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.
age does not matter, risk tolerance does... someone could be 100% stocks at 70 and be fine, need to know they might run into large drops and might not recover before they need money
someone could be 100% bonds at 20 and be fine, well... fine in terms of wealth protection, just need to know they will spend more time accumulating as a trade off
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,031 posts, read 7,419,985 times
Reputation: 9751
Asset stream allocations to be converted to Income stream in the next few years. Age does matter.
66/69 retired,
~25% SS and pension assumed @3.5% yield to asset
~25% deferred GLWB VA (all equity) and deferred FixedIndex annuities (Actual CV acct)
~25% Rental (asset)
~25% Discretionary, 50%-200% churn, currently ~50% cash. (asset)
No bonds, No foreign, No CDs. pulling SS. Own. LTCi.
I have some idea on future income but exact % is still fluid.
age does not matter, risk tolerance does... someone could be 100% stocks at 70 and be fine, need to know they might run into large drops and might not recover before they need money
someone could be 100% bonds at 20 and be fine, well... fine in terms of wealth protection, just need to know they will spend more time accumulating as a trade off
A lot of people believe that your risk exposure should be no more than is needed to achieve your investment goals. Many people have met their investment goals by the time they are 60'ish and hence a lot of people ratchet down their stocks and increase their bonds. At least that is the common advice given out.
I think it is interesting myself to see how many people actually do decrease their risk exposure (i.e., equity allocation) as they age.
Personally, I went from 100% stocks at age 55 to 65% stocks at age 63, and I am lowering that further to 60% stocks (I am 65). It will likely remain there until I die.
Hopefully you don't have a huge nest egg that you're dealing with there. Beware what can happen when you're taking on that much risk.
Another post where the person cherry picks the worst year in investing in the last 80 years to illustrate a point. Yes, retiring in the year 2000 would have been a big bummer. We all know that. But it is the proverbial black swan event. The question any retiring person needs to answer is: Do you invest for the scenario that is 97% most likely to occur, or do you invest for the absolute worst-case scenario?
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.