U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-20-2019, 01:50 PM
 
72,908 posts, read 72,721,455 times
Reputation: 50416

Advertisements

I like lots of liquidity. 2008 saw banks cut or stop helocs. Losing A job and having all your extra money trapped in the house can be pretty miserable. Having at least bonds to sell can be very comforting
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-20-2019, 07:58 PM
 
Location: The Berk in Denver, CO USA
14,131 posts, read 20,602,556 times
Reputation: 23045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audie Murphy View Post
I will probably transition to 70/30 as nearing retirement.
We are 71/62 ages.
We are 72% stocks.
We have enough in cash and short-term bonds to survive a 6 year downturn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 03:47 AM
 
72,908 posts, read 72,721,455 times
Reputation: 50416
Cash buffers are a mental mirage .. over and over it has been shown they add no additional protection at all over either standard rebalancing between stocks and bonds or even heaven forbid spending down directly from 100% equities.

The reason is the lack of the weight of cash and bonds in up markets grows so much more that spending down in downturns is cushioned .

At the end of the day a 50/50 portfolio has a 95% success rate of getting through all 119 30 year cycles to date .. 100% equities has a 93% success rate ....

Using cash buffers is mentally comforting to our brains but it really is a case of the emperors new clothes.

Pretty much the cycles that caused 100% equities to fail also killed off 50/50 with and without cash buffers as well
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:01 AM
 
7 posts, read 844 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
Do you still have a mortgage? If so, I'd rather be paying off my mortgage than investing in bonds. I'd go 100% stocks in my 401k and pay off my mortgage with what would have been the bond allocation.
interesting.... yes I do have a mortgage. I can double up and it would be paid off when I retire. Good Advice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:49 PM
 
26,336 posts, read 28,769,609 times
Reputation: 25206
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmore4now View Post
Hello guys! I've been pretty aggressively risky with my 401K, because I started rather late (age 43). 98% in stocks with a 13% average rate of return since starting (2009) saving 15% of my income with a 2% match.


At what point should I scale down my risk. I keep hearing a recession is coming and I ideally would like to retire by age 60/62. What percentage of bonds/mutual fund is appropriate if I don't want to take a huge risk anymore or should I even change the allocation.


Thanks for your help.
Just to clarify, a mutual fund can invest in stocks or bonds or a mix of both. So I think you meant to say "what percentage of stocks/bonds".

Personally, I wouldn't be 98% in stocks. I just can't handle the volatility. At this point, I'd say you should at least be 20% in bonds. If you have a stable value fund in your 401, I'd use that as my bond portion. You don't have to move the money all at once, but I'd move at least some of it now...say go from 2% bonds to 5% tomorrow.

Even 20% in bonds is still fairly aggressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:53 PM
 
7 posts, read 844 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Just to clarify, a mutual fund can invest in stocks or bonds or a mix of both. So I think you meant to say "what percentage of stocks/bonds".

Personally, I wouldn't be 98% in stocks. I just can't handle the volatility. At this point, I'd say you should at least be 20% in bonds. If you have a stable value fund in your 401, I'd use that as my bond portion. You don't have to move the money all at once, but I'd move at least some of it now...say go from 2% bonds to 5% tomorrow.

Even 20% in bonds is still fairly aggressive.
You are absolutely correct. Thanks for the clarity!


Great advice!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top