpret that you need 150 years? What is your alternative?

[incognito_man]

This does not seem like just a "normal market correction" - if there actually is such thing. It seems more like a reordering of our economy, if not the world's economy, in addition to a market correction. If so how does an investor react? Normally I would just "stay the course", but this time I am not so sure that is prudent. But what one does instead, I have no idea. Increase ex-US investing and hold more cash? Or just continue to stay the course?

Those are exactly the moves I made back in February.

[Fireishere]

Do you still rebalance?

yep

If the stocks keeps falling and you should rebalance do you keep any floor for how many years you do have in bonds?

[EnjoyIt]

yep

If the stocks keeps falling and you should rebalance do you keep any floor for how many years you do have in bonds?

It takes some serious intestinal fortitude to rebalance in a down market. I can tell you from experience it isn't easy, but has rewarded me immensely in the long run.

I know I did not answer your question and that is because it is very dependent on one's risk tolerance. I personally would have a hard time going below 7 years of bare bones expenses. About 50-60% of our expenses are necessary such as health care, food, and some minor comforts. The rest is discretionary and we can give it up pretty easily for a few years. When I say 7 years, I am talking about the necessary expenses plus some minor comforts.

[chazas]

To me the better answer is, you’ve done the best you can, there’s nothing else you can do.

Sure there is: To reduce drawing down the portfolio as you had planned you can cut spending to the point of "drastically" if you need to in order to pay ALL of your bills/obligations only.

You’re missing the point, which was centered around whether one should expect not to be nervous as markets decline.

[angelescrest]

Evaluate your jitters? I think the problem is in evaluating your portfolio during a downturn. Stop evaluating—and go do something you enjoy doing that keeps your mind off of the nest egg.

[sid hartha]

10% gain. The vast majority was not taxable in order to avoid taxes. I guess I'll just live with the sellers remorse in the short term in order to be more comfortable with my AA in the longer term. Thanks for helping me think this through everyone.

This sounds similar to where we landed at early retirement in upon early retirement in 2013, shifting from 100% equities to 60% and then gliding down to 50%. Unquestionably there was the possibility, in fact the likelihood, that the allocation would yield less over the balance of our lives than would 100% equities. However, we had enough, so we were comfortable with this choice. Sticking to it with an IPS essentially eliminated the investing gremlin of greed (the other one, of course is fear, which is more prevalent at the present moment for many).

Thanks for the advice and glad things worked out for you.

[TwstdSista]

The only "jitters" I have is the itch to buy more! Instead I made a $100 contribution to my SEP IRA.

[Lawrence of Suburbia]

S&P 500 up 2% today. The sun is up, the sky is blue. My coffee tastes great. Going for a walk in a little while. Birdsong is audible. Life is good.

[lostdog]

yep

If the stocks keeps falling and you should rebalance do you keep any floor for how many years you do have in bonds?

No. I figure if it will get really low, by that time we'll have worse problems going on.

[dvvader]

S&P 500 up 2% today. The sun is up, the sky is blue. My coffee tastes great. Going for a walk in a little while. Birdsong is audible. Life is good.

[Richard1580]

I find the reaction some people have to market "corrections" to be amusing.

The sky is not falling. This time is NOT different.

It reminds me of my cats' reaction each time the garage door opens. They are convinced that it means the ladies with the cat-frightening device have arrived. "The end of the world is nigh!" No matter that this has been going on as long as they have been alive and they are still with us, unharmed. I guarantee, the next time the garage door opens they will scurry into their hidey holes convinced the apocalypse is upon them.

The market moves in both directions. Get used to it. Have some catnip, if that will help.