Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

New Report: All Stock Portfolio Beats Stock and Bond Mix Over Time (Originally From Bloomberg)

edited December 2023 in Other Investing
“It’s a deeply out-of-consensus view certain to rankle the Wall Street establishment. A group of academics set out to test time-honored investing advice that says a diversified portfolio of bonds and stocks is the best way to save for the future.”

Huh? I’m surprised it took a new study to reach this conclusion. However, I think the report is at least thought provoking. Also mentioned is the importance of investors “sticking with” an all stock portfolio during tough times. Otherwise, the report’s findings likely wouldn’t hold water.

The question is: ”What would you do? Why?”

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/you-re-better-off-going-all-in-on-stocks-than-bonds--new-research-finds-75713.html
«1

Comments

  • beebee
    edited December 2023
    We humans struggle with the “buy & hold” investing adage.

    JP Morgan confirms your researcher’s finding:
    Finally, we continue to believe stocks are the drivers of long-term capital appreciation. Bonds certainly have a greater role to play in portfolios today, but we are also reminded that stocks have outperformed bonds 85% of the time on a rolling 10-year basis since 1950.
    I do believe holding a small percentage of less volatility (cash, bonds) during the withdrawal phase helps a retiree “withdrawal cash/bonds and hold a higher percentage of equities” in retirement.

    Sited article:
    https://jpmorgan.com/insights/outlook/market-outlook/five-considerations-for-investors-in-2024
  • Article focuses on the accumulation phase when periodic contributions can overcome lots of market adversity. It isn't surprising that the overall result is good as the US markets have trended up since inception (not true universally).

    But things are different during decumulation - even for the US markets. All-stock (or all-bond) portfolios are more likely to run out of money than hybrids. This has been demonstrated repeatedly.
  • @yogibearbull

    That's what concerns me for a good friend who is 50 years old (married) and has a retirement portfolio of a million already. He hopes to retire at 52 and is planning to be 100% invested in the SP500 until death. He scoffs at the 4% rule as being far too conservative, though I don't know what his starting withdrawal rate plan is. He has floated the idea of meeting with a financial planner to vet his plan.

    Here is a link for an article from M* columnist John Reckenthaler on the viability of an all-stock portfolio and high real withdrawal rate in retirement.

    https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/can-you-safely-spend-more-early-retirement

  • edited December 2023
    +1 Thank you @Roy / Excellent link.

    On occasion I listened to Ramsey 20+ years ago when he was on late night AM. Sounded much more rational than. From that included clip, it sounds like he’s been attending the ”Rush Limbaugh School of Public Address”. Make what you will of his math.

    FWIW - About 15 years ago (possibly more) there was a thread (maybe on F/A?) discussing a published theory that retirees should start out conservatively positioned and become more aggressive as they age. Sounded ridiculous to me at the time. But 25+ years into retirement I can at least understand the logic. Early on you’re most concerned about outliving your assets. If you’re fortunate enough, later on that becomes a less important concern and you might be inclined to put a little more risk “on the table” in pursuit of greater reward.

    As always: No 1 size fits all.
  • edited December 2023
    I think I have mentioned in some thread at MFO. Dave Ramsey said recently that withdrawing 8% with COLA was OK with all-stock portfolios and that everyone recommending only 4-5% with COLA from hybrids was a fool.

    Well, tables were turned soon on Ramsey as many on Twitter showed that with Ramsey's advice, anyone who started in 01/2000 would have already run out of money by now, forget about 30-40 years. So, fool was Ramsey. He didn't offer a rebuttal.

    Decumulation is very different and less forgiving than accumulation.
  • beebee
    edited December 2023
    @Roy,
    You will never run out of money (technically) if you withdraw a percentage of your balance each year.

    It’s the dollar amount and the purchasing power of those dollars over time that will keep you in or out of the cat food aisle.

    I like running PV with a starting date of 2000 (tech bubble) and see how your friend’s portfolio would have fared with his 8% WD over the last 22 years.

    Look for yearly increases in dollar amount of these yearly 8% WDs in PV one an indicator as well as a growing dollar amount of the remaining portfolio.
  • @yogibb said,
    Well, tables were turned soon on Ramsey as many on Twitter showed that with Ramsey's advice, anyone who started in 01/2000 would have already run out of money by now, forget about 30-40 years. So, fool was Ramsey. He didn't offer a rebuttal.

    Decumulation is very different and less forgiving than accumulation.
    I concur. Time is NOT on your side in retirement for recovery. Math is against you t that point.

    December article from our MFO contributor, @Lynn Bolin shares his retirement asset allocation, and his reasoning (and metrics).
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/2023/12/searching-for-inflection-points/
  • beebee
    edited December 2023
    On further review of @Roy article, it appears Reckenthaler uses the initial 8 % WD factor to establish all future WDs based on the initial dollar amount ($500k x 8%) or $40k. Instead, I would suggest the retiree applies the 8% WD rate on each year’s ending balance. This one change would keep you from running out of money and would adjust WD amounts based on market conditions...more in up years and less in down years.

    This is how RMDs are calculated (age specific actuarial WD rate x each year’s portfolio’s ending balance).

    Couldn’t we do the same? This would account for life expectancy (actuarial charts) and allow the retiree to increase their WD rate as they aged (if necessary).

    How many retirees take more than their RMDs amounts after factoring in other income sources such as SS, pension, part time work, rental income?

    It’s not unusual for retirees to be working in their 60’s, maximizing IRA contributions, delaying SS, and delaying IRA WDs. This may allow that retiree to hold a higher percentage of equities and ultimately consider taking a higher WD rate.
  • @hank

    I stumbled across the idea that you start retirement with a low equity allocation and increase it as you age ten or so years ago, although I forgot the source. It avoids loosing 45% of your assets in a massive bear market just as you retire.

    Of course this requires you to have enough income from SS a pension etc to survive early years without being forced to withdraw capital to live on.

    I felt like a genius when I retired equity light in 2019, as the Covid Bear market hit. The problem now is to decide how soon and how much to increase my equity exposure. I have a much better feeling for our expenses and SS income now than I did in 2019, but domestic equities seem rather overpriced now.

    A lot of people unfortunately have to take out a substantial % of their retirement account to survive.
  • edited December 2023
    ”I stumbled across the idea that you start retirement with a low equity allocation and increase it as you age ten or so years ago, although I forgot the source.”

    @sma3 - I looked for that same idea online and couldn’t find it either. I’ll hasten to add, however, that from my vantage point it’s not quite as clear-cut or simple as it might sound, So much depends on the price at which one buys in - as much as I profess to loath market timing.

    You are correct that those of us with pensions + SS may be able to assume more investment risk. While my 48% equity allocation (per Fido’s Analysis tool) is probably the highest ever during the retirement years (with the exception of late ‘08 / early ‘09), it is being accomplished with the assistance of a 30% allocation to L/S & hedged equity types of funds having relatively high ERs. That’s less than ideal, but does afford a respectful allocation to equities per age. Am always looking for ways to cut down expenses w/o ramping up the risk profile. A 10% allocation to individual stocks is part of the solution, but by no means the entire answer.

    Thanks @bee for your earlier submissions to the thread,
  • @sma, Wade Pfau has done several recent studies on retirement withdrawals. Basically, he has looked at various ways to modify/improve Bengen's 4% w/COLA Rule. He was a Professor at the American College of Financial Services, so he is not pushing any one idea, but has analyzed various possible variations.
    https://risaprofile.com/about-us/
    https://retirementresearcher.com/about/wade-pfau-bio/
    https://www.amazon.com/Retirement-Planning-Guidebook-Navigating-Important/dp/194564009X

    One of the ideas he has mentioned is "rising equity glide-path" (not sure who first came up with the idea). So, one starts with lower equity exposure around retirement to account for high SOR risks, and then increases equity exposure gradually as retirement progresses. These increases are not dramatic.

    "What’s the solution?

    There are four ways to manage the sequence-of-return risk. One, spend conservatively. Two, spend flexibly. If you can reduce your spending after a market downturn, that can manage sequence-of-return risk because you don’t have to sell as many shares to meet the spending need. A third option is to be strategic about volatility in your portfolio, even using the idea of a rising equity glide path. The fourth option is using buffer assets like cash, a reverse mortgage or whole life policy with cash value.

    What is a rising equity glide path?

    Start with a lower stock allocation at the beginning of retirement, and then work your way up. Later in retirement, market volatility doesn’t have as much impact on the sustainability of your spending path, and you can adjust by having a higher stock allocation later on. "

    Subscription Link https://www.barrons.com/articles/retirement-4-percent-rule-downturn-strategy-51642806039
  • edited December 2023
    After I read many of these papers, I liked the idea of FLEXIBILITY which is what I have been practicing during the accumulation phase.
    It also depends on how big is your portfolio.
    - If you don't have enough, you don't have a choice but to own a high % of stocks for longevity.
    - If you have WTF portfolio=enough, you can be at 20/80 to 80/20
    - The biggest problem is in the middle. How to split between stock to bonds? 35-65% in stocks/bonds makes sense. Another good idea is "a rising equity glide path". You start with 35-40% in stocks and increase by 1% until you get to your sleep-well %.
    In my case: since 2018=retirement, I have used at least 90% bonds + flexibility=trading.
  • @FD1000 if one starts with 35%-40% stocks, how often/when do you add 1% until you reach your comfort level?
  • - If you have WTF portfolio=enough, you can be at 20/80 to 80/20
    What is a "What The F--k" portfolio? All caution to the wind?
  • I never understand the "having enough and it doesn't matter" statement.
    If I have $10M, it still matters whether I withdraw 3% or 5%.
    Just sayin..
  • I'm interpreting FD's "What The F--k" portfolio" comment to mean that conceptually he's ignoring what the portfolio is composed of as long as the income generated satisfies the needs of a particular investor.

    My wife and I don't have anything close to $10m, but our income is perfectly satisfactory for our needs. We surely "have enough".

    If we did have $10m we could surely withdraw a lot more, but it wouldn't really matter, because we don't really need that extra amount.

    Just sayin...
  • edited December 2023
    Add 1% annually. Usually, by age 75 you can start taking more risk.
    WTF portfolio is when someone needs under 3% (2.5% is better) withdrawal annually from their portfolio. In that case they can have 20/80 to 80/20 mix of stock/bonds.
    The portfolio size is usually in the millions. I'm talking about someone that is living well and spends money they can afford.
    Of course, someone who has a pension+ SS that cover all the expenses, can have a smaller portfolio.
    Let's see how many posters will try to find a word or something else I didn't mean and twist the above.
    On the other hand, there are people who won many millions in the lottery and spend it all.
    Then you have the FIRE (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-independence-retire-early-fire.asp)
    movement. That isn't appealing to m either.
  • edited December 2023
    MikeM said:

    What is a "What The F--k" portfolio? All caution to the wind?

    I’ve researched it Mike. It’s military lingo: ”Whiskey Tango Foxtrot”

    Portfolio risk late in retirement? It’s a personal matter, I think, based more on temperament than anything else. If you still don’t have “enough” to survive on for the rest of your life when you reach 75 - 85 may God help you. It’s unlikely any particular allocation model is going to make much difference at that point. WTF.

    Notwithstanding the above, the referenced study (in the OP) doesn’t deal specifically with appropriate equity / risk exposure per age. It simply asserts that an all stock portfolio (50% domestic / 50% foreign) will outperform a “balanced” (60/40) portfolio over just about any relevant time span.
  • "Let's see how many posters will try to find a word or something else I didn't mean and twist the above."

    @FD1000: If you post something that is obscurely phrased then we have little choice but to speculate on your intended meaning.

    If you consider that to be "twisting" that's unfortunate. The remedy is to write more clearly, so that even we unsophisticated common folk can appreciate your brilliant insight and commentary.

  • edited December 2023
    Zulu





  • edited December 2023
    GMT / UTC ??
  • Golf Mike Tango/Uniform Tango Charlie

    Had to learn it to get a single sideband license. Deleted a long boring post about it.:)
  • edited December 2023
    hank
    Portfolio risk late in retirement? It’s a personal matter, I think, based more on temperament than anything else. If you still don’t have “enough” to survive on for the rest of your life when you reach 75 - 85 may God help you
    Unfortunately, most/many retirees are in that situation.
  • edited December 2023
    Old_Joe said:

    "Let's see how many posters will try to find a word or something else I didn't mean and twist the above."

    @FD1000: If you post something that is obscurely phrased then we have little choice but to speculate on your intended meaning.

    If you consider that to be "twisting" that's unfortunate. The remedy is to write more clearly, so that even we unsophisticated common folk can appreciate your brilliant insight and commentary.

    Or, like "baby tomato" in Pulp Fiction, we little ones all just need to "Ketchup"!



    Uma and John at their cinematic darkest.
    Long live FFF!
    Fox Force Five, that is!
  • a comment and a question....

    Not sure if it was Pfau who stated this...but there's a concept that the riskiest time for investors are 5 to 7 years prior to retirement and 5 to 7 years after retirement...the ole' sequence of return risk...so thinking is to be extremely "safe" positioned in your portfolio during those times...as you can really get dinged with your funds at the worst possible time with no time for portfolio to recover

    Also, curious if any of the class annuitized any of their portfolio going into retirement? and please also indicate if you are comfortable doing so if you have a gov't or other pension (reason being is that I consider a govt pension a better than equivalent of an annuity) I also do believe that Pfau has mentioned annuitizing part of one's portfolio going into retirement.

    btw..never saw the movie Pulp F...only have seen snippets and always had no idea what if was about or what was going on, LOL!

    Best Regards,

    Baseball Fan
  • edited December 2023
    Prudential offers this PDF on The Red Zone: https://www.prudential.com/media/system/cda/rrz/downloads/redzone_brochure.pdf

    Many refer to The (Investor) Red Zone as the 5 years prior to retirement. Others, like me, refer to it as the 5 years prior to and after retirement.

    We had never owned a dedicated bond fund and were always 95%-99% in stocks until entering The Zone pre-retirement. We bought our first allocation and dedicated bond funds when we entered The Zone pre-retirement. If we had it to do all over again, we would have not bought any dedicated bond funds - for us, a waste of time, money and effort. The only bonds we hold now are via three allocation funds with bonds being less than 5% of total portfolio. We do own a 5-yr CP CD ladder in lieu of any individual bonds or dedicated bond funds.

    I think there is likely a tendency of many to become TOO conservative in The Zone, but the prevailing theme of it is better to be safe than sorry, though one's choice may be for one and end up resulting in the other.

    Pulp Fiction is oft referred to as a cult classic of director Quentin Tarantino.
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/
    Musta seen it at least 15 times by now. Stellar cast offers up stellar performances. One iconic scene after another. Not recommended for the faint of heart.
  • @Baseball_Fan, there are several recent studies, including by Pfau, that include basic immediate annuities (SPIAs) in the withdrawal mix. So, that is one way to address the SOR risk.

    "Rising equity glide path" indeed follows a lower equity exposure around retirement (few years before and after).
  • edited December 2023
    Already explained the WTF portfolio. If you need less than 3%(2.5% is...I need under 2%) annual withdrawal, then you can do whatever.
    Someone who doesn't have enough must take a lot more risk than the above.

    I always found better ST trade in bond OEFs and the rest is in MM. MM gives me more flexibility and is easier to trade than CD/TR.
    As usual, the red zone DEPENDS. There is a difference between retirement at age 55, 65, or 70.

    Never in my life, have I owned a CD or US treasury, as you see at https://fixedincome.fidelity.com/ftgw/fi/FILanding.
    From retirement in 2018 to 2022(5 years), I was at 10/90 (stocks/bond OEFs) and did well. In 2023, I'm at 100% bond OEFs doing pretty well. I keep changing my style according to the market. When MM pays over 5%, even 4%, all I need is 3 trades at 2+% to have a great return with very low SD/risk. Owning 2-3 funds makes my life easier.
  • edited December 2023
    "Never in my life, have I owned a CD or US treasury"

    So what?? That's your life. We have, as circumstances suggested, and we are doing every bit as well as you, thank you. We have also, as circumstances indicated, ventured in real estate (both residential and commercial), second mortgages, stocks, bonds, mutual funds of many types, money-market funds, CDs, and Treasuries. Some winners, some losers.

    So what. That's our life. Not necessarily recommended for you or anyone else.

    A suggestion for you, though- you might give serious consideration to investing in a hot-air balloon enterprise.
Sign In or Register to comment.