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.
You can only do it in real time ……if 5 years in you are not seeing 2-3% real returns a red flag should go up .. by 8 years in a cut in draw would be in order.
Even portfolios like the golden butterfly or the permanent portfolio, or even ray dalios all weather can’t be back tested as these assets did not exist or if they did the data isn’t accurate .
All back testing is good for is determining what math caused the failures….then the assets don’t matter since it can be any assets you own that need that 2-3% real returns to average out the first 15 years for 4% to hold.
That is why I say the past only gives us the math for the time frames that failed to hold .
Now it’s up to us to monitor it going forward.
This stuff is just to over thought …
Retirement investing should be simple .
If I ever re did things I would just go with 80% Wellesley and 20% gold
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-03-2023 at 12:33 PM..
You can only do it in real time ……if 5 years in you are not seeing 2-3% real returns a red flag should go up .. by 8 years in a cut in draw would be in order.
thanks, yeah, this is a good strategy. I bought into all the hype put out by the brokerages and all over bogleheads that International diversification is required. I diversified into these funds over 5 years ago and they have performed horribly up until now.
The so called International outperformance due to them being cheap - well, I am still waiting for it, supposed to be anyday now...
Europe is in crisis - political and in terms of the economy - ravaged by inflation and crazy regulations, the Emerging markets have too much debt, Japan - well, it's been dead for 40 years, I think Canada looked promising but they have a huge debt bubble (housing) that is showing cracks etc. etc. The US still seems like the most solid boat in a turbulent ocean.
thanks, yeah, this is a good strategy. I bought into all the hype put out by the brokerages and all over bogleheads that International diversification is required. I diversified into these funds over 5 years ago and they have performed horribly up until now.
The so called International outperformance due to them being cheap - well, I am still waiting for it, supposed to be anyday now...
Europe is in crisis - political and in terms of the economy - ravaged by inflation and crazy regulations, the Emerging markets have too much debt, Japan - well, it's been dead for 40 years, I think Canada looked promising but they have a huge debt bubble (housing) that is showing cracks etc. etc. The US still seems like the most solid boat in a turbulent ocean.
1937---stocks -- 3.45%---bonds minus 3.07%-- rebalanced 1.23%--inflation 2.82%
.
1966-stocks minus .13%--bonds 1.08%--rebalanced .64%-- inflation 5.38%
This is why we can never use average returns ….the averages over 30 years show you would have done well , yet these were the worst time frames on record.
For 4% to fail you would need less then a 1% real return for 15 years
... I bought into all the hype put out by the brokerages and all over bogleheads that International diversification is required. I diversified into these funds over 5 years ago and they have performed horribly up until now.
The so called International outperformance due to them being cheap - well, I am still waiting for it, supposed to be anyday now...
Foreign equities have broadly been in a bear-market since 2007. Back then, the US dollar was weak - at what turns out to have been its nadir. The dollar rallied as consequence of the Great Recession, and has been strong ever since. This works against foreign holdings for US-based investors.
Currencies aside, most of the rest of the world simply didn't recover as sprightly as did the US, from the 2007-2009 bear market. Europe has been stumbling from one crisis to another. First it was sovereign debt and austerity. Then Greece threatening to crash out of the Euro (remember that?). Then Brexit. Now the energy crisis.
Every year, knowledgeable and sincere professionals keep articulating the need for international diversification. And every year they've been wrong! Vanguard publishes a quarterly newsletter with their forecasts for cumulative annual growth rate over the coming decade. Quarter after quarter, now for at least the past 4-5 years that I've been watching their newsletters, they have predicted foreign equities outstripping domestic ones. And every year, they've been wrong.
This is why I keep reiterating, that these 4% rules or other "rules" about retirement planning, need to consider not just the allocation between stocks-bonds-gold-cash-etc., but the composition within each category. For example, real estate might be a category to consider, via REITs or otherwise. Well, I can say from personal experience that the performance of real estate was (and probably will be) very different between Ohio and California. The same holds for US vs. foreign. And for that matter, S&P 500 vs. small-cap.
The TLDR lesson is forehead-slappingly basic: for the equity portion of one's portfolio, 100% S&P 500, 100% of the time. Everything else, every attempt at "diversification", is only extra volatility AND reduced returns! The most efficient portfolio also happens to be the simplest.
Yet you were able to beat the S&P 500 by 25% in last year's stock picking game. Was that just a one time fluke?
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.