100% Stock Portfolio--Is it ever a good idea?

[@JENNIFERSONIA8]

We Are in Unchartered Financial Waters! every day we encounter challenges that have become the new standard. Although we previously perceived it as a crisis, we now acknowledge it as the new normal and must adapt accordingly. Given the current economic difficulties that the country is experiencing in 2024, how can we enhance our earnings during this period of adjustment? I cannot let my $680,000 savings vanish after putting in so much effort to accumulate them.

[@EdwardAnthony5]

Keeping some gold is usually a wise decision. You would be better off keeping away from equities for a bit or, even better, seeking advice from an expert given the current market conditions and everything that is at risk with the current economy.

[@MaryBarbara7Z]

You have a very valid point, I started investing on my own and for a long time, the market was really ripping me off. I decided to hire a CFA, even though I was skeptical at first, and I beat the market by more than 9%. I thought it was a fluke until it happened two years in a row, and so I’ve been sticking to investing via an analyst

[@ElizabethMaria9]

Could you possibly recommend a CFA you've consulted with?

[@MaryBarbara7Z]

My CFA NICOLE ANASTASIA PLUMLEE a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further... She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market..

[@ElizabethMaria9]

Thank you for saving me hours of back and forth investigation into the markets. I simply copied and pasted her full name into my browser, and her website came up first in search results. She looks flawless.

[@stevenblackthorne4790]

"The best thing money can buy is financial freedom." You have the best closing slogan in the business.

[@gauchogmail3866]

I am retired at 55. Investment 100% in sp500. My time horizon in at least 40-50 years till I die. With 40+ years time horizon, can’t afford to be conservative. Also when market crashes the loss is only the loss on the withdrawal not on the entire portfolio which can climb back.

[@glasshalffull2930]

I too retired at 55 and just turned 64, but I had a $54K pension and work a few contracts a year for $9K-$12K annually. I was 100% in S&P500 since about 1990. At retirement, I had $1.2 million and the spouse was still working. I also had $30K or so in the bank. The way I figured it is the max contribution I could make was $15K back then and this was only 1.5% of my portfolio. So, the idea of the 1.5% annual contribution being able to be the driving force to recoup from a major down turn is ridiculous. (It would certainly of helped some, but the recovery is the big upward recovery swing of the market In general). With my wife working and savings I thought I could withstand a few year downturn. This is why I decided to stay in 100% S&P 500. Now nine years later it has grown to $3.3 million and that is with drawing $54K a year for the past four years. The Covid correction hurt, but it has recovered.

[@dmitry7908]

What funds do you live your daily life on? You don't reinvest dividends? You're obviously at least 7 years too young for SS.

[@glen7999]

I ran 95%+ equities during my work life. Just entering retirement. Last few years I have been trying to diversify. Now down to 71% equities, 14% real estate(not home), 7% cash/CD's (but mostly cash now, CD's don't pay much), 3.5% BTC and rest in metals. I've looked at bonds but have a concern of risk with little return. My equities are a mix of index funds and some stocks from aristocrat list. Plan to start SS end of next year at FRA at with point will pull 3% to 3.5% from portfolio. Oh just recently subscribed and watched dividend talk.

[@translumination2002]

That last paper your presented was profoundly. So a static 60/40 or just 100% stock portfolio in retirement gives the best chance of success for lasting 30 years. It's also the two most simple to do. One involves rebalancing & the other one a really strong stomache. Thanks so much for your insight.

[@frankofva8803]

Rob, you are a great teacher and I appreciate how you explain things simply and clearly.

[@PM-oe5mk]

What percentage to allocate to stocks vs bonds in retirement depends on several factors as far as I'm concerned. Since SS and a pension will cover almost all my retirement living expenses, my need to draw from my portfolio will be minimal. This will allow me the choice to have a higher stocks to bonds ratio if I want to. However, having the choice is not the same as having peace of mind. My risk tolerance is not super high, so for me it makes more sense to keep my portfolio closer to 70-80% stocks in retirement. My intention is to have money leftover when I die, not the biggest pot I can accumulate.

[@berg8970]

I'm in a similar situation as you are. I plan to have two years of supplemental semi-liquid income in laddered CDs and money market accounts to ride out any unforeseen dips in the market, should I need it durring that time.

[@DavidEVogel]

Young people are asking "What is a pension?"

[@jmc8076]

@@DavidEVogel And will until they are the older gen and blamed by the younger for something. Tradition. 😉😂

[@tamib64]

We're about 85% equities. It's done amazing by us for 30 years. When the market was down we plowed money into our home equity. But consistently the stock market has performed well.

[@trevorpennington924]

“The best thing money can buy is financial freedom.”

[@nicholasmartinez6043]

If you have no debt in retirement, have 18 to 24 months of cash, and can live off 3-4% of the portfolio but adjust lifestyle if necessary, than absolutely you can go 100% stocks. Live and pay bills off the dividend and sell another 1-2% per year for lifestyle. In a crash, just adjust the lifestyle.

[@thetruedealio8792]

I love your saying: " the best thing money can buy is Financial Freedom." Here is what I'd like to see you analyze. I have a 100% stock portfolio. 80% is in typical funds like your 3 fund portfolio. The only difference is that I replaced the 20% Bond fund with select dividend aristocrats and kings that pay 3 to 4%. And I have an emergency fund that can augment a down Market for two years, using the 4% rule

[@dmitry7908]

Your emergency fund is being held in short-term bonds or cds?

[@thetruedealio8792]

@@dmitry7908 my emergency fund is split into three categories: 1. CDs 2. Treasuries 3. Money markets Pretty much equally distributed. But since I commented years ago, the emergency fund has grown significantly because I'm hesitant to invest in a bloated Market. And the three above are paying good interest at over 5%.

[@Larrythe65]

I'm 56 and been retired for 6 years and I'm 100% in equity.

[@dr.g3860]

I also retired at 52, 5 years ago, and am 100% in stocks.

[@DicksonMaimouth]

@@dr.g3860 My wife and I plan on retiring at 55, in about 5 years, and we’re planning on going that same route. If you’re in solid companies and/or a good S&P or total market fund, you likely have very little to worry about (I’ve trained myself to take advantage of those periods when there’s “blood in the streets,” a complete psychological adjustment). The bond market is horrible right now. I moved any money we had in bonds over to stocks and our portfolio has thrived. I’ll keep my eye on it and adjust as necessary.

[@andrewchen3151]

@@dr.g3860 I’d like to retire early around 50. What do you do with your time?

[@larryjones9773]

I'm 60, retired at 48, and my asset allocation is 97% stock index funds, 3% bond index fund.

[@gorambo]

@@andrewchen3151 I'm 56 and retired at 53, to answer your question it's easier to say what you don't do, I don't go to work. I wake up when I want and do whatever I fancy that day. I moved to Europe and travel and spend time with family. A boring day in retirement beats any day at work. There's so much to do but you can't imagine till you have time to start imagining.

[@adrianb6073]

Great video! Thank you, Rob. Here is something for you to think about. Looks like the paper objectively says 100% equity was the safest as well as best performing (3x?). The best of both worlds! If you listened to the paper and simply didn’t allow yourself to “watch the market” there would be nothing to react to and therefore nothing to cause you heartburn and stomachache. Jump in 100% equity, an go find another retirement hobby. This hobby is costing you money! Realize where the problem lies (in our heads). I’m in retirement, 100% equity. My 86 year old mother is also 100% equity. One way to get to 1-2% withdrawal rate is to invest optimally.

[@vanguardvaluist2614]

100% equities make sense for people who have pensions, are still "working" in some aspect and thusly have income, low expenses and no debt with a 2-3 year allocation of cash or cash equivalents or rental incomes.

[@CaptainBenjamins]

100% stock allocation is a perfectly fine portfolio. It is the safe withdrawal rate that comes with it that messes people up. 3% will last forever. So if you have say $5mill invested and can live on $150,000 the first year, then you are good to go and will leave a legacy to your choldren

[@jesuslives316]

I need an 80" TV to see all those small numbers. :-) Love the channel!

[@robertmccullagh6251]

Loving these no nonsense videos. Thanks for the info Rob!

[@johnford5568]

I decided years ago to hover around 60/40. Yes I've given up some returns but as time goes on, I like how the 40% locks in more and more as I get older. For me its a forever ratio. The main thing is savings rate, not returns. You have to have money invested for this issue to even be an issue. Of course, invest at the lowest cost possible too.

[@CaptainBenjamins]

Do you mind telling us how old you are when you made the switch to 60/40? Any advice?

[@johnford5568]

@@CaptainBenjamins I was about 45, 60 now

[@bdwolf3638]

Since the last 40 years was a bull market for bonds (falling interest rates/rising NAVs), I look forward to the video you mentioned about 60/40 portfolio in low interest/rising interest rate market. Thanks for the EXCELLENT content in your presentations.

[@tekootianderson]

Your book was a very good read. I 'm a fan of stats and numbers. Great video showing different scenarios.

[@davidrounds3245]

I often think the best thing I could do is just put 100% in Vanguard Wellington (60/40) and never worry about it again.

[@larryjones9773]

But you have to sell stock in a down market. Wouldn't you want to have your bonds & stock in different funds? This way, you can sell from your bond fund in a down market.

[@diydad5067]

@@larryjones9773 I think the wellington fund is self balancing, no need to rebalance every year or quarter.

[@kamumma1]

Love your videos! Just found your KZbin channel and appreciate your straight forward and research backed info. Thank you for all your work!

[@GodfatherInOhio]

i'm 66. i am being told by advisors to go conservative. BUT! my target expiration is age 92. So, if all goes as planned, i have 26 years left. So, i'm going all in with a weighted S&P500 index fund that's returned a 16% annualized rate of return over the past five years ... with -0- fees. I'm still in my "prime earning years", investment-wise. When i hit 86, then i'll go conservative. So, my closing slogan is: "The best way to protect my wealth is to grow my wealth!" 'Nuff said (Stan Lee)

[@AlexanderElijah-y3w]

Biggest lesson i learnt in 2023 in the stock market is that nobody knows what is going to happen next, so practice some humility and low a strategy with a long term edge.

[@FRANKEWARED]

Nobody knows anything; You need to create your own process, manage risk, and stick to the plan, through thick or thin, While also continuously learning from mistakes and improving.

[@SantiagoLiamW2]

Uncertainty... it took me 5 years to stop trying to predict what bout to happen in market based on charts studying, cause you never know. not having a mentor cost me 5 years of pain I learn to go we’re the market is wanting to go and keep it simple with discipline.

[@EzekielDaniel-f9b]

Could you kindly elaborate on the advisor's background and qualifications?

[@SantiagoLiamW2]

“NICOLE ANASTASIA PLUMLEE’’ is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.

[@EzekielDaniel-f9b]

Just ran an online search on her name and came across her websiite; pretty well educated. thank you for sharing.

[@thomaslee7189]

Someone said he considers SS benefit as bonds, so invest everything in stock.

[@darrelvaldez9455]

correct

[@lisadowling6047]

That was Jack Bogle who said that about SS. I will have a teachers pension and I see it as bond-like as well.

[@DavidEVogel]

My SS check is $1068. Oh boy let's party.

[@johnbrown1851]

@@DavidEVogel git er done 😎

[@darrelvaldez9455]

Aggressively investing in stocks (Long Term), I am by no mean a daily trader nor i plan to let go or sell under 1 year. SS is bonds and should be around 12-1500 a month after 62. I am 33, I am taking the "risk"

[@cernousekpetr]

Rob, thanks a lot for all your efforts. I love your videos. They are simple, yet extremely interesting with very easy-to-understand explanations.

[@Acton65]

Great overview Rob. Thank you. Appreciate your channel.

[@mere_cat]

Thanks Rob! That paper by Javier Estrada was very helpful. I downloaded it for safe keeping!

[@brianmason5500]

At 67 years old I do not understand the fixation on bonds. I remember when I used to get 4% on a savings account. Those days are gone and so are 5% AAA bonds. Instead the way to go is with dividend kings, income and growth to cover inflation. I won't invest if it doesn't pay at least 4% and has growth record to boot. The only reason I see to hold 20% bonds is to buy more dividend stocks when prices are down

[@DavidEVogel]

At 67 years old I do not understand the fixation on bonds. Bonds are good for cash flow during a bear market. During a bull market you can take 5% of your portfolio for spending and never touch the principle. During a bear market the 5% hurts bad. No only is your principle falling but you are pulling an additional 5%. If you are comfortable with 100% equities fine with me.

[@HorrorFreak68]

OF COURSE i can handle that type of loss with decades left until retirement. Much less in fact. I’ve had 100% stocks since 1999 and never flinched. In 2008 I sold nothing. In 2020 I sold nothing. I simply salivated at everything being on sale.

[@sbkpilot1]

there is a caveat to this though, in 1999 the 10 year Treasury was at 6% and by 2014 it had dropped to less than 3%... the outperformance in Bonds came due to this massive lowering of rates. Given that the 10 year is currently at 1.3% the 99-14 scenario can never happen again in terms of Bond performance which is why the historical backtest isn't particularly accurate. Put another way, the 7 year Treasury (Intermediate term) is at 1% right now, even if it went to zero which is highly unlikely, the maximum capital gain you're going to get is 1% x 7 = 7% total which isn't much. The more likely scenario is that Bonds are either going to be flat or lose money in the next decade. I do agree though there are other reasons to hold Bonds, to manage volatility and also Sequence or Returns Risk...

[@rob_berger]

Good analysis. I think the key is not so much that 99 to 14 will repeat itself, but that a 100% stock portfolio can underperform 90/10 or 80/10 for a decade or more.

[@matthewharrigan3568]

Your math on bond capital gains isn't quite right. Look up bond convexity. Basically the true relationship is nonlinear, and that effect is very strong as yield decreases.

[@cmdrfunk]

Hello from the future where the 10 year Treasury is 4.52% and can NEVER DROP AGAIN!

[@hmbdata]

Dumping cash, bonds etc. into 100% equities at the bottom of a crash would be optimal.

[@limobob100]

I am 100% stock however some funds have bonds like Vanguard Wellington that will give me 3.06% to bonds. I fund my expenses from dividends and SS along as the portfolio earns between 4 and 6% all is well. The ups and downs in the market are not that important as long as the dividends continue to be paid and you are never sure about that AT&T. I am 76

[@LegoStarWars217]

Great topic , this is what I always running about. Good research too. Keep them coming

[@travisharrisphotography]

Rob, starting now at 41 years old. Just setup my Roth, and for now I put $6k into VOO, and after the new year going to put another $6500 in (to get going as fast as possible) then in '24 will likely contribute monthly. I am late to the game here. I feel like I need to be pretty aggressive in order to have anything in the end (at my current age). So, I am really thinking about just stock indexes. If I go 30 years, I will be 71. Very stressed out trying to figure this all out.

[@glasshalffull2930]

Better late than never! Wishing you the best of luck! Investing 100% in the S&P over the long run is the smartest thing to do. Just keep contributing and NO trying to time the market if there is a correction. Timing the market almost never works.

[@Sar0]

I'll be a 100% up to 55 years of age and be 80/20 by the age of 65 on my regular. My IRA will be 60/20/20 by the age of 55. 50/50 or 60/40. I think are for funds with over 1.5 million

[@brianh6680]

Am 12 months out from retirement and have been building up a CD ladder that will hold five years of living expenses when combined with social security. Average market downturn is under a year, and average recovery is under two years. This buffer allows the rest to remain in stock well above the traditional 60% level. I think the main problem with any percentage based rule of thumb is that it ignores concrete requirements and may over/under account.

[@mikeabuckner]

Great video. Thanks. Look forward to any perspective on asset allocation with current low bond yields mentioned late in video. I’ve seen many videos /articles on historical performance…but what should a retiree expect (and how to invest) going forward with the current yield situation?

[@DavidEVogel]

Your risk tolerance is unique. With you depend on selling assets from your retirement portfolio for a positive cash flow? If the answer is yes, than you need a portion in fixed-income securities.

[@14goldenjay]

the only time bonds pay off is if you happen to invest a lump sum right before a total market disaster which is very improbable....dont invest with the 1 percent scenario in mind it will cost you dearly...1929 and 1999 only happened twice in 120 years

[@quantumperplexity]

Here we are now in 2023. Bond yields are way, way up! This was unforeseeable by most analysts when this wonderful educational video was made back in 2021. So just like with stocks that go up and down, bonds do too. One things for certain, there is no certainty and our economy continues to be dynamic and unpredictable. This is why I love these statistical studies coupled with diversification.

[@eos6984]

Great video. Thanks for the information. If the odds are against a gambler, in the long run the gambler will lose regardless of the bet pattern. If you believe that stocks will provide a greater return than bonds or cash, (the data in your video supports this position) then no matter what allocation weights or scheme you employ, your total return will be less if you use cash or bonds. The cost of using cash or bonds is the stock return (100%) less your reduced return because of including cash and bonds. So am I saying all portfolios should be 100% stocks. No, not necessarily. I am saying when you use cash and bonds ask yourself 1. What specifically am I buying and 2. what is the cost? For example, in the video stocks returned about 10% and bonds about 6%. So if you have a 60/40 portfolio, your expected return is 8.4%. That means it cost you 1.6 % of your investments. What are you buying? Assume a 40% decline. 100% stocks a 40% decline. 60/40 portfolio, 24% decline. Say there is a 40% decline every 5 years, that means you will pay 5 x 1.6% = 8% to suffer a 24% decline instead of a 40% decline.

[@8G00SE8]

The problem with everyone ignoring bonds is that businesses will no longer be able to raise money using debt, as nobody will buy them, forcing yields up and reverting to the 6.1% average.

[@stevelee7781]

Back in '08 a 60 yr old coworker told me his wife & him were up all night discussing his all stock portfolio. They had watched their one million dollar portfolio drop to 500k and wanted to sell.. BTW, he had tears in his eyes. I begged him to hold on as the market has to be bottom.. I was wrong as it dropped another 10%. Always wondered if he stayed the course.

[@freeman436]

Personally, I can't stand 30/40% of my portfolio guaranteed to lose money. Which is where we are today with real negative-yielding bonds. That's not what I call 'balance'. I just fired my Vanguard CFA. He had me at the old 60/40 which has yielded me a whopping 7.3% over the past five years while the S&P has averaged 28%. Criminal. We're in a new paradigm.

[@psoidonym2389]

Interesting analysis, Rob. I'm currently contemplating exactly that. I'm hitting 60 this year and plan on retiring next year. Going from saving to spending is one thing. What to do with 100% stock allocation is another aspect. 100% stock has been fine through the years and I'm pretty able to stomach some volatility. But that might change getting older. I haven't decide yet how to go about it. But thx for the interesting discussion an links on this video.

[@BryanColliver]

good video i will be 100% in stock but you did give me something to think about. with me planning on dividends for most if not all my income for retirement.

[@rpguitar]

The most interesting part of the talk (today's low bond rates) is in the final seconds, but it draws no conclusion - because we are stuck analyzing only historical behavior! It's such an inherent weakness of approaching wealth management as a "science." All of the studies that used past decades to draw conclusions are great, but they fall flat in trying to predict what's to come if interest rates stay low for a long time, and then negatively impact existing bond portfolios when they eventually rise. My armchair analysis is that it makes sense to almost completely ignore bonds until rates rise enough to free up some "space" for them to breathe a bit. I'm currently about 96/2/2 (stocks/bonds/cash) at age 54, just recently retired with a 2.7% WR.

[@rob_berger]

The tough question is at what rate do you buy back into bonds.

[@rpguitar]

@@rob_berger Indeed, I agree that is the conundrum. In my case, bonds are in my IRA, and I have 5 years til I can use that money easily. So I'm going to wait maybe 2-3 more years before seriously ramping up the allocation. I think by then we'll have a very different rate situation. (How could we not? But of course, who knows!)

[@paulthorpe766]

Good stuff Rob. I think other asset classes as well as bonds worth risk-split as you get older are the following - they have a very nice capital gain offset eg most are treated as 'Wasting Asset' dispite going up in value SO NO CAPITAL GAINS - Vintage Cars/bikes, wine, art, watches, vintage Gibson's/Fenders, furniture, antiques etc is worth 25 % punt of your holding too as you get to post 55 yrs of age, but it requires the Gladwell 10,000 hrs of knowledge on each to be clued-up granted !

[@219garry]

I've debated on this. I think it comes down to your cash flow outside of stocks. Be it a pension or your social security or perhaps rental income. You have to NOT need your stock money for anything in order to go 100 pct. One guy i know did it by keeping 5 yrs living expenses in cash.

[@donniemoder1466]

Some people have equity in real estate, an expensive home or a second home to balance their portfolio of stocks.

[@jmc8076]

The % in lost opportunity (returns) from portion sitting 5 yrs in cash/GICs etc would need to be calculated for accurate analysis of the portfolio.

[@joshford7828]

I think 100% stocks is doable, my preference being in mutual funds or etfs to diversify. Be completely debt free, house, everything. And have a couple years of cash on hand. That way you can survive a couple years of a total market downturn with out touching your nest egg. The best part of a major market drop is buying up your favorite stocks at a discount while your working .

[@davidbrooks8809]

You're me..I'm 51..debt free... but 80/20.. single..l may try 💯.. maybe 🤔..lol

[@markmorris2517]

Rob, thanks for another great video and knowing how to teach me about things I don't even know to ask about. #Glidepath

[@Gary-ib8dz]

Thanks for this video Rob. I'm pretty sure that I watched this video shortly after you made it. I forgot that you referenced that paper by Javier Estrada. I stumbled across that paper last summer and wondered what your thoughts were on it. I'm glad i rewatched this. The part that doesnt make sense to me is that 60% and 100% stocks beat 90%, 80%, and 70%. I would have thought it would all go in order from 100-60% stocks or 60-100% stocks...but I guess I dont have to understand that part.

[@rightshotphotography2576]

Everyone seems to be ignoring bond basis risk. There is very little analysis that looks at buying bonds where interest rates are almost NOTHING, to increasing interest rates over time. In that scenario bond values decrease. There is a very real concern that bonds and stocks BOTH could take a hit in an increasing interest rate environment! My personal plan (7 years from retirement) is to heavily diversify - equity index funds, international equities, gold, REITs, dividend stocks & funds, etc. along with holding some cash 10-15% on the side. Ultimately, bonds only pay a tiny amount over cash, but carry more risk!

[@Summerdee223]

Well one year later your concerns appear to have been valid.

[@jmc8076]

@@Summerdee223 It’s why holding longer term bonds in rising rates/higher inflation makes sense for any who want to hold them. Investing is more a black art then science.

[@GerardoSpero]

I truly appreciate your insight, thank you.

[@sprattmann4541]

MCD is a great bond proxy. It's basically a REIT without the REIT, a bond without a negative return.

[@genglandoh]

I think we will do 90% stocks and 10% cash (2 buckets) The stocks will be 1/2 in Growth ETFs 1/2 in dividend ETFs If the market is down for 3 years we are covered with the 10% cash (10% is about 3 years in GO GO years spending) If the market drops for more then 3 years we will reduce our spending and use just the dividends. This is my way to sleep well during a market downturn. PS We have reduced our cost of living so if we have to we could live off of just SS.

[@auricgoldfinger8478]

This is the second time that I’ve watched this. It is a brilliant presentation

[@donniemoder1466]

What about this? Some bonds are going negative. The Fed may not raise interest rates in the future. Bonds may go down with stocks like early 2020. Cash could be better than Bonds. You are relying on 100 year old info, bonds could be at tipping point of start of a downtrend after a 40 year upturn.

[@Jack51971]

Buy and hold...time is on your side...

[@ChrisWilliams5605LS]

I will have several pensions when I retire. I tend to think of those as my safe bond options, thus, allowing more stock equity allocations.

[@tradzupdaz8709]

One should have enough savings to weather a crash. 2-3 years of savings in a HIS separate from your portfolio will help during the down years. The HIS will also return 2% or more depending on location and interests rates.

[@deplorable7575]

I'd think you'd do well with 100% in ETFs like SCHD. And just live off the dividends with no draw down

[@RobotMowerTricks]

I'm MANY years from retirement, but right now my plan is to go into retirement with 100% stocks, and then convert to cash about 1-5 years of expenses depending on how "fully" I'm retired.

[@glasshalffull2930]

I hope you are in a S&P500 type fund. It has treated me very well over the last 23 years. Just keep contributing and NO trying to time the market. There will be ups and downs, but the market continues to rise over the long run. Best of luck!

[@lifeisgood070]

Thank you for digging into low bond yields I’m really excited to watch what you find!! That’s been the biggest thing on my mind for a long time. In my mind bonds only average 6% because there were a few times they were like 15 to 25%…. But from like 2010 to now it’s been 2.5 or less it feels. Unless you’re an accredited investor and you can invest in a really low quality bonds with >7% yields

[@johnbrown1851]

Withdrawal strategy could affect the outcome of a mixed portfolio a lot I think. When you sell off an asset is as important as allocation.

[@theviciousswagger]

100% portfolio wish me luck

[@davidwatson8642]

All of my equity positions are not for me, but for my children and grandchildren, so we're in for the long haul. I am retired and living off my military pension and social security. So, I am still 100% in stocks, with a hefty position in safe investments (money market)

[@whatisheartscont2be645]

Very insightful.

[@davidrogers0717]

Totally agree Rob. I think the right mathematical answer in the research may point to stocks, but yes one does have to sleep at night so maybe 60/40 mitigates the two?

[@gilbrook]

Thx for link to Estrada paper. 30/70 glide path is cash cow. Does wonders for good night’s sleep.

[@mattcramer9187]

Great video, thank you

[@Magdalene777]

If you have dividend stocks you can buy shares with the dividends when the market is down.

[@kevinbarrett3706]

Nice analysis; good job .

[@HonestOne]

What I noticed with bonds is that they don't appreciate and are often low yield. Does it matter if stocks drop in appreciated value if the bond never appreciated. Most of the stock value over time is growth?

[@AndrewRod-c5v]

I am 100 % im stocks

[@suzanneemerson2625]

When you’re allocating assets in your portfolio in retirement, how do you factor in a six figure guaranteed government pension, adjusted for inflation, that you can very easily live on?

[@Gary-ib8dz]

I think if you can easily live on your pension, you go 100% total stock market or a mix US/international if that is your thing.

[@JayCalderon211]

Thank you, Rob

[@meibing4912]

Great video! No matter what it is never - ever - IMHO good to have all one's assets concentrated in a single assets class. I do think a lot of people have too few stocks when they retire, but property should definitely be part of any well-balanced investment portfolio. Have 1/3 fixed income (a large part of this is in reality stocks), 1/3 property and 1/3 stocks. Fixed income lets you avoid selling in down-markets, stocks give the best returns, property is a great inflation hedge.

[@justincase8795]

Ah !Ah! Ah! "It could be a good idea...just not for me" 😂😂😂

[@samryan7954]

Berkshire-Hathaway stock is my largest stock holding in a 100% stock portfolio. I think I'm good.

[@seattledan]

I’m confused on the types of bonds whenever someone mentions this. Is it treasury, corporate, junk? It makes a huge difference when we talk about diversifying in bonds.

[@ManjitSandhu]

Hi Rob I am a new subscriber and loved the few videos I saw. thanks. Have a quick question. If I, a retiree, have a 20-stock portfolio and need to sell stock(s) for expenses which one should I sell first; one with the largest gain or one with the smallest gain??

[@DavidEVogel]

My retirement portfolio is 100% equities. I can handle a 3 year bear market.

[@markmccarren827]

Very interesting. As you mentioned, I'm looking forward to understanding how your "near retirement" analysis may change based on the current interest rate environment.

[@DavidEVogel]

based on the current interest rate environment. Doesn’t matter. If you are comfortable with a portfolio of 80% equities/20% fixed-income securities then stick with it. The return of fixed-income securities is trivial.

[@TheFirstRealChewy]

We plan to do 100% stocks.

[@allenlane5000]

Excellent video Rob, and thanks for the link to the glidepath paper. I agree that 100% equities is the only way to go......that is except for a couple years in Cash/CD/ST T's for near term expenses. Oh wait, that would put me about 90/10 ! Great minds......... A consideration for future topic. Since most retirees will have most of their saving in pre tax accounts, what are the most tax efficient options for using a large chunk of those funds for say a vacation home, or RV....or whatever. Very hard to get a loan with no cf's, and you can't take loans agains IRA's or other pretax savings, and those marginal brackets can take a huge bite out of the withdrawals. Appreciate your consideration.

[@baybay7898]

IF you get sufficient stable incomes such as rental incomes, SSN, investments, others, to cover the retirement living expenses, would that be good idea going 100% equity?

[@HarshColby]

This is exactly what I'm doing. My passive income pays all my living expenses, and everything not tied up in passive income businesses is in stocks. It took 10 years of planning to shift to passive income, and I'm glad I did.

[@TES-bt8sv]

Since I have a pension, I'm going probably 90% stocks, 10% cash, which is enough cash to last me 3 years, if need be.

[@baybay7898]

@@TES-bt8sv Thank you.

[@baybay7898]

@@HarshColby thks

[@DavidEVogel]

100% equities works well until there is a multi-year bear market. Mom and pop see their investment portfolio falling and falling. They bail out.

[@luisoncpp]

Something that bugs me is that financial planning tools use historical records to estimate returns of both stocks and bonds, however with bonds we already know how their future performance is going to be, so we shouldn't be using historical returns of bonds to make estimations.

[@SuperYova]

My goal in retirement is to be 100% stock portfolio *with* 2 years cash emergency savings in the bank to weather most downturns.

[@johnlittle8267]

I was going to say I have never made money on holding a bond fund. Granted I haven't had it in the right periods and for long enough, but I think that shows how much has changed from the times where you could get a CD paying 6 or7% and that is reflected in historical results and probably his monte carlo. I am thinking 75% or 80%' equities for me. Right now I am at 70% stock including retirement and non-retirement funds, and I think I'm too low in stocks. That is several years more than 2 in cash and feels like too much.

[@ljzmudzinski2807]

I know a diversified portfolio will generally include exposure to non-US equities. I feel like non US equities have underperformed US equities for years now. Why bother with Int’l? Am I waiting in vain for the time to come for Int’l? How much difference does it really make?

[@panyc10]

Surely a 100% equity portfolio is going to move a lot, however international diversification helps reducing volatility (a bit). More importantly, these studies were made with bonds actually yielding something. These days I am not sure at all these ideas are applicable and probably we just have to live with the fact that things are going to be more volatile. Also worth noting that while market crashes still happen, global markets did a lot better in terms of risk/profitability in a low yield environment, hence it may not be a problem after all!

[@MerryHampton]

great video... been thinking the same thing. Recent subscriber and love your content,

[@franksatterfield9764]

If you look at the 10 year bond yield compared to the Fed target inflation rate you will see a negative interest rate.

[@kmque3166]

I’m decades from retiring, however, a 💯 % stock portfolio would be hard to do as well when close to or in retirement. Look 4ward to more details on 60/40 allocation, my parents does that.

[@rob_berger]

Working on it now. Hopefully I have it published on Monday.

[@DavidEVogel]

I’m decades from retiring Built your equities portfolio now. We have decades to work out the rest later.

[@adrianb6073]

Very good video, thank you. I'm perplexed as to why more retirees don't choose a 100% stock portfolio. In my mind, many if not most retirees are still "long term investors", meaning that they are withdrawing +/- 4% ("the safe withdrawal rate"), and that the remaining +/- 96% is mostly a long term investment. They probably won't be around for the next 50 years, but their heirs or legacies will be. We all believe that stocks will likely outperform bonds in the long term....so why put it in anything but stocks?! I think the answer lies in that many people use the terms "risk" and "volatility" interchangeably, and they are NOT the same. Yes, stocks are more volatile over the short term, but over the long term, no one will argue that bonds are a better bet than stocks. Therefore, bonds are "riskier" in the long term than stocks! Riskier in that bonds will almost guaranteed give you less return, and neither are likely to give you a loss in the long term. Are we short term investors, or long term investors? I know which one I am.

[@Gary-ib8dz]

I used to think the range thing. Now I'm not sure. The reason is sequence of return risk. Put 100% stock and a 60/40 portfolio into portfolio visualizer. Start in year 2000 and set it for a 4% withdraw rate.

[@Laborkei]

Stocks? Only if they have a long track record of Dividends. I love CD Ladders, but right now is not a good time to buy CD's. I am lucky, I built a 10 year CD ladder 5 years ago that provide me over 3% Interest. As they mature, I move back into Stocks.

[@Gary-ib8dz]

Wouldn't total returns be better than dividends?

[@JoeC5050]

50% in JEPI and 50% in NUSI

[@jps0117]

If 50% of my retirement income comes from stocks and 50% from Social Security, doesn't that make a bond-free portfolio easier to stomach?