Howdy, Stranger!

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

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.
  • Should You Pay Off Your Mortgage?
    Think of it as the inverse of investing in a bond and combine that with your current financial situation and you should figure out whether it's worth paying off. If you were the debtor instead of creditor, how would you think about the 30-year bond where you're paying 6% versus a ten year bond where you're also paying 6%. The investor wants more yield the longer the maturity of the bond as his capital is locked up longer, preventing him from buying alternatives and exposing him to the vagaries of interest rates. The debtor will often--but not always--want the opposite. If your financial position is strong, you wouldn't mind paying off the debt's principal sooner. If it's weak or just OK, stretching it out might make more sense, even if you have more interest to pay. Figuring out how exactly your finances will look after paying it off is critical. How much do you have left over? Is it enough for most emergencies, expensive illnesses insurance doesn't completely cover such as Alzheimer's perhaps? Your children's own finances which might be strong or precarious--those kinds of things.
  • World's Largest Solar Farm to Be Built in Australia - But They Won't Get The Power
    Yeah, great thread. Very informative. And in addition to "green hydrogen", battery storage solutions have been improving at a breakneck pace, mostly due to research and engineering into EVs. Merely 10 years ago a tiny subcompact like the Nissan Leaf had only a 72 mile range. Today 250 to over 300 miles of range is becoming the norm. The 2020 Tesla Model S is rated at over 400 miles. Illustrating how far battery tech has evolved in only a decade.
    I must admit, I always thought of solar as a "local" power solution. If this is a feasible option, it seems like a real game changer. Imagine a continent like Africa, with all it's economic hurdles, becoming a vast exporter of energy to far-flung locations.
  • WAGTX: opinions?
    Thanks for the heads up on this one. I missed it in the Commentary. They focus on high growth small cap innovators and have a high portfolio turnover rate.
    9/30 Quarterly Commentary:
    https://sevencanyonsadvisors.com/newsandinsights/wagtx-commentary-q3-2020
    9/30 Fact Sheet:
    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e31f61806a57f2c2ea37a4a/t/5f91dfc8c3521479efade89d/1603395530032/seven_canyons_world_innovators_fund_fs_3q20_final+%281%29.pdf
  • Bond funds in IRA
    Contribution limits are generally the same for T-IRAs and for Roths: $6K (or $7K for those age 50 and above), not to exceed your compensation. That's a combined limit, i.e. you can split the amount allowed between Roth and Traditional.
    There is also an income cap on Roth contributions. Here's the IRS table:
    https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/amount-of-roth-ira-contributions-that-you-can-make-for-2020
    Should your Roth contribution be capped, you are still free to contribute the remainder of the allowable amount into a traditional IRA, albeit without taking a deduction. For example, if you are allowed to make $7K in contributions, but your Roth contribution is capped at $3K, you could make a nondeductible contribution of $4K to your traditional IRA.
    It doesn't matter whether you create a separate T-IRA for nondeductible contributions. They are all aggregated for tax purposes. You are making a commitment to keep track of your nondeductible contributions for life, or until you deplete all your traditional IRAs. The form is easy, but you're still stuck with it for life.
  • Generating Alpha: Skill or Luck?
    @FD1000, your article's chart sure looks a lot like cart linked below.
    FSRPX vs VFINX shown here since 1999:
    Consumer Discretionary Sector has significantly outperformed the S&P 500
  • The inventor of the ‘4% rule’ just changed it
    Both are close...Mine=$876K...yours=$847K.
    I ONLY CARE about numbers adjusted for inflation.
    If you ONLY CARE about numbers for inflation, you might stop saying that your number is $876K. Adjusted for inflation, it is $543K, which amounts to a 2.64%/year loss in real value over 22.81 years.
    Try this: Run a portfolio of pure cash (CASHX), no withdrawals. I've even set it up for you. I hope you'll agree that cash lost value to inflation over the past 22 years. Prove it. What's the inflation adjusted ending value of a $1M starting portfolio? How did you adjust for inflation, and did you do the same thing with your $876K amount?
    Alternatively, you could just take your $876K and divide by 1.60, which is roughly the cumulative inflation between 1998 and now. That comes out to $548K. (The difference between this and $543K is likely due to the fact that 1.6 represents inflation until 2020. Add another 1% inflation for the first three quarters of the year and you're down to around $543K. Though the figures are close enough I really don't care about the cause of the 1% discrepancy.)
  • The inventor of the ‘4% rule’ just changed it
    @msf, I added VWINX to your link...interesting performance:
    Inflation Adjusted (Final Balance) VFINX / FBNDX is $846,764 and VWINX is $1,098,373.
    Comparing Withdrawals & Performance - VWINX to a 50/50 allocation
  • The inventor of the ‘4% rule’ just changed it
    The idea in using historical data is to use historical data. One doesn't input one's own hypotheticals. In particular, one uses actual inflation rates (which PV supports).
    Also, the idea is to reproduce Bengen's scheme, not introduce one of your own design. Bengen starts with a fixed amount (4.5% of the initial pot), and adjust that dollar amount annually by the actual rate of inflation. What you did instead was withdraw 7% of the portfolio value at the end of each year.
    From Bengen's original paper:
    The withdrawal dollar amount for the first year (calculated as the withdrawal percentage times the starting value of the portfolio) will be adjusted up or down for inflation every succeeding year. After the first year, the withdrawal rate is no longer used for computing the amount withdrawn; that will be computed instead from last year's withdrawal, plus an inflation factor.
    https://www.retailinvestor.org/pdf/Bengen1.pdf
    Here's Bengen's model in PV applied to the time frame you selected.
    At the end of the 22+ years, it shows a remaining portfolio value of $1.366M, or $847K in inflation adjusted dollars (check the inflation-adjusted box at the bottom of the graph). It's hard to see this investor's portfolio going down to zero in the next seven years, given that it's only dropped 15% in real value over the first 22 years.
    FWIW, the annualized inflation rate for the years 1998-2019 (based on the NYU/Stern figures I previously cited) is 2.16%, and the current year's inflation rate is even lower.
  • The inventor of the ‘4% rule’ just changed it
    I like simplicity. We never had CAPE > 30 and interest rates so low which isn't a good start from here.
    For my portfolio sustainability I always add inflation. The last time CAPE was over 30 was in 01/1998. I'm trying to be fair and not start at much higher CAPE such as 01/2000.
    PV(link) shows that 4.5%(withdrawal)+ 2.5%(inflation) = 7% withdrawal in PV isn't good enough. I know, it's not 30 years but almost 23 years is still a good one.
    It's worse now because bonds future returns will be worse in the next 30 years.
  • an answer to the question of avoiding the big six
    The last section, on risk, is fascinating to contemplate; want to see braham and msf weigh in --- is the arg really in favor of equal weighting, or just stick with the winner-bias approach?
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-invest-in-the-sp-500-without-betting-on-faamg-stocks-2020-10-23
  • The inventor of the ‘4% rule’ just changed it
    >> I wonder if he still feels this way.'
    One's "feeling" about immutable historical numbers does not change. Though one can add more historical data as time passes. What I illustrated is that today, all the historical data, including the additional dozen data points since Kitces' piece, (probably) does not change the Kitces' result. Of course all the additional data since Bengen's original work does not change his conclusions, as he reiterated them (with refinements) in his current work.
    >>My curiosity, as I said, is about what the scenario might look like
    That's a different question. You're asking what they would speculate about future data. I addressed that in writing "Bengen doesn't make market predictions."
    The curiosity is understandable. The closest you're going to come to an answer is Bengen's observation: "Unfortunately, as Michael observed in his 2008 article, the “CAPE needle” has been jammed against the upper valuation stops for almost all of the last 25 years. As a result, almost the only choice for safe withdrawal rates has been the highest CAPE value in each table."
    That means that there are now a few 30 year spans that started with high CAPE ratios. Obviously not enough for Bengen to break out into a separate (higher CAPE) bucket, else he would have done so in his current paper. You can hope that he revisits his partitioning of CAPE ranges in a few years when he has more high CAPE data points to work with. Though as I've tried to show, the 4.5% withdrawal rate still works with the first few periods that have rolled in since Kitces' paper.
    I expect the 4.5% withdrawal rate to succeed with the next data point (1991-2020) as well. PV shows that after 29 years (1991-2019) one would be left with 4.2x one's starting value.. For the annual inflation-adjusted withdrawal at year end (Dec 31, 2020) to exhaust that portfolio would require an incredible market swoon in the last two months of the year.
  • Fidelity Report on IRA, 401K & 403B Accounts by Age
    Just keeps getting better!!
    Fidelity® Q2 2020 Retirement Analysis: Steady Contributions Combined With Market Performance Lead to Double-Digit Rebound Across Retirement Account Balances
    Retirement account balances rebound in Q2. The average IRA balance was $111,500, a 13% increase from last quarter and slightly higher than the average balance of $110,400 a year ago. The average 401(k) balance increased to $104,400 in Q2, a 14% increase from Q1 but down 2% from a year ago. The average 403(b) account balance increased to $91,100, an increase of 17% from last quarter and up 3% from a year ago.
    https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200811005276/en/Fidelity®-Q2-2020-Retirement-Analysis-Steady-Contributions#:N^P]™\˜YÙILŒ™]\™[Y[LŒXØÛÝ[LŒ˜[[˜Ù\ÉLŒLŒLŒLŒ LÍÉLÍŒ LŒLŒLŒLLÍŒ LŒLŒLŒLÉLÌ LŒ
  • The inventor of the ‘4% rule’ just changed it
    Michael Kitces is my favorite writer: a better choice is to start with lower % in stocks in early retirement years and increase the % with age.
    As I've posted before, this work by Pfau and Kitces work breaks down when rates are low. Dr. Pfau acknowledged this, writing that
    It does indeed seem that retiring at times with particularly low bond yields, which can be expected to increase over time, may not favor rising equity glidepaths during retirement. It essentially causes the retiree to lock in low bond returns and even capital losses on a bond fund as bond yields gradually increase (on average) over time.
    Kitces, incorporating CAPE P/E 10 data, concluded that the safe withdrawal rate is never less than 4.5%, and can be increased if the ratio at the start of retirement is under 20.
    The only enhancement that Bengen made to Kitces' work was to incorporate inflation, i.e. part of what you are concerned about.
    Inflation directly affects the periodic withdrawals, as it is assumed that dollar withdrawals are increased annually by CPI. If inflation is high, it results in rapidly increasing withdrawals. ... the inflation trend hints at a reliable cause-and-effect relationship. As inflation (defined as the trailing 12-month Consumer Price Index at retirement) increases from top to bottom, SAFEMAX correspondingly declines.
    Now he says SP500 performance will be around 7%.
    You may have misread Marketwatch's writing: "Historically, he says, the average safe withdrawal rate has turned out to be about 7%." Bengen doesn't make market predictions.
    I should also issue the usual cheerful disclaimer that this research is based on the analysis of historical data, and its application to future situations involves risk, as the future may differ significantly from the past. The term “safe” is meaningful only in its historical context, and does not imply a guarantee of future applicability.
    Also on point regarding predictions, he writes: "if you have strong feelings that the inflation regime will change in the near future, you can choose another [presumably more conservative] chart".
    Thanks to @bee for having posted Bengen's article yesterday, so that one could read what he actually wrote.
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57156/william-bengen-revisits-the-safe-withdrawal-rate-at-retirement
  • BlackRock’s bond king Rick Rieder: Market is going significantly higher
    (link)
    Nothing new but it makes sense. Stocks are the only game in town.
  • How I Use A Barbell Investing Strategy To Avoid Financial Ruin
    FD - So you know more about investing than the professionals quoted in Barron’s?
    It's not about knowing more, it's about backing up a "new" concept with real numbers. The best teacher is the market.
    I posted the following list several times:
    1) US stocks are over value, the rest of the world is undervalue. US stocks did better in the last 10 years.
    2) The GMO team and Arnott have been wrong for 10 years.
    3) Gundlach was way wrong when he predicted the 10 year will be at 6% in 2021. Gundlach, the bond king, and his fund DBLTX was beaten by TGLMX for 1-3-5-10 years.
    4) Bogle was wrong when he predicted stocks/bonds performance based on the past and averages.
    5) Inflation and interest rates can only go up. Both wrong for years.
    6) inverted yield signals recession = wrong. High PE, PE10 signal the end of the bull market...wrong again for years.
    7) There is no way stocks will have a V recovery in March 2020 based on blah, blah, whatever...and they did.
    8) The economy is bad, unemployment is high, the debt is huge = bad future stock market. The reality? Stocks are still up.
    I can add more.
    9) Investing in value, high yield, low SD are better just to find that the "stupid" SPY beat all/most of them;-)
    10) There is no way to have a better risk-adjusted performance. I have done it for years.
    Basically, I was always questing many "experts", research and rule of thumps. Most investors would do better with simple, very cheap indexes (Bogle) + hardly trade. The following is optional: use 20% (maybe 30%) to find better risk/reward funds, this task isn't easy and very limited. Examples: PRWCX,VLAIX,VWINX,PIMIX for several years.
  • World's Largest Solar Farm to Be Built in Australia - But They Won't Get The Power
    Another sign renewables are worth paying attention to.....
    .....the Power Link doesn't just involve building the world's largest solar farm, which will be easily visible from space. The project also anticipates construction of what will be the world's longest submarine power cable, which will export electricity all the way from outback Australia to Singapore via a 4,500-kilometre (2,800 miles) high-voltage direct current (HVDC) network.
    image
    https://sciencealert.com/world-s-largest-solar-farm-to-pipe-power-internationally-from-australia-under-the-sea
  • How I Use A Barbell Investing Strategy To Avoid Financial Ruin
    @Baseball_Fan, I haven’t followed many of @FD1000‘s posts as members’ reputed past performance doesn’t interest me. However, I do enjoy learning about new innovative funds, the trends among various markets, changes at the fund houses where I invest, Fed policy, and different ways of constructing portfolios. So those who have studied FD’s performance posts are the ones that may want to respond. I do enjoy reading Barrons. It may well be that some here are better investors than the ones quoted there. But, I don’t feel Barrons is a waste of money either. I think it’s been helpful to me over many years. Have read it since the early 70s (which pre-dates MFO) :)
    Here’s the quote I earlier referenced. My recollection as to the specific article may have been incorrect. This is from an article that appeared in April 2020 in Barrons. However, I think there has been more said in Barrons. I just don’t have the wherewithal to go back and reread every copy.
    - “Industrial analyst Deane Dray also believes safety is important, but he recommends investors take a so-called barbell approach. He suggests an 80% weighting in safer stocks, while reserving 20% for more-cyclical names.” (Article posted online by Barrons April 1, 2020)
    -
    Here’s what I was able to dig up on Dray’s experience. Doesn’t mean he knows more than any of us. But he doesn’t sound like a lightweight either.
    Experience
    RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) Capital Markets Managing Director Since Sep 2014 - (tenure 6 years 2 months) - Sellside equity research analyst covering the Multi-Industry & Electrical Equipment sector.
    Citi Global Research Director - Jun 2010 - Sep 2014 (4 years 4 months)
    New York City Senior equity research analyst covering the Multi-Industry & Electrical Equipment sector. Global sector leader of Industrials. Global sector leader of the water sector
    FBR Capital Markets Senior Industrials Analyst
    FBR Jan 2009 - Jun 2010 (1 year 6 months)
    New York Senior equity research analyst covering the Multi-Industry & Electrical Equipment Sector.
    Goldman Sachs Vice President
    Goldman Sachs 1997 - 2009 12 years
    Greater New York City Area Senior equity research analyst covering
    the Multi-Industry & Electrical Equipment Sector.
    Lehman Brothers Vice President
    Lehman Brothers 1987 - 1997 10 years
    Greater New York City Area
    Education
    New York University - Leonard N. Stern School of Business
    Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.)Finance
    1980 - 1982
    Brown University
    Bachelor's DegreeDouble major: Political Science and Law & Society
    1976 - 1980
    Activities and Societies: Cum Laude Deerfield Academy Deerfield Academy
    Deerfield Academy 1972 - 1976
    Licenses & Certifications Chartered Financial Analyst
    Sourced from Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/deane-dray-cfa-1b1b53a2
  • Fixed income investing
    Yes, I go back as far back as PV allows, to fund inception if possible. This is extremely relevant absent a change in how the fund operates over that period. How funds perform in Black Swan events (like '08 and Covid) is as and maybe more important then everything else. Just look at IOFAX, years of gains wiped out in a few sessions. So, yes, back to inception matters particularly if you go back to '08. Scroll down to the drawdowns on PV and you'll see...TCW has the lowest drawdowns, and overtime losing less matters, quite a lot. As I noted elsewhere, I'm a big fan of BIV (and BSV) but active management and portfolio mix can add value over a long period of time. TCW and Metwest Total Return share similar mngt yet the securitized portion of the market that TCW focused on back to Gundlach has paid off big in sell offs.
  • Why rising rates isn't that bad for bonds
    It's all good, FD. PIMIX is still good for long term holders. I'm meeting my goals. That is what is important to me. Keep convincing yourself that getting 5% per year with low SD is the only game in town. I guess there's a reason people live in Georgia :o}
    Again, the thread is not about me but after you couldn't come up with anything to debunk the original post you resort to make it personal. I never said that what I do is the only game in town, it works extremely well for our portfolio. I actually posted many times that the average Joe should buy several funds (indexes+managed) and hardly trade.
    But, please don't worry about me. I posted the following about a week ago, so I will just copy it below.
    Remember, since I retired in 2018, we have enough money to sustain our standard of living for another 40-50 years if our portfolio will make just 4% annually including inflation. Our portfolio is 35+ times our annual expense without our SS. This is why I set up the following goals: make 6% average annually with the lowest SD I can get (preferably under 3) and never lose 3% from any last top. We don’t care about maximizing performance anymore but to meet our specific goals. To do that I use mainly bond mutual funds + several short term trades (hours-days) using stocks/ETF/CEFs/other. The 3 year results are much better than my goals. I never lost more than 1% from any last top in the last 3 years. Below is a copy from my Schwab accounts as of yesterday 10/14/2020 which is about 95% of our total money. There is no way to achieve these results without being a good trader and why I posted other funds too
    3 year performance/SD...SPY 13.1%/17.7...VBINX (60/40) 10%/11.1....VWIAX (40/60) 7.04/6.6%...PIMIX 3.75%/5.6....IOFIX 0.2%/23.7
    My portfolio performance was 9.9% annually for 3 year with SD=2.18
    Below you can see an image of performance as of 10/14/2020 from Schwab. Column 1=one year...Column 2=YTD...Column 3=one year...Column 4=3 years
    image
    Below is the SD for one year and 3 years
    image
    BTW, welcome to MFO.