100% Equities: The New Retirement Portfolio That Allows You to Save Less and Retire Richer

[@livingunashamed4869]

I'm 100% in S&P 500 index funds and totally fine with it :).

[@laryhub]

And save loads of dollars on fees.

[@michaelwarner9113]

Same here

[@tripp9713]

I Agree. Retiring soon.

[@s0cr4t1c]

The Cederburg paper uses a globally diversified portfolio in its modeling. “An optimal lifetime allocation of 33% domestic stocks, 67% international stocks, 0% bonds, and 0% bills vastly outperforms age-based, stock-bond strategies in building wealth, supporting retirement consumption, preserving capital, and generating bequests.” The S&P 500 is US only and heavily concentrated in a handful of technology stocks. The top 5 holdings currently make up ~27% of the index and they’re all tech. If you want to follow the conclusions of this paper, you need to add international diversification.

[@davidboyd7494]

Greatest investor in my lifetime is Warren and he says index funds are best for individual investors

[@elziemcmillion]

60 years old all equities retired and the key is to have plenty of cash in a HYSA for at least two-three years with $0 debt. I own everything house, car and $0 CC debt with living expenses in a regular checking account and working part time. While working as a fitness instructor. So plan plan plan...Good info Erin

[@nino714]

This is my plan too! I’ll be 52 this year and plan to retire in 3 years. All equities and 3 years of expenses in a HYSA. I may adjust my equities to include a dividend fund like SCHD though.

[@michaelhuber1107]

Adding SCHD/JEPQ will help with dividend growth/income also

[@thehomeless_trucker]

Did you spend at least 4% of your investment portfolio in 2022 when the market was down?

[@elziemcmillion]

@@michaelhuber1107 absolutely

[@elziemcmillion]

@@nino714 awesome yes I definitely invest into dividend stocks a few that doesn't pay but good growth

[@jdgolf499]

My daughters are 31 and 29, and I have them 100% equity funds, as they have 30 year timeframes. As for me, as a 64 yer old retiree, I am 90% equity and 9% cash, 1% bond. The cash & bonds are 4 years worth of expenses, at this time, before social security. With my equities, 38% are strong dividend payers. As long as I have cash to cover a few years expenses, I am perfectly fine with heavy equities.

[@glasshalffull2930]

Exactly my strategy and I’m 64. Have been 100% in S&P 500 since 1990.

[@Sylvan_dB]

This is what I do, and I just retired last spring. I've been heavy equities since 2002, when I realized the traditional approach didn't save me from the Y2K tech crash and I had to figure out a better approach for myself.

[@MrPdoe]

Likewise, I am 65 and until 2023 I was over 95% equities. In 2023 I took out 2 years worth of living expenses and put it into a CD ladder and money markets. Since the market did so well in 2024, I took another 2 years worth of expenses and did the same again. If markets crash I am comfortable. I even have some funds to use if a 'buy' opportunity arises.

[@lesbolstad]

Really bad move considering the long bull market. You should be 50/50

[@jdgolf499]

​@@lesbolstad Been hearing that for a couple years now. Meanwhile, the s&p has had 20+% returns in each of the last two years! I've got plenty of cash to get through a downturn, and only gets better in three years when I start collecting social security!

[@erbrock1]

When I was working (retired now) I did 100% equities in my 401K investments over 38 years and during that time the investment advisor company my employer used to help us kept telling me I was too aggressive. So glad I didn't listen to them. We are at around 80% domestic equities with 4 to 5 years of expenses in cash and bonds.

[@glasshalffull2930]

…and you’re likely a multimillionaire now with 3 or 4 million at least.

[@thehomeless_trucker]

​@@glasshalffull2930and probably only spending 60k/yr... even less in down years😂😂😂

[@just_another_bot0110]

Im 31 also doing 100% but I need to tell you all to please be honest with yourselves when it comes to your risk tolerance. This lady's nice voice and calm demeanor makes it so you dont really understand what going in 100% means. These last 4 years was great for us but i saw MANY people pulling out everything when the market started diving. 4 PEOPLE out of 37. I was able to convince FOUR PEOPLE to not sell out. People in their 40s who should know better. People in their 70s who had just retired lost almost 30% of their total earnings and didnt make it back because they pulled out. The fear people get when the market starts tanking is real. If youre not able to walk away from your money for at least a decade i believe a lot of you would mentally be happier having 15% of your money in a bank somewhere not in the same account as your emergency fund. I cant stress it enough how chaotic it can get for people who are risk averse

[@g.n.adkisson9486]

In 1996 my wife told me she did not want to work till she was 65 yoa. We had control of our debt, so I went hard into stocks, with 50% in cash to buy on sale whenever possible. (Cash paid much better back then.) Twelve years later we walked away from our jobs, making more $ than working. Sixteen years later, we are blessed, taking out 2% each year and oh yea, some cash to buy stocks on sale.

[@MattyLiam333]

You guys retired in 2008? My God, you brave soul. I imagine you knew enough to be recession proof?

[@TheFourthWinchester]

@@MattyLiam333 They are multi millionaires from the sounds of it.

[@jasonbroom7147]

With that perspective, do you think the market is currently oversold? Have you considered lowering your stake in equities to stockpile more cash for when they go on sale again?

[@jasonhobbs2405]

Wow the professionalism of your video has really stepped up. Everything is looking great! Graphics and transitions and all that.

[@kliff8586]

Great content. Again clear, concise and informative. As always keep up the great work!

[@miyukawaq]

i am 100% in equity since i was 29, now 43 with 1.1 M in my portfolio, no student loan or mortgage, if market crash or down 40% i always add more in, and i personally love market downturn, that when you buy share for less.

[@glasshalffull2930]

You are a beast!!! Keep up the good work!

[@Sylvan_dB]

That's awesome. I did the same, and I hope it works as well for you as it did for me. I used to find it a fun/challenging game - when the market dropped, how much can I add to bring the value back up? It was easy the first 10 years, but it became impossible as the portfolio increased.

[@miyukawaq]

@@Sylvan_dB when market drop like today, buy in with whatever you have and then save, buy again later when it drops again, the beauty about index is it never drop to zero. The price of funds will balance out in the end, and over the long term, you will gain a lot.

[@jameschaves5723]

You sir have won!!

[@jeepsandrvs]

100% agree. I have done this for 30 years. Some years I was way down, but it has always come back and more. I will continue in retirement albeit with a larger cash bucket.

[@ld5714]

Good morning Erin. Good discussion and presentation of the data. I am an agressive investor and have been 100% equities my whole life up, riding out all the market events and never making an emotional decision to sell. I'm retired at 62, 12.5 years ago, and now have 1.5 years of expenses set aside in cash and treasury bonds. I remain an aggressive investor. I've never been a fan of bonds, target date funds, or an age based portfolio approach. I currently have @ 5% international and the rest domestic index funds. This isn't for everyone but has worked well for me and I have no regrets. You are correct when you say to expect a bumpy ride, some were breathtaking. The key is to have a plan and don't make decisions based on emotions, and stay the course. I enjoy the out takes and the dog is cute 😉Have a blessed week and I'll see you on the next one. Larry, Central Valley, Ca.

[@JoeSmith-jd5zg]

I'm 60 now, for about the last 30 years I've been around 90% stocks, 10% cash, 0% bonds. I was interested in Bonds in the late 90s and studied them, but I just never could find any evidence that it was a wise thing to do in the declining and then low interest rate environment.

[@Iffy50]

This is good news and bad news. The good news is that it's a no brainer to be 100% in on equities based upon the data. The bad news is that if there is a correction that we've never seen before this could change the data in the future. We've had gains that we've never seen before in the last 15 years, it would be dumb to assume that we can't see losses like we've never seen before in the years to come. Great video.

[@teekay_1]

_The bad news is that if there is a correction that we've never seen before this could change the data in the future_ While that's not wrong, consider that if equities drop 80%, the dollars you're holding will probably not be worth much either, nor the bonds, since those would be subject to horrific deflation. If you're planning for the worst case, you'd want to hold gold coins and (surprisingly) firearms and ammunition because society would be in a terrible place and "things" are better than "money" at that point.

[@glasshalffull2930]

You didn’t notice the 2000 Tech Bubble or the 2008 financial crisis? Seemed to me those were things anybody living had never seen before? Certainly, if you’re retired, you should have emergency funds to outlast a multiple year downturn.

[@Fred2-123]

Would you rather have a portfolio that gets a 50% drop or one that only drops 25% at the same time? Dumb question, right? How about if the 50% drop cuts the portfolio value to $500,000 and the 25% portfolio only drops to $300,000?

[@5metoo]

Sure, but what if we see inflation like we've never seen before? Why are all those advocating a "safe" portfolio sure that won't happen?

[@jjred233]

Worst drop was in 1987 since 1929. I was invested then. Many family members were invested at the time. We managed to survive. Its not as bad as investment advisors always warn about. If you panic, then its very bad. The safe investment path is just removing fear from investing.

[@MarkKarlson-t9l]

I have been doing this for 20 years and I'm fine with how it has played out.

[@roburb73]

100% stocks, 100% of the time! This is how it is for me at 51, and how it will be for me until I leave the earth!

[@davidbrooks8809]

95% domestic 5% bonds😊😂..I'm 54

[@jasonbroom7147]

With what duration of cash on hand?

[@roburb73]

@@jasonbroom7147 Very minimal cash. Our situation doesn't require we keep much cash on hand.

[@Emthon]

Great to see you bringing up the outside the box strategy. I have been 98-100% equities for the majority of my life. It has served me well because I chose to stay the course. As you state, it is gut-wrenching to watch my portfolio drop 20-40% a quarter or half. However, in the long run it has been a winner. In 10 years of retirement, my portfolio has gone up about 3X. Scary but satisfying. Love your work.

[@glasshalffull2930]

You sound exactly like me. I just hit my ten year retirement anniversary and my 100% S&P500 has more than tripled.

[@PaulGosselinsr]

Retired debt free with all equities invested and we have enough in our money market and T bills to last us through a few years of down turn. We can actually cover all of our expenses with our SS.

[@Brian-nb6fb]

I love the dog in the blooper! Retired and about 90% in equities and 10% cash for the rainy day!

[@lkj0822g]

I am a 67 year old retiree with a pension and social security that provides 100% of my retirement income needs. Yes, I am one of the fortunate ones. Currently, I am invested 90% equity and 10% cash and within that equity figure, about 60% is in S&P 500 Index or S&P "style" mutual funds. If I had to advise a young investor, (as I did with my two daughters) I would say that a S&P 500 Index should be your baseline investment. As Erin pointed out, a lot of the S&P companies have a significant exposure to international markets, so I am less bullish on putting too much money in that area - maybe 10% or less. I also like the "Three Bucket" portfolio strategy (Long, Intermediate, Short time frames) which can be adjusted to where you are in life's journey.

[@MarkPurnell-er1lx]

I’m 69 with a similar investment profile. I use iShares EFTs mostly: ITOT, IVV, HDV; my Vanguard funds are VFIAX and VYM. 28% in cash to get through the dips. 😊

[@NovusMaximus]

I came to the same conclusion about two years ago. I am 100% equities since then. Results have been phenomenal since then. Fits my investment style and tolerance for risk. Thank you for the content!

[@s0cr4t1c]

Be careful to recognize that the last two years were very much outliers in market history. It’s easy to stick with 100% equity when the market is compounding at 20+% per year. It’s much harder when half of your portfolio evaporates in a nasty bear market. I’m 100% equity, but I regularly look at my balances, halve them, and say ‘yup, that could happen’. Be prepared or risk capitulation to a bad market.

[@5metoo]

@@s0cr4t1c What if the market doesn't stop compounding at a highish rate but inflation races up? How good would that make you feel about a high fixed income portfolio?

[@chestercox2564]

I am 100% for it. I have always been at least 95+% invested in equities. I am now more or less retired and am still all in with equities other than a cash reserve for just in case expenses. The key for me is now to be flexible with spending if necessary. Yes, it can be a very bumpy ride at times but to me the rewards have been VERY good!

[@kitanaiyatsu8571]

I think that the "number-minus-your-age" and the 60/40 split strategies work for some people because they are easy to understand. The problem with all of the "rules" is that they treat everything as equal. Bonds are not all alike, and Bond Funds are different than Bonds, just as Equities aren't alike. Some bond funds are much more risky than equity funds and even some equities. I'd say that if it helps you sleep at night to blindly follow a rule, then you should blindly follow that rule. I follow a bucket approach with short money in cash, midrange money in income, and long-range money in equities. I've sized my buckets based on certain assumptions and based on my spending habits. I think that such a bucket approach is more personal than subtracting my age from some arbitrary number and it's a lot more personal than some arbitrary ratio. I think financial advisers like those rules because they're lazy and those rules allow them to give advice that doesn't require them to think much.

[@a.stewartlamb3694]

this math worked for me 50 years ago. I worked for a non-profit and I am doing well because of this. I have slowly built a rental portfolio to help cover the costs of retirement as I am getting near that date

[@Je.te.plumerai]

Totally agree with all your well presented points, Erin. Calculate your living expenses, then calculate the amount needed to provide for those expenses, then double that number to allow for a 50% crash. 90% in broad-based index fund, 10% in HSA, draw from HSA and rebalance yearly. Thanks for your work, always inspiring.

[@andrewmcintosh6246]

I am in support of this approach. I currently have 95% of my investments in equities and I cannot foresee myself ever getting more conservative than 100% in the S&P 500. I am currently 53 yo and have been investing for 34 years now. I have limited my international exposure compared to how I invest 30 years ago. I cannot see me ever having mor than 20% of my equities in international stocks.

[@wmb9419]

Exactly, about the international stuff. Everyone tells you that you gotta do this, you gotta do that. I watched my international funds. The returns sucked compared to what I get from domestic stuff. You do that long enough and after awhile I just stopped listening. I look at what is producing for me, not what it isn't.

[@glasshalffull2930]

⁠@@wmb9419 I also looked at the international funds for a while and they just weren’t performing. The truth is there are a lot of international funds out there and maybe one is kicking A$$, but it’s just so much easier to go S&P 500.

[@sgonzo5531]

Perfect timing for this video. As a mid-50s investor, I've been 100% equities for years. I've been trying to decide whether to switch things up a bit as I get older. This definitely makes me want to do a little more research before moving forward.

[@glasshalffull2930]

One of the most important things is to establish an emergency fund that could carry you over several years of a down market. If you’ve got that and a million or so in your portfolio then you can be more aggressive. Best of Luck!

[@jameschaves5723]

Stay the course!! Just keep an emergency fund with 1-2 years expenses. You are entering the biggest building years.

[@denniskirschbaum9109]

I was 100 percent Equities in my 30s, 40, and 50s. It was the right choice. Now in my 60s and retired (mostly) I am 80/20. And yes, an emergency fund in cash is crucial at any stage of life. Your channel is among the best financial KZbinrs. Clear and concise.

[@NiranjanBendre]

We are doing this portfolio atleast for now. May change in retirement. Good to see it validated! 😅 JL Collins is right! 😊

[@murraypassarieu9115]

I have no doubt 100 percent equities gets you the best return over time but I don't have the temperament and my wife sure as hell doesn't have it. I've been 50/50 for a long time and while I won't be as rich as some, that's something I'm willing to accept.

[@anderspedersen6750]

All investing in personal. If you have enough for YOU, who is to argue about your strategy being safe.

[@rshearer2]

Thumbs up for the "wife sure as hell doesn't have it" ... :) ... but ... my wife likes to say I told you so ... --- so she is letting me do it my way ... she wins either way... from my success or her ability to say "I told you so" every day as we split a 6" subway sandwich cuz I was wrong ...

[@JohnandTeagan]

I’m 100% equities and have been for the last 15 years, with at least another 20 years to go before retirement.

[@glasshalffull2930]

U da man! I hope you are staying away from international funds.

[@willsharp4308]

If you’re retired, it might make sense to have 2-3 years cash in reserve to ride out step down turns and then everything else in equities

[@adamwilliams2936]

I can stomach the risk after 2008's huge fall. We've been 100% index fund mix of equities since and have had no regrets. Only a few short years to retirement and the only thing we'll change is just keep more liquid cash in the HYSA. You learn to ignore the pundits and the bumpy ride! Thanks for the great content!

[@Haymarket94]

I’ve been essentially 100% equities for 30 years (I’m 52) and it has been far, far, far better than some “balanced” approach that some advisor would have charged me to allocate. I’m many millions ahead of where the conventional wisdom would have put me.

[@stevenschmidt3321]

Bonds, especially bond funds, are far from a risk free investment. Individual bonds are better but increase the "hassle factor" of investing. Thanks for this thoughtful video. As always, personal finance is personal. There is never one size fits all.

[@jimkilby8614]

Appreciate your analysis. I believe in all equities and I’m 69 and still working

[@thedaiwei]

Good topic and content. I think of retirement planning like a football game. Winning the first two quarters isn’t essential, but by the fourth quarter, you want to leave no doubt you’ll win. Playing too safe early in life-avoiding calculated risks in career or investments-can hurt your ability to build momentum. The goal is to take smart risks early, grow steadily, and secure a strong position so you can confidently cross the retirement finish line.

[@mkhatame86]

Great episode. Salute you with having different views to approach the market and build your wealth. You have unique content . Keep it coming!!

[@dizzysnakepilot]

Never understood why to invest in bonds, been 100% in stocks over the last 35 years, retired at 50 ten years ago despite only working 11 years full time over my career. Worked for me.

[@chrisforker7487]

I’ve always been 100% TSM index. It has served me well, even with 2001 and 2009. Bonds, to me, is a losing game. Outstanding video, Erin! Keep the content coming! I’ve been pushing my friends to follow you, zero political nonsense and clearly focused on relevant topics.

[@Michael-jc8nq]

Sorry, but my entire ride or die is FXAIX (Fidelity’s S&P 500 Index Fund). I am 100% allocated now and will be 100% the rest of my life. I’m sure people will point out “the lost decade”, but a one time event isn’t enough to deter the statistical likelihood that the S&P will keep going up

[@brianl.8610]

Similar here, the lost decade was a bit before when I started. But if you buying you want it low anyway. planning on retiring in 6 years so any stagnation I hope happens and ends in the next 6 years while I’m buying.

[@Dannycepero1111]

100% in domestic equities at 41 with a year worth of an emergency fund in a HYSA. 60% SnP, 19% SCHD, 13% SCHG/VGT and 8% GOOGL/JNJ. Great info Erin!!!

[@cablebandit]

I started with 100% in my 20's, now in my 50's I have no plans to change anything. I think the biggest thing for my household is being debt free and living beneath your means. When your only monthly expenses in retirement are easily covered by SS money, all the other retirement savings is gravy at that point. My biggest concern is being able to make the switch from a savings mentality to a spending mentality.

[@jameschaves5723]

Major issue for me. I can’t let go of the money

[@stevekrewson4931]

From personal experience, my 100% domestic equities as far exceeded my wife’s 60% domestic equities 20% foreign equities 20% bonds and it’s really not even close I think with a historic 8 to 10% return the S&P or something similar is an almost no lose situation. Thanks for the great content

[@gerryt6288]

I’m 52 and happily invested 100% in US equities. International stocks tend to drag the portfolio down more than they would ever help and I view bonds in the same way. Maybe I’ll change my views in the future, then again…. Everyone has to invest in a way that suits their needs and goals.

[@k5sss]

Depends what years you look at. US stocks did terrible 2000-2010, but Intl stocks did well. That’s why we need to diversify.

[@herb7877]

EXELLENT VIDEO! Wish I had seen this 50 years ago. As an example of someone who did stay heavily in equities for 50 years and a couple of time periods did go to a more conservative 30% / 70% mix I can tell you it was a mistake going conservative even though a small time period each time. I retired 6 years ago and have been ~95% in domestic ETF’s & MUTUAL’s. 50% of those in the Fortune 100 and another 25%. -35% in tech and the rest in consumer products & various cap funds. Portfolio is up ~25% after 5% withdrawals . I keep 12-24 months in cash & laddered cd’s. Use these in a down mkt when needed. I’ve learned to stomach the dips.

[@VirginiaHapa]

Great video. I think the key to an aggressive portfolio is to change your outlook on downturns. As u said, cash is key. With it, folks should think of downswings as buying opportunities - it’s a rewiring for a lot of people. As you get older, increase the cash reserves to cover expenses but also to take advantage of those buying opps. I’m not so keen on international exposure. For me, it’s always underperformed so I’d prob switch that allocation rec that the report noted (for me).

[@Fred2-123]

No. Your cash loses more in foregone gains than the extra gains you'll get by keeping the cash for a downturn.

[@edjyjohnson]

I'm 90% stocks, 10% cash. I just retired, so we'll see how well this works out.

[@kentonb-1]

That's pretty much exactly my plan... I'm about a year out from retirement.

[@ErinTalksMoney]

Nice! Happy Retirement!!!

[@ariefraiser140]

That's the Warren Buffet plan.

[@RayBo]

59 1/2 Retiring early in around 5 mo. I am also around 90 stocks and 10% cash. In the next 2 years, I'll likely shift to a process of 3-4 years of cash and the rest in stocks but a high % in dividend etfs.

[@dstevens518]

Avoid the bonds but use an alternative, like GIC's or Money Market fund. It makes no sense to me that a 100% equity portfolio would outperform a portfolio that uses the alternatives noted, as those don't lose at times like bonds, but still offer the chance to pile in when the market tanks. Agree, 100% equity leaves zero wiggle room. I get everyone wants to have compounding do all the work for them, but it's just a milder variation of buying lottery tickets, hoping you get to do less work. Embrace living beneath your means and continual efforts at income growth, and you'll be stronger for the marathon of net worth growth, plus the ride will be less heart-stopping, less extreme.

[@kwilliams1958]

I never could do 100% equities once I got in my 50's (admire those who can), but I am definitely 100% in on "Erin Talks Money" for information delivered with grace, humility, and a dash of sass occasionally! Happy New Year 2025, Miss Erin!

[@Rob9mm]

Those worst case drops are interesting! Good work, thanks.

[@Larry-d1c]

I've always been 100% equities. I recently retired and only then started the bucket strategy and keep a year or two of expenses in high interest savings or CDs.

[@chrisforker7487]

I’ve always been 100% TSM index. It has served me well, even with 2001 and 2009. Bonds, to me, is a losing game. Outstanding video, Erin! Keep the content coming! I’ve been pushing my friends to follow you, zero political nonsense and clearly focused on relevant topics. I get plenty of international exposure through domestic equities, just not a fan of unstable economics and rapidly changing leadership in these countries.

[@BrianW211]

I have a friend that retired at 56 with $2.3M and had is entire portfolio in the SPY/SPDR S&P500 ETF. He's now 62, spends $160K/year, and his portfolio has grown to $3.4M.

[@jameschaves5723]

That is my goal

[@papster33]

First - thank you so much for bringing this up and sharing your perspective and personal thoughts. Going to have to digest this one a bit - since it falls outside of conventional wisdom. I am now 60, and wish I had been more aggressive when I was younger. To be fair, there was much less information available to us back then (in the dark ages). For pre-retirement, I absolutely agree that an aggressive portfolio for retirement is the way to go. However I am thinking for many - as you get in and through retirement keeping a full stock portfolio would be nerve-racking and possibly dangerous - depending on your nest egg - as you get closer to the end of your plan. A 50% drop in portfolio when you are in your late 80s or 90s could be devastating depending on your nest egg, spending, and reserves. I think your reserves (cash) needs to be considered as you go through retirement - but probably not prior. Great content and things to think about!

[@nino714]

You’re right. I’m planning on having 3 years living expenses in cash a retirement. I see some here in the comments plan on having up to 5 years in reserve. That make sure you can survive a prolonged dip in the market.

[@glasshalffull2930]

Ten years ago, I semi retired at 55 (small contacts bring in less than $10K), but I had a small pension. My portfolio, 100% S&P500, was $1.2 million.Ten years later and having pulled $52K for the last five years, my portfolio is at $3.7 million. This is the power of the compounding. Sure, absolutely have emergency funds for a few years, but I could withstand a 50% drop in the market. I always looked at it as I’ve reached critical mass at $1.2 M. (Basically, bullet proof from any corrections) Additionally, I had more investment time ahead of me than I had behind me.

[@papster33]

@@glasshalffull2930 that's awesome! So glad to hear. For others, note that the last 10 years or so have been a very unique and positive market. The 10 years prior were dismal - 2000 to 2010. Just be aware of recency bias and that the focus in one market can sometimes work for you...or against you. I too am the benefactor of a great market run.

[@lizd.8655]

What a timely video! I was just researching some bond ETFs for when the time comes to re-balance and I was (reluctantly) thinking of a combination of USHY and SCHP. My 401k is currently 90% FXAIX and 10% FSPSX and I'm fine with keeping it that way. I may consider increasing the percentage for international but I don't see myself going over 20-30%. My Roth is currently all US equities and it's worked quite well the last several years so I don't foresee any changes there either. Thank you for reading though academic sources and taking the time to present them in laymen's terms, this has been very helpful!

[@stewdogg42]

I’m 50. I plan to retire in 13 years. My retirement investments are allocated as follows: 72% US stocks, 13% Foreign stocks, 13% bonds, 2% in Crypto

[@leehaskins307]

I retired last october… been SO FUN since then.. my exposure to the stock market since I retired is all in income ETFS… they are JEPI and JEPQ.. income funds that pay about 8% dividends a year and hopefully some stock exposure gains long term… I also invest in sports cards.. got about 10% invested in that alternative asset...

[@SilentSputnik]

I jumped the gun on this strategy!

[@CharlesVaughn-bm9gq]

It’s silly. You can’t use the annual average return once you are close to retirement and in retirement. The market can drop by a third or more the year you retire. It can take years, in some cases a decade or more, to break even. In the meantime you may have to take withdrawals out of a much diminished nest egg. You must understand sequence of returns risk.

[@happycampers6592]

Yep. Bogleheads die hard. Strictly gambling.

[@stevemiller1937]

I'm 41 and plan to have about 4-5 years in a sequence of return risk accounts. I may change how I feel as my equities grow, but for now, that sounds pretty good.

[@mariovargas3800]

100% in stocks. No bonds. 40% - S&P 500, 32% - large growth, 28% - dividend. 14 years 2 retirement. Just keep maxing it out & DCA.

[@observerm2291]

Erin, thank you so much for this very important and informative topic!

[@TheNoobTker]

It’s no secret why bonds have been recommended on your way to retirement, it keeps you working longer.

[@erics.786]

100% here, note, you do not GAIN OR LOSE anything until you sell, if the market goes down your just buying on sale.

[@glasshalffull2930]

Been 100% in S&P 500 for about 34 years. Sad in the beginning, I screwed around with government securities for 5 years.

[@pwcincy]

I agree with the comment about home bias in our investing portfolio. Here is just a random sample of companies from an international equity ETF. Many of these are household names in the US and are really nothing to be afraid of: Nestle, Unilever, Shell, Toyota, Sony, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Roche, LVMH group(Louis Vitton, Moet, Hennessy), Royal Bank of Canada.

[@glasshalffull2930]

There are a boat load of international funds and most I’ve looked at have a poor long term performance.

[@tedparker8935]

I’m 73 and 100% in 17 stock positions, and have been for about ten years… I’m ok with it.

[@hans-juergenwirth2913]

I am 65 and have invested in stocks for over 30 years. I have seen my share of crashes but also re-bounds over this time and have no intentions to "go safe" anytime soon. I have to add that I inherited some real estate which provides me with rental income. So, I am sure I can ride out the next crash by reducing spending.

[@buyerclub2]

Hi Erin . I will let you know that I am about 90% equities, 9% cash and about 1% fixed income. I have been this way from my 20s and have benefited greatly for not doing the bond or age fund approach. Today, as I am retired, I do plan to go higher in liquid short term basically cash. (Am locking in Interest rates for max of 3 year for uneed cash). I particular dislike the age target funds as they put people into more FI based on solely on the persons age. And if that person got older at the point when rates were rising, they were gong to see a drop in the NAV. that would dramatically cause portfolio value decreases. And there is anterestnig side effect of this strategy. It allows me to only need to withdraw about 1% of the portfolio each year. And for those who thinkI must have had a really high paying job. For many of the years it was under 100K. My son now makes much more than I ever did.

[@randallgilliam4983]

I love the idea and agree with less if any international exposure.

[@danoozark5827]

Wow, incredible information.............................

[@LegacyStacker]

Hi Erin! Great video! Based on my experience, I've always been 100% invested in stocks. If I can make 10%, on average, in the stock market, then why would I do anything else? I've never followed/believed in conventional wisdom, or target date funds. 😎🏆And, my emergency fund is in gold. As long as countries stack it, I will stack it

[@mikeocksthrobbin9404]

I bought a house at the age of 23 in 2007. I lost a lot of equity and by the time that I decided that I could no longer afford the residence, I sold it after 10 years of ownership for a $60K loss and used most of my retirement savings to have enough at closing. I wasn’t able to start saving for retirement again until age 36 with basically nothing in my retirement accounts. So, I have everything for my Roth IRA and 401k in S&P 500 and S & C funds in my TSP. I turned 40 this year and have about $90k in my retirement. I feel like I have to be risky to catch up at this point.

[@kurtgoncher3295]

Retired 1/3 cash at 4% interest, rest in Nasdaq, swing of 38% down in ‘22, gotta let it roll, up 2x in 5 years, even with the dip!

[@Kofi1496]

Erin great video💯

[@ErinTalksMoney]

You are the best!

[@lulucly]

Interesting information and something to think about!

[@KaironQD]

I'm 100% equities in my retirement accounts! The big risk is always making a mistake by panic selling (or being forced by external factors to sell early) due to crazy market swings. I don't have a crystal ball, but I THINK I can weather bad market drops, like 2008 was. Of course, lots of people are already forgetting what 2008 was like, and only history will tell how I really do. However, as my time horizon get shorter, I'm going to switch to a 75/25 portfolio because Sequence of Returns Risk (market downturn RIGHT when I retire) gets too close for comfort. As for international, I'm roughly market weight: 60% US 40% ex-US. I don't have any special knowledge herr, just trying to own everything/index and que sera sera. There's always the possibility I could find myself in a domestic market that's a replay of Japan circa 1990's.

[@bigfoot14eee99]

Interesting. In 2008, while my colleagues were crying, I went from balanced to 100% equities, and rode that train for 5 years before I chickened out and diversified. Whoops!

[@user-mm8jv3tn2l]

Erin, I agree with you that I am not comfortable with a large percentage invested in international stocks. In today's geopolitical environment, I feel much more comfortable with US stocks. I am also a believer in the bucket strategy. Since I am retired, I have a 10 year safe bucket that cannot lose money and the balance invested in the market. This allows me to sleep very well while still providing growth that will hopefully outpace inflation. Keep up the great content. RSB in NC

[@lonhetrick]

I like this advice. Despite being close to retirement age I got a late start preparing for retirement so I have always invested aggressively in equities even though it meant serious shrinkage in the Great Recession and post-pandemic. Still things bounce back and grow and I’m confident I’ll be in a good spot when retirement comes.

[@kevinreed7181]

I'm 100% in S&P 500 index funds for the last 40 years and sleep well at night

[@KennyDrobnack]

I can see the all equities approach working if you have a decent sized cash emergency fund to cover expenses when the market is down. The 66% international/33% US seems weird to me. I feel like swapping those would be better, but then I don't have the data to back up if that's a good idea or not.

[@thomasmcdonald5542]

I’ve been retired for a couple of years and am now 58. I’m 100% invested in stocks/etfs and I’m comfortable with it. I have no debt and the house is paid off and I do have significant amount of cash in high yield accounts as a buffer in the event of stocks falling for a protracted period. It’s working so far.

[@BadPhD777]

My kids are in their 20's and they are 100% stocks. I haven't decided when to recommend a change, but I don't see why it should be before they're 50.

[@jameschaves5723]

Not even before 60. Let it buildup

[@gptiede]

A portfolio that is 100% equities sounds like a good idea to me, but the details overwhelmingly matter. Which equities? Index funds, megacaps, en vogue megacaps, and which ones? I also plan to keep 2 to 3 years of expenses in cash (stepped CDs, stepped bond funds, high interest savings if they exist) so that I only withdraw from my equity portfolio when the market is up, and only use the cash when the market is down.

[@glasshalffull2930]

Bingo!!! We have a winner! Should have been more specific.

[@xlerb2286]

Woo-hoo, I was ahead of the curve for once. I was 100% equities from when I started investing decades ago, mainly broad market index funds such as a S&P 500 fund, to when I retired. Now that I am retired a couple years before I'd planned because the past few years have been such a boom market I've rebalanced to a more conservative mix. But I still have around 70% in equities but I do want the stability of having a few years worth of money not in the stock market. So we've set up a typical 5 year bond ladder that we could pull money from to avoid selling in a down market. And yes, there were some pretty good changes in value both up and down through the years. I dealt with it mainly by ignoring the balances. It's all just noise until you sell.

[@glasshalffull2930]

About 30 years ago, that’s what I did. When I semi-retired, I figured I could weather any downturns and so stayed 100% S&P500. My portfolio has more than tripled in the last decade since I retired.

[@xlerb2286]

@@glasshalffull2930 This last decade has been wild hasn't it. I got a late start as I worked in a family business until I was 35. Good memories, not much money. So I was investing pretty heavily and figured even so I may be working a little past 65. But these recent high returns have got me caught up and then some.

[@krihanek117]

I'm not on board with risk adjusted. I'd like to know more on the heavy 67% international / 33% domestic. Does this actually increase the return on investment? I need help, I don't see heavy international working. I tested 33/67 50/50 and 67/33 with VTI (or SPY) and VEU. The heavy US allocation was better.

[@like-a-pike4654]

I switched my 401K from bonds to more equities after JPow announced cutting the interest rates this time last year. The results of being heavier to S&P and down to about 5% bonds was fantastic compared to folks that stayed with the 60/40 rule. I noticed just today that my bonds allocation is STILL the biggest drain on my portfolio... so I cut it down some more! No ma'am I'm with you!

[@christopherholloway8192]

This is my plan, all equities throughout life. 60% US , 40% international

[@WeBeatMedicare6969]

How have the International performed?..haven’t they been trash for the past decade or longer?

[@stevebishop3796]

Erin, Have you modeled a portfolio of using real estate as rental properties acquired over a similar time period? I'm curious to see the performance comparison.

[@C6BlueDevil]

Thanks for this video. I'm in my late 30s with a substantial amount saved in my retirement accounts and brokerage account and I've always been 100% in on Index funds. Also, I agree with you about how many domestic companies have a decent amount of exposure to international markets so I don't buy into the idea that buying a large amount international funds is the best way to diversify a all equity portfolio.

[@davidbrooks8809]

Great Information..love this lady😊😊

[@ErinTalksMoney]

😊🙏

[@socoblah]

I'm a little confused by the suggestion to be 66% in international and 33% in us stocks. If we are taking a market weighted approach, the us makes up 50% or more of the world's stocks, depending on the source you look at. I haven't seen anything that consistently shows the us as only 33% of the world market. Often it is the other way around, depending on performance that year. Why the suggestion for such a heavy weight toward international? I understand that is how the data comes out and the authors are only suggesting based on their findings, but it seems odd to lean so heavily against what the market weight is.

[@ZCAR355]

Saw another video on this. Worldwide study. For a U.S. Investor consider 25-30% International.

[@glasshalffull2930]

Lots of international funds have underperformed the S&P500. This study ‘doesn’t’ indicate ‘what’ international equities. Much simpler and safer to invest in the S&P500, IMHO.

[@dennisbennett7274]

Excellent video. When I have income stream separate from my investments, I lean 95% equities and 5% cash/CD. No income stream window between earned income and SS/pension, I lean 80% equities 20% cash/cd’s. Once I have all retirement income, probably lean 90% equities and 10% cash/cd’s. These percentages are based on a year of expenses as a safety. But this is because we have two SS incomes and a pension, so we will not rely heavily on portfolio income for expenses. CD’s have performed 4 to 5 percent for the last 5 years. If that changes, I might adjust. Thanks for all your insight.

[@GotGracexxxxx]

(5:05) Actual bonds do not have losses. Bonds offer a set rate of interest for a specific period of time, followed by return of principal. (It’s like being on the bank end of a mortgage.) “Bond funds,” in contrast, are a creation of Wall Street that adds complexity and uncertainty, creates the opportunity for losses, and convinces people they must pay for professional help to invest.

[@rbkahuna8192]

Sounds like a solid plan. I had a decent cash reserve fund, but one new roof later last year put a hurt on it. Rebuilding it is definitely on the high priority list.

[@willpbmd]

Great video, thanks Erin.

[@Sylvan_dB]

As you mentioned, 100% equities can be a wild ride. The "60:40" or "100-age" portfolios are not intended to be the maximum return but instead simply serve to smooth the ride, A.K.A. limit volatility. I'm not sure if the 100% equities is the highest return. I've read several papers that talk about the long-term alpha available thru rebalancing. IIRC it comes to about 1% per year, which while it may not sound like much, is *very* significant. I don't remember if I read about it, or just drew the conclusion myself, but I arrived at 5% to 10% in cash or bonds to optimize returns. This also provides the cash cushion I've frequently needed. The only problem is needing to keep that 5% to 10% cash or bonds in multiple accounts in order to provider fodder for rebalancing. (I.e. in the 401k and in the Roth IRA and in the taxable account.)

[@kennymankennyman3980]

I believe data showed the S&P 500 companies returns or market cap were 41% from International markets. And zero chance I would put 2/3 of my equities into International stocks.

[@benjaminchaston7202]

I'm about 98% stocks, but I have at least 15 more years. My question is are they doing international funds or individual stocks? I'd be really nervous about individual foreign stocks, as well as domestic, in case they're lying to investors.

[@kane99560]

80% S&P 20% Company stock. No reason to be bonds till you're 60 imo. Target date funds only exist to charge you fees 🙄 Edit: really good video. After 10yrs working I realized much of this based on my portfolio performance. Good to see there is data and I am not crazy.