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.
I take your point, but I would intuit (that's an MJG word for "guess") that the author was implying that significant drawdown would be simultaneous with retirement. Certainly not always the case, but possible.
Have a great Thanksgiving, Hank. We're outta here tomorrow for our annual Thanksgiving expedition to San Diego.
Reply to @hank: Maybe it's in the way we're reading the statement. You left out the important part I.e. (taking on more risk)! At that age most folks should be dialing it back I think even though I'm not doing a very good job of it myself.
Good article overall. Just that particular line got my attention because it seems to imply that one's investment horizon terminates at the point of retirement. And, unfortunately, some folks view it that way. Realistically, however, if you plan on living another 20 or 30 years beyond retirement, that's the true investment horizon to keep in mind.
I found his parenthetical "taking on more risk" a bit unclear - because adding another 20 or 30 years to one's investment horizon does generally entail taking on more risk. But, I'd also agree with you about dialing it back as we age.
Nice sobering article and the "lost opportunity" quote has a nice ring to it.
However: 1) If all I'm earning is "enough to keep up with inflation," I must have already saved enough to meet all my projected needs at current prices. I'm not sure that covers much of the retirement population. I might not mind being a greeter at Wal-mart, but I hope I'm doing it to get out of the house and not to pay for supper. 2) While time is a coin we all run out of, you can only replace capital if you have some form of income above expenses, which doesn't apply to most of the population. If it's investment income upon which you are relying to replace the capital, then I assume you are taking some risk; and I think the article was about risk in the current market.
(I do hope RSIVX performs as claimed; my profits reside there.)
Comments
False. For someone aged 60 and with 5 years to retirement a 20 year time horizon might well be appropriate.
Have a great Thanksgiving, Hank. We're outta here tomorrow for our annual Thanksgiving expedition to San Diego.
Lots of good historical stats and I like some of the wisdom summarized at end, particularly: @Old_Joe. Safe travels during your Thanksgiving expedition to San Diego!
Good article overall. Just that particular line got my attention because it seems to imply that one's investment horizon terminates at the point of retirement. And, unfortunately, some folks view it that way. Realistically, however, if you plan on living another 20 or 30 years beyond retirement, that's the true investment horizon to keep in mind.
I found his parenthetical "taking on more risk" a bit unclear - because adding another 20 or 30 years to one's investment horizon does generally entail taking on more risk. But, I'd also agree with you about dialing it back as we age.
However: 1) If all I'm earning is "enough to keep up with inflation," I must have already saved enough to meet all my projected needs at current prices. I'm not sure that covers much of the retirement population. I might not mind being a greeter at Wal-mart, but I hope I'm doing it to get out of the house and not to pay for supper.
2) While time is a coin we all run out of, you can only replace capital if you have some form of income above expenses, which doesn't apply to most of the population. If it's investment income upon which you are relying to replace the capital, then I assume you are taking some risk; and I think the article was about risk in the current market.
(I do hope RSIVX performs as claimed; my profits reside there.)