How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
-
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:17 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I’m doing well although I was down 2x my gross yearly salary from Feb 19 to March 23.
In my taxable account I’m back to Jan 31 level, in my 401k I’m at -7% YTD but I was up 37% last year.
Shopify and Tesla in my taxable are saving my hide from being negative this year.
Panic trades in 2008 and 2009 that ended up being terrible helped me stay calm now.
In my taxable account I’m back to Jan 31 level, in my 401k I’m at -7% YTD but I was up 37% last year.
Shopify and Tesla in my taxable are saving my hide from being negative this year.
Panic trades in 2008 and 2009 that ended up being terrible helped me stay calm now.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:10 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I’m about 97% stocks outside of EF. Live in a very high cost of living area, so overall that makes it about 60/40 if you count the EF.
Will stay the course and will continue buying more stocks.
Will stay the course and will continue buying more stocks.
-
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 10:33 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
For you guys commenting, I just want to make sure we are including all of the investable assets portion ?
That includes stocks, bonds, and cash.
A lot of guys will not include the amounts in cash and only focus on the amounts in stocks/bonds. So a guy with $1 million in investable assets with $500,000 in cash, $400,000 in stocks and $100,000 in bonds, will go around saying his allocation to stocks is 80%. When in actuality, his allocation is 40% to stocks.
That includes stocks, bonds, and cash.
A lot of guys will not include the amounts in cash and only focus on the amounts in stocks/bonds. So a guy with $1 million in investable assets with $500,000 in cash, $400,000 in stocks and $100,000 in bonds, will go around saying his allocation to stocks is 80%. When in actuality, his allocation is 40% to stocks.
-
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:38 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I have a defined benefit pension which I don’t count in my assets. I can’t access the money until age 55 and then it will be a gov backed lump sum and annuity.
-
- Posts: 49035
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
That makes an absolutely huge difference in terms of asset allocation.minimalistmarc wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:27 am I have a defined benefit pension which I don’t count in my assets. I can’t access the money until age 55 and then it will be a gov backed lump sum and annuity.
If you have a large govt pension (from memory - NHS?) then that means you can take as much risk as you want with your portfolio. You could, in fact, probably leverage your equity portfolio (by borrowing against equity in property assets; stockbroker margin accounts are subject to margin calls - in effect you short volatility, just as you do with a spread betting account & that is not usually wise). I don't recommend that -- but it's possible.
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:02 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Still 100%. Still fine. No flinching at all. If the market isn't higher than today in a couple of decades, no foreseeable allocation would have saved me anyway.
- LiveSimple
- Posts: 2312
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:55 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
checking in for 100% equities... In January went to 25% Long Term Treasuries then in February went to 100% equities.
Staying at 100% equities, will see. Tilting to health and technology sectors index funds, as well.
Planning to move three year expenses, to fixed income near future.
Staying at 100% equities, will see. Tilting to health and technology sectors index funds, as well.
Planning to move three year expenses, to fixed income near future.
Last edited by LiveSimple on Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Invest when you have the money, sell when you need the money, for real life expenses...
-
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:38 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I have been considering margin, might look into it if the market tanks but probable exceeds my wife’s risk tolerance !Valuethinker wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:37 amThat makes an absolutely huge difference in terms of asset allocation.minimalistmarc wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:27 am I have a defined benefit pension which I don’t count in my assets. I can’t access the money until age 55 and then it will be a gov backed lump sum and annuity.
If you have a large govt pension (from memory - NHS?) then that means you can take as much risk as you want with your portfolio. You could, in fact, probably leverage your equity portfolio (by borrowing against equity in property assets; stockbroker margin accounts are subject to margin calls - in effect you short volatility, just as you do with a spread betting account & that is not usually wise). I don't recommend that -- but it's possible.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
After a manic month and a half in which my usually passive strategy has caused me to make some 70 trades, my expected return is up 30%, although portfolio balance is down 13%. At the time of writing there has been a large net shift in my holdings from equity indices to REITs. (Some REITs fell twice as far as equity indices, triggering the shift.)
The 30% increase in expected return is provisional. Expected returns are based on historical earnings, and crash-related earnings falls have yet to work their way into my data. If markets are as efficient as some people believe, then the things I've sold will have lower falls than the things I've bought, and the 30% will evaporate. But I expect to retain most of my gains, so for the time being I'm happy. As long as all funds involved continue to exist, I will be able to track what happens to the 30% figure as new earnings data comes in.
The 30% increase in expected return is provisional. Expected returns are based on historical earnings, and crash-related earnings falls have yet to work their way into my data. If markets are as efficient as some people believe, then the things I've sold will have lower falls than the things I've bought, and the 30% will evaporate. But I expect to retain most of my gains, so for the time being I'm happy. As long as all funds involved continue to exist, I will be able to track what happens to the 30% figure as new earnings data comes in.
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 3:44 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I'm 100% stocks, haven't touched, feeling fine.
Granted, I'm 31 and I don't have a ton of $ in the market yet.
Granted, I'm 31 and I don't have a ton of $ in the market yet.
-
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:03 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
100% VTWAX + 6 Months Emergency and doing fine. Continuing to DCA per my IPS. The only market-timing activity I've executed was a partial conversion of a traditional IRA to a Roth somewhere near the recent "bottom". Fortunately, I am still employed with no lost income (yet).
I've had three big takeaways so far with this experience:
1) The absolute necessity of an Emergency Fund I'm so thankful that we set this up years ago and have resisted any and all temptations to spend or invest any part of this safety net. I've even started to question if 6 months might be too lean for me. I've added a few grand just to sleep better at night.
2) The value of low or no debt. Since our only payment is on our house, we've been able to very easily adjust our lifestyle to the current conditions without issue. I don't even care how low of interest rates I may have passed up in the past, the flexibility of not owing a bunch payments has been huge.
3) Never take employment for granted. It's pretty easy to get complacent in our routines and collecting paychecks, especially when unemployment was a record lows just 2 short months ago. For the first time in my life, I experienced the fear of job loss and have seen several coworkers laid off. Here one day, gone the next. It can happen that quick.
If even one of the factors above were different, it would introduce a lot more stress into our household. Many people are facing the short end of all three and might also be sick or have lost a family member in this crisis. I cannot even begin to imagine what some people are going through.
I've had three big takeaways so far with this experience:
1) The absolute necessity of an Emergency Fund I'm so thankful that we set this up years ago and have resisted any and all temptations to spend or invest any part of this safety net. I've even started to question if 6 months might be too lean for me. I've added a few grand just to sleep better at night.
2) The value of low or no debt. Since our only payment is on our house, we've been able to very easily adjust our lifestyle to the current conditions without issue. I don't even care how low of interest rates I may have passed up in the past, the flexibility of not owing a bunch payments has been huge.
3) Never take employment for granted. It's pretty easy to get complacent in our routines and collecting paychecks, especially when unemployment was a record lows just 2 short months ago. For the first time in my life, I experienced the fear of job loss and have seen several coworkers laid off. Here one day, gone the next. It can happen that quick.
If even one of the factors above were different, it would introduce a lot more stress into our household. Many people are facing the short end of all three and might also be sick or have lost a family member in this crisis. I cannot even begin to imagine what some people are going through.
VTWAX and chill
-
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:37 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I’m in the same boat. Trying to get the highest returns I can.soccerfreak wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:28 am I'm 100% stocks, haven't touched, feeling fine.
Granted, I'm 31 and I don't have a ton of $ in the market yet.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I’m 95% equities. Close enough I suppose.
I am staying the course. Buying more with every paycheck.
I should add that for the last 4 years I have been paying off my mortgage by making extra principal payments. So I’m not plowing everything into the market. But I have been doing this well before this “crisis”.
EDIT: I am 49. 8 yrs from retirement.
I am staying the course. Buying more with every paycheck.
I should add that for the last 4 years I have been paying off my mortgage by making extra principal payments. So I’m not plowing everything into the market. But I have been doing this well before this “crisis”.
EDIT: I am 49. 8 yrs from retirement.
-
- Posts: 1244
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:59 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
My take is that if an investor has 2-4 years worth of expenses in cash, it’s no longer an “emergency fund.” It’s just a big pot of cash that makes the person feel good.BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:29 pmThat's a gray area though, people have various size EF's. Investor A may have 2-4 months expenses in their EF. Investor B may have 2-4 years in their EF. Maybe the market drops enough to where Investor B decides to use a few years of that EF and invest it instead. So is that still EF? I'm of the opinion that everything should just roll up under your AA instead of trying to separate it out, money is fungible.Noobvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:22 pmI wasn't referring to emergency funds, which, by definition are supposed to be saved for an emergency. I'm referring to a lot of posts like the one I quoted, in which someone who is "100% stocks" somehow has investable money that isn't actually invested in their planned allocation.RPW25 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:06 pmYeah, I think this is probably true. If I counted my emergency fund I would be 95/5 stock/cash.Noobvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:36 pmI often wonder what percent of 100% stock investors are really more like 90/10 or even 80/20 stock/cash investors most of the time
Hopefully the AA police dont come after me for that...
- SmileyFace
- Posts: 9186
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:11 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
But many ARE rebalancing with their EF (or "savings" as one person called it; or dry powder as others reference their cash reserve). They just don't realize it and call it rebalancing and perhaps don't calculate whether they are 95/5 stocks/cash or 97/3 or 90/10. They have described it many times in many threads but just don't see it as rebalancing. They build up cash when market is higher and then buy on a dip - essentially holding 95/5 stocks/cash and rebalancing back and forth (by letting cash build then buying in). I don't particularly care - I just find it funny when I see people saying "I was 100% stocks before and now I am buying more" or "doubling down". For those that hold cash I can say "Hey - I am 100% stocks too - I just rebalance from my bonds instead of from cash."_Soundwave_ wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:13 pmThese types of posts sound pretty pedantic to me... especially over something as simple as how one describes their cash allocation.BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:11 pmYeah, that sounds ridiculous. I think people like to claim they're 100% stocks, or believe they're 100% stocks, when they're actually not.Triple digit golfer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:47 pmI am 100% stocks with 76% of my portfolio.Noobvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:36 pmI often wonder what percent of 100% stock investors are really more like 90/10 or even 80/20 stock/cash investors most of the time
Another 21% I am 100% bonds and 3% I am 100% cash.
Sounds ridiculous but I believe that many of the "100% equity" investors really aren't 100% equities.
Whether you are 97% equities and 3% cash or 100% equities less the EF, does it really matter? Most folks aren’t rebalancing with their EF so it’s effectively the same thing.
Sheesh.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I'm essentially 100 stock, though my wife has a small % in the TSP g-fund which is no longer getting contributions. I've been doubling down so to speak by rebalancing my 401k from a whatever resulted from haphazard fund selection of the last 12 year to 100%stock (mostly S&P with a little international). I had some target date funds and had started buying some bonds since im getting so old (35) so there was something probably 5%ish in bonds. I also took some cash I set aside to pay some medical bills and bought stock with it (medical bills were payed and smaller than I imagined.)
All told the losses haven't been to terrible, particularly since last year was +30%ish. While I expect another move down from here, I don't imagine anything that would make me regret my stock holding.
To all those stating 100% stock investors aren't really 100:
It is common practice on this forum to state explicitly that your AA does not include your house, mortgage, or EF. It is entirely reasonable to apply your AA only to assets you have deposited in investment accounts...ie your investment portfolio. This is done by the 60/40 crowd as much as by the 100/0 crowd. We also ignore SS, pensions, cars, and a bunch of other assets that are harder to value or less objectively ours. This is easy to complain about when you know someone has to have some cash on hand, so can't be 100 anything. You kidding yourself if you think that complaint applies more to 100 stock folks then anyone who describes their AA in terms of stock bond split. I almost never see anyone on here describe there allocation as stock/bond/cash, but as we just said we know everyone is carrying at least some cash. If you want to get pendantic about it, I'm probably something like 70/1/5/20/2/2 ... I'll let you guess at the categories.
All told the losses haven't been to terrible, particularly since last year was +30%ish. While I expect another move down from here, I don't imagine anything that would make me regret my stock holding.
To all those stating 100% stock investors aren't really 100:
It is common practice on this forum to state explicitly that your AA does not include your house, mortgage, or EF. It is entirely reasonable to apply your AA only to assets you have deposited in investment accounts...ie your investment portfolio. This is done by the 60/40 crowd as much as by the 100/0 crowd. We also ignore SS, pensions, cars, and a bunch of other assets that are harder to value or less objectively ours. This is easy to complain about when you know someone has to have some cash on hand, so can't be 100 anything. You kidding yourself if you think that complaint applies more to 100 stock folks then anyone who describes their AA in terms of stock bond split. I almost never see anyone on here describe there allocation as stock/bond/cash, but as we just said we know everyone is carrying at least some cash. If you want to get pendantic about it, I'm probably something like 70/1/5/20/2/2 ... I'll let you guess at the categories.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Yeah that was my original point, some people still consider this their EF and thus consider themselves 100% stocks.absolute zero wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:09 amMy take is that if an investor has 2-4 years worth of expenses in cash, it’s no longer an “emergency fund.” It’s just a big pot of cash that makes the person feel good.BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:29 pmThat's a gray area though, people have various size EF's. Investor A may have 2-4 months expenses in their EF. Investor B may have 2-4 years in their EF. Maybe the market drops enough to where Investor B decides to use a few years of that EF and invest it instead. So is that still EF? I'm of the opinion that everything should just roll up under your AA instead of trying to separate it out, money is fungible.Noobvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:22 pmI wasn't referring to emergency funds, which, by definition are supposed to be saved for an emergency. I'm referring to a lot of posts like the one I quoted, in which someone who is "100% stocks" somehow has investable money that isn't actually invested in their planned allocation.RPW25 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:06 pmYeah, I think this is probably true. If I counted my emergency fund I would be 95/5 stock/cash.Noobvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:36 pm
I often wonder what percent of 100% stock investors are really more like 90/10 or even 80/20 stock/cash investors most of the time
Hopefully the AA police dont come after me for that...
Last edited by BW1985 on Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chase the good life my whole life long, look back on my life and my life gone...where did I go wrong?
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Seems too complicated. Why would anyone include cash in their investment allocation? Cash fluctuates too much.DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:53 pmOh - I can play too:jb1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:47 pmI’m 100% stocks too not including my savings..DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:10 pmIf you were already 100% how could you buy more?spottedchococow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:06 pm I'm still 100% stocks and bought more when stocks dropped
"And I am 100% stocks too not including my bonds..."
My money in vanguard is 100% stocks. If we include cash, then I’m 94.3768 stocks/5.6232 cash
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Funds that hold cash show cash in their AA.jb1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:13 amSeems too complicated. Why would anyone include cash in their investment allocation? Cash fluctuates too much.DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:53 pmOh - I can play too:jb1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:47 pmI’m 100% stocks too not including my savings..DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:10 pmIf you were already 100% how could you buy more?spottedchococow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:06 pm I'm still 100% stocks and bought more when stocks dropped
"And I am 100% stocks too not including my bonds..."
My money in vanguard is 100% stocks. If we include cash, then I’m 94.3768 stocks/5.6232 cash
Practically though if it's only 5% it's not really impactful. Some folks have 2, 3, 4x that in cash/CD's/MM.
Chase the good life my whole life long, look back on my life and my life gone...where did I go wrong?
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Kind of along the same lines of this topic, but how many people actually go into retirement following WB’s plan of 90/10 AA? This something I’ve been pondering about lately. My wife will thankfully have a Pension along with the TSP when we enter retirement, if we had a large enough EF, I think I’d be interested.
- SmileyFace
- Posts: 9186
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:11 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
In some cases people really are 100% stocks - in others, they have some percentage of cash like yourself. In my case - I have some percentage of bonds. I really don't see much of a difference in "bond" versus "cash' holders except in the calculations the two groups usually run.jb1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:13 amSeems too complicated. Why would anyone include cash in their investment allocation? Cash fluctuates too much.DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:53 pmOh - I can play too:jb1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:47 pmI’m 100% stocks too not including my savings..DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:10 pmIf you were already 100% how could you buy more?spottedchococow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:06 pm I'm still 100% stocks and bought more when stocks dropped
"And I am 100% stocks too not including my bonds..."
My money in vanguard is 100% stocks. If we include cash, then I’m 94.3768 stocks/5.6232 cash
For instance - if someone is 90/10 between stock/bonds they might be computing 1-year, 5-year, 10-year, etc. returns across their entire stock/bond holdings. Someone that has a similar 10% position in cash and doesn't consider this part of their portfolio might be simply computing returns based upon their stocks and ignoring the cash. In doing so - they might not realize just how much of a drag on their returns the cash is causing during good years/periods (nor realize how much of a cushion against losses it is providing in bad years/periods). A lot of the "Dry Powder" folks are in this camp - they may have been holding the cash since 2014 - they deploy it now "on the dip" - but since they never considered this cash part of their portfolio they have ignored the fact that it was really just a drag on their returns for numerous years while they sat on it waiting for the right moment to buy-in.
To summarize: Why include? So you know what your total return really is (with cash-drag or cash-cushion).
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Get used to it. These types always show up in every "100% Stocks" thread to insist that 100% stock people aren't 100% stock._Soundwave_ wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:13 pmThese types of posts sound pretty pedantic to me... especially over something as simple as how one describes their cash allocation.BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:11 pmYeah, that sounds ridiculous. I think people like to claim they're 100% stocks, or believe they're 100% stocks, when they're actually not.Triple digit golfer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:47 pmI am 100% stocks with 76% of my portfolio.Noobvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:36 pmI often wonder what percent of 100% stock investors are really more like 90/10 or even 80/20 stock/cash investors most of the time
Another 21% I am 100% bonds and 3% I am 100% cash.
Sounds ridiculous but I believe that many of the "100% equity" investors really aren't 100% equities.
Whether you are 97% equities and 3% cash or 100% equities less the EF, does it really matter? Most folks aren’t rebalancing with their EF so it’s effectively the same thing.
Sheesh.
I was 100% stocks to age 58. Didn't even have an emergency fund, had a HELOC to tap if needed (don't recommend this in retrospect, but that's my history). I've had some here on BH essentially call me a liar.
AA is intensely personal. But some low equity types won't even consider that high equity types exist.
It's not an engineering problem - Hersh Shefrin | To get the "risk premium", you really do have to take the risk - nisiprius
-
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:37 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I often wonder what percent of 100% stock investors are really more like 90/10 or even 80/20 stock/cash investors most of the timeDavid Jay wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:02 am [quote=_Soundwave_ post_id=5206178 time=<a href="tel:1587608020">1587608020</a> user_id=158985]
[quote=BW1985 post_id=5205907 time=<a href="tel:1587600716">1587600716</a> user_id=18256]
[quote="Triple digit golfer" post_id=5205592 time=<a href="tel:1587592026">1587592026</a> user_id=13599]
[quote=Noobvestor post_id=5205411 time=<a href="tel:1587587782">1587587782</a> user_id=20617]
[quote=DaftInvestor post_id=5205335 time=<a href="tel:1587586248">1587586248</a> user_id=51580]
If you were already 100% how could you buy more?
[/quote]
I am 100% stocks with 76% of my portfolio.
Another 21% I am 100% bonds and 3% I am 100% cash.
Sounds ridiculous but I believe that many of the "100% equity" investors really aren't 100% equities.
[/quote]
Yeah, that sounds ridiculous. I think people like to claim they're 100% stocks, or believe they're 100% stocks, when they're actually not.
[/quote]
These types of posts sound pretty pedantic to me... especially over something as simple as how one describes their cash allocation.
Whether you are 97% equities and 3% cash or 100% equities less the EF, does it really matter? Most folks aren’t rebalancing with their EF so it’s effectively the same thing.
Sheesh.
[/quote]
Get used to it. These types always show up in every "100% Stocks" thread to insist that 100% stock people aren't 100% stock.
I was 100% stocks to age 58. Didn't even have an emergency fund, had a HELOC to tap if needed (don't recommend this in retrospect, but that's my history). I've had some here on BH essentially call me a liar.
AA is very personal. But some low equity types won't even consider that high equity types exist.
[/quote]
I am a high equity as I carry less than 1% cash and the rest in VTSAX but that is only because I know that stocks are riskier but generally is where you see the most returns and as lot of younger people who are middle class and lower know they rely on those average market returns in order to have enough to supplement whatever social security is left by the time we retire.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
It's good to learn these lessons while still young and the tuition is cheap.dboeger1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:32 pm 100% VTWAX before and after, and doing quite alright. The biggest lesson I got out of all of this was not to treat my emergency fund like dry powder for timing the market. I didn't use it all, but I overbought just a little when the market was down about 7%-10% (what a buying opportunity, right?!), and then got surprised by a big tax bill that I couldn't cover without temporary help from family. I've since recovered and the circumstances were a bit unusual, but yeah, emergency funds are there for a reason, and market timing isn't easy to get right. As far as asset allocation, I have no plans on changing that because I am coming up on 29 years old in June, so I have a very long time horizon. What I may do, though, is start setting aside more cash for our first home purchase. I don't consider a primary residence an investment though, and have little interest in or understanding of real estate investing, so I'll stay 100% equities for the foreseeable future.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
-
- Posts: 1939
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:06 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
what if my 100K EF is only .5% of my portfolio ?BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:09 pmIf you're like 99.5% stocks and 0.5% in a checking account then yeah 100% is close enough. On the other hand, if you're sitting on $100k in checking then you're probably not 100% stocks no.vipertom1970 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:44 pmno one is really 100% stock then because they have checking ?
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
So your portfolio would be 20 million? And the rest is stocks? Then yeah. If you notice I said 'probably not' because most people here don't have portfolios of 20 million dollars.vipertom1970 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:37 amwhat if my 100K EF is only .5% of my portfolio ?BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:09 pmIf you're like 99.5% stocks and 0.5% in a checking account then yeah 100% is close enough. On the other hand, if you're sitting on $100k in checking then you're probably not 100% stocks no.vipertom1970 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:44 pmno one is really 100% stock then because they have checking ?
Chase the good life my whole life long, look back on my life and my life gone...where did I go wrong?
- SmileyFace
- Posts: 9186
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:11 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
"These types"? If pointing out someone isn't 100% stocks if they can suddenly buy more or "double-down" makes me "a type" I suppose I am. If you read the thread before yours you will see that I made some valid points on why one might want to count their cash as part of their portfolio (if they are sitting on a large cash position). I don't understand why folks are getting their feathers ruffled. No one called anyone a liar or any other name - myself (and perhaps others) were merely trying to point out that folks with large cash positions (those that have them; no one in this thread said you, or that everyone that states 100%, does) may want to actually consider those positions as part of their portfolio for said reasons.David Jay wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:02 amGet used to it. These types always show up in every "100% Stocks" thread to insist that 100% stock people aren't 100% stock._Soundwave_ wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:13 pmThese types of posts sound pretty pedantic to me... especially over something as simple as how one describes their cash allocation.BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:11 pmYeah, that sounds ridiculous. I think people like to claim they're 100% stocks, or believe they're 100% stocks, when they're actually not.Triple digit golfer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:47 pmI am 100% stocks with 76% of my portfolio.Noobvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:36 pm
I often wonder what percent of 100% stock investors are really more like 90/10 or even 80/20 stock/cash investors most of the time
Another 21% I am 100% bonds and 3% I am 100% cash.
Sounds ridiculous but I believe that many of the "100% equity" investors really aren't 100% equities.
Whether you are 97% equities and 3% cash or 100% equities less the EF, does it really matter? Most folks aren’t rebalancing with their EF so it’s effectively the same thing.
Sheesh.
I was 100% stocks to age 58. Didn't even have an emergency fund, had a HELOC to tap if needed (don't recommend this in retrospect, but that's my history). I've had some here on BH essentially call me a liar.
AA is intensely personal. But some low equity types won't even consider that high equity types exist.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Pretty sure you weren't quoted in my post. I was responding to Soundwave, letting him know to expect a "Nobody is really 100% Stocks" reply every time there is a 100% stocks post. It has never failed in my 5+ years on the board. I've even been grilled as to whether I was buying a house and could I really say my "investments" were 100% stocks if I had equity in my home.DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:55 am"These types"? If pointing out someone isn't 100% stocks if they can suddenly buy more or "double-down" makes me "a type" I suppose I am. If you read the thread before yours you will see that I made some valid points on why one might want to count their cash as part of their portfolio (if they are sitting on a large cash position). I don't understand why folks are getting their feathers ruffled. No one called anyone a liar or any other name - myself (and perhaps others) were merely trying to point out that folks with large cash positions (those that have them; no one in this thread said you, or that everyone that states 100%, does) may want to actually consider those positions as part of their portfolio for said reasons.David Jay wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:02 amGet used to it. These types always show up in every "100% Stocks" thread to insist that 100% stock people aren't 100% stock._Soundwave_ wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:13 pmThese types of posts sound pretty pedantic to me... especially over something as simple as how one describes their cash allocation.BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:11 pmYeah, that sounds ridiculous. I think people like to claim they're 100% stocks, or believe they're 100% stocks, when they're actually not.Triple digit golfer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:47 pm
I am 100% stocks with 76% of my portfolio.
Another 21% I am 100% bonds and 3% I am 100% cash.
Sounds ridiculous but I believe that many of the "100% equity" investors really aren't 100% equities.
Whether you are 97% equities and 3% cash or 100% equities less the EF, does it really matter? Most folks aren’t rebalancing with their EF so it’s effectively the same thing.
Sheesh.
I was 100% stocks to age 58. Didn't even have an emergency fund, had a HELOC to tap if needed (don't recommend this in retrospect, but that's my history). I've had some here on BH essentially call me a liar.
AA is intensely personal. But some low equity types won't even consider that high equity types exist.
It happens. I am used to it. Soundwave is new and I didn't want him to get discouraged.
It's not an engineering problem - Hersh Shefrin | To get the "risk premium", you really do have to take the risk - nisiprius
- SmileyFace
- Posts: 9186
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:11 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
If you scroll up to your first post you will see I was quoted in it. But in any case - no ill will on my part.David Jay wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:09 am
Pretty sure you weren't quoted in my post. I was responding to Soundwave, letting him know to expect a "Nobody is really 100% Stocks" reply every time there is a 100% stocks post. It has never failed in my 5+ years on the board. I've even been grilled as to whether I was buying a house and could I really say my "investments" were 100% stocks if I had equity in my home.
It happens. I am used to it. Soundwave is new and I didn't want him to get discouraged.
Hopefully folks that hold large cash-positions get my point about at least "considering" their cash to be part of their portfolio (so they know what the cash-drag may be doing to them).
-
- Posts: 3908
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:19 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I guess that most people replied here are young (e.g., 25~30 years from retirement), but most importantly, which was not stated explicitly, that they have a relatively small portfolio. The dips can be fixed by additional contributions quickly.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I am about 95% stock and I had $200k in bonds. When the market hit down 35% from peak (which was essentially the low), I shifted $50k from bonds into equities with the plan of doing another $50k at down 40%, down 45% and down 50% if those levels were hit. When the market hit 2,800, I shifted the $50k (plus a nice gain) back from equities into bonds so am now back to my normal AA.
Other than that, I haven’t changed my AA. If we fall again, I will move more into equities.
Other than that, I haven’t changed my AA. If we fall again, I will move more into equities.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
You are making assumptions here that I wouldn't bet on. I can't speak for "most", but I am 25-30 years from traditional retirement age, and my losses at their peak were on the order of 2 years gross salary. That's not something to be made up quickly by contributions.flyingaway wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:21 am I guess that most people replied here are young (e.g., 25~30 years from retirement), but most importantly, which was not stated explicitly, that they have a relatively small portfolio. The dips can be fixed by additional contributions quickly.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Then it is very safe to say you are 100% stock.vipertom1970 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:37 amwhat if my 100K EF is only .5% of my portfolio ?BW1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:09 pmIf you're like 99.5% stocks and 0.5% in a checking account then yeah 100% is close enough. On the other hand, if you're sitting on $100k in checking then you're probably not 100% stocks no.vipertom1970 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:44 pmno one is really 100% stock then because they have checking ?
Unless the cash is a minimal portion of a portfolio (ie <5%), I think it should be included, regardless of whether it is called emergency fund or cash reserves.
The famous Warren Buffet portfolio is 10% riskless (he mentions treasury bills, but could also be any form of cash) and 90% risk (S&P500 index). It wouldn't make sense to call that portfolio 100% stock.
-
- Posts: 3611
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:02 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I'm 100% stocks... other than my gold, t-bills, checking account, and Swiss Francs, which account for my entire portfolio.DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:53 pmOh - I can play too:jb1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:47 pmI’m 100% stocks too not including my savings..DaftInvestor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:10 pmIf you were already 100% how could you buy more?spottedchococow wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:06 pm I'm still 100% stocks and bought more when stocks dropped
"And I am 100% stocks too not including my bonds..."
In theory, theory and practice are identical. In practice, they often differ.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Not us! We are both over 70.5 and have increased our QCDs this year due to the needs in society.flyingaway wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:21 am I guess that most people replied here are young (e.g., 25~30 years from retirement), but most importantly, which was not stated explicitly, that they have a relatively small portfolio. The dips can be fixed by additional contributions quickly.
We usually aim to be 90% stocks as we are fortunate to have pensions and SS that more than meet our expenses. So we invest what we don’t need.
This year I did TLH as stocks were falling to get some funds out of taxable that were giving us large dividends. They will be replaced with index funds later this year. So right now we’re maybe 60% stocks and waiting for another big drop. We can afford to wait financially but hope to get back to 90% stocks this year. This is in spite of giving money away. We’ve given our ‘stimulus checks’ away multiple times via QCDs.
A dollar in Roth is worth more than a dollar in a taxable account. A dollar in taxable is worth more than a dollar in a tax-deferred account.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I'm 96% stocks and 4% cash, not counting some investment properties, and also recently retired. So far, I've had no issue "staying the course" with everything in passive broad market Vanguard index funds. The recent downturn gave me an opportunity to TLH. It's actually been a bit strange psychologically, as I've been excited when I've woken up to see the market taking 10% swings in a single day. I think "yay, another opportunity to TLH." I know that's not logical. Now I'm looking into selling my investment property, having racked up some losses due to TLH, and putting all proceeds into the same passive broad market Vanguard index funds.
All that being said, the recent downturn hasn't been nearly as bad as some have been in the past. I'm trying to mentally prepare myself for future downturns by saying to myself that I expect at least one or two additional 50% drops in my lifetime.
All that being said, the recent downturn hasn't been nearly as bad as some have been in the past. I'm trying to mentally prepare myself for future downturns by saying to myself that I expect at least one or two additional 50% drops in my lifetime.
Last edited by Lowlim on Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
50% down is still on the table for this one.....not out of the woods yet.Lowlim wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:36 pm I'm 96% stocks and 4% cash, not counting some investment properties, and also recently retired. So far, I've had no issue "staying the course" with everything in passive broad market Vanguard index funds. The recent downturn gave me an opportunity to TLH. It's actually been a bit strange physiologically, as I've been excited when I've woken up to see the market taking 10% swings in a single day. I think "yay, another opportunity to TLH." Now I'm looking into selling my investment property, having racked up some losses due to TLH, and putting all proceeds into the same passive broad market Vanguard index funds.
All that being said, the recent downturn hasn't been nearly as bad as some have been in the past. I'm trying to mentally prepare myself for future downturns by saying to myself that I expect at least one or two additional 50% drops in my lifetime.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Agreed. Many people think the recent bull is irrational. I cannot disagree with this statement. Maybe instead of telling myself I'll see one or two 50% drops in my lifetime, I'll say two or three...index245 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:47 pm50% down is still on the table for this one.....not out of the woods yet.Lowlim wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:36 pm I'm 96% stocks and 4% cash, not counting some investment properties, and also recently retired. So far, I've had no issue "staying the course" with everything in passive broad market Vanguard index funds. The recent downturn gave me an opportunity to TLH. It's actually been a bit strange physiologically, as I've been excited when I've woken up to see the market taking 10% swings in a single day. I think "yay, another opportunity to TLH." Now I'm looking into selling my investment property, having racked up some losses due to TLH, and putting all proceeds into the same passive broad market Vanguard index funds.
All that being said, the recent downturn hasn't been nearly as bad as some have been in the past. I'm trying to mentally prepare myself for future downturns by saying to myself that I expect at least one or two additional 50% drops in my lifetime.
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:29 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I sold all positions in my IRA yesterday for the second time this calendar year. 2 oil positions were in the red, but the rest were all green. Net gain.
100% cash now in IRA and in brokerage....waiting to buy back in......I believe we are in for new lows in the coming months, worse than March 23rd. Now if I can just keep my greed from making me buy back in too soon for quick trades......
100% cash now in IRA and in brokerage....waiting to buy back in......I believe we are in for new lows in the coming months, worse than March 23rd. Now if I can just keep my greed from making me buy back in too soon for quick trades......
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I'm curious, how confident are you that you can time this properly? In other words, what are your odds of having more value in this IRA account than if you were to have done nothing and held your original positions?BuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:39 pm I sold all positions in my IRA yesterday for the second time this calendar year. 2 oil positions were in the red, but the rest were all green. Net gain.
100% cash now in IRA and in brokerage....waiting to buy back in......I believe we are in for new lows in the coming months, worse than March 23rd. Now if I can just keep my greed from making me buy back in too soon for quick trades......
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Doing fine here. Did a partial tIRA to Roth conversion that worked out well, rebalanced a little bit, yawned a few times. Still sticking to my <10% US stocks no US bonds portfolio. Waiting for international developed and EM value stocks to shine. In the meantime, my gold and silver mining stocks are up 70%+ in the last month or so.
-
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:46 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Doing wonderful here. I pay Vanguard huge fees of approximately 10 basis points to manage my portfolio investments for me through their target retirement funds. I do this in large part to prevent behavioral mistakes surrounding performance chasing and delaying rebalancing (thus missing buying opportunities) often cause by fear or backtesting.
Mostly concerned with my savings rate as that will have BY FAR the largest impact to my retirement goals.
Mostly concerned with my savings rate as that will have BY FAR the largest impact to my retirement goals.
I hold index funds because I do not overestimate my ability to pick stocks OR stock pickers.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Is gold/silver a long term position for you? If so, can you help me to understand the rational? (Note: I have literally zero knowledge of gold/silver investing)asif408 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:04 pm Doing fine here. Did a partial tIRA to Roth conversion that worked out well, rebalanced a little bit, yawned a few times. Still sticking to my <10% US stocks no US bonds portfolio. Waiting for international developed and EM value stocks to shine. In the meantime, my gold and silver mining stocks are up 70%+ in the last month or so.
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:29 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Given the volatility we have already seen and will no doubt continue to see in the coming months, and as the true impact of this unprecedented worldwide economic shutdown fully unfolds (which it has not yet), I am quite confident.Lowlim wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:55 pmI'm curious, how confident are you that you can time this properly? In other words, what are your odds of having more value in this IRA account than if you were to have done nothing and held your original positions?BuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:39 pm I sold all positions in my IRA yesterday for the second time this calendar year. 2 oil positions were in the red, but the rest were all green. Net gain.
100% cash now in IRA and in brokerage....waiting to buy back in......I believe we are in for new lows in the coming months, worse than March 23rd. Now if I can just keep my greed from making me buy back in too soon for quick trades......
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I would love to hear how it turns out when the current environment has played itself out. Perhaps that's in a year or two, or whenever a vaccine is widely available.BuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:18 pmGiven the volatility we have already seen and will no doubt continue to see in the coming months, and as the true impact of this unprecedented worldwide economic shutdown fully unfolds (which it has not yet), I am quite confident.Lowlim wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:55 pmI'm curious, how confident are you that you can time this properly? In other words, what are your odds of having more value in this IRA account than if you were to have done nothing and held your original positions?BuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:39 pm I sold all positions in my IRA yesterday for the second time this calendar year. 2 oil positions were in the red, but the rest were all green. Net gain.
100% cash now in IRA and in brokerage....waiting to buy back in......I believe we are in for new lows in the coming months, worse than March 23rd. Now if I can just keep my greed from making me buy back in too soon for quick trades......
I suggest a separate blog post. I think many people here would be interested. You could document the moves you made, when, and why. Then ultimately the post the results. You might even get some helpful suggestions when others weigh in.
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:29 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
The audience here is mostly comprised of folks who do not time the market by virtue of being bogleheads....so I know exactly what kind of feedback I would get. It's really not that complicated. For example, if my cost basis of MGK was $130/share before I sold, then all I have to do is buy back in at a price of less than $130 to be "right". On top of that, by buying in at a lower cost basis I will also have more shares than I had before. For the record, today's closing price of MGK was $139.64. If you want me to come back here every time it trades below $130 and reply to your post, I can do that.Lowlim wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:43 pmBuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:18 pmGiven the volatility we have already seen and will no doubt continue to see in the coming months, and as the true impact of this unprecedented worldwide economic shutdown fully unfolds (which it has not yet), I am quite confident.Lowlim wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:55 pmI'm curious, how confident are you that you can time this properly? In other words, what are your odds of having more value in this IRA account than if you were to have done nothing and held your original positions?BuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:39 pm I sold all positions in my IRA yesterday for the second time this calendar year. 2 oil positions were in the red, but the rest were all green. Net gain.
100% cash now in IRA and in brokerage....waiting to buy back in......I believe we are in for new lows in the coming months, worse than March 23rd. Now if I can just keep my greed from making me buy back in too soon for quick trades......
I suggest a separate blog post. I think many people here would be interested. You could document the moves you made, when, and why. Then ultimately the post the results. You might even get some helpful suggestions when others weigh in.
I am not new to investing.....I have personally been investing since 2002, and have done quite well for myself. That said, I don't presume to think my portfolio or my philosophies are superior to those of anyone else, but they do work for me. Everyone has different appetite for risk, different knowledge level of the market....some people enjoy following the markets, and some people don't want to look at their investments until it is time to retire. If you feel like you have got it all figured out, that's great, but I would not waste your energy trying to convince other people that they are wrong and you are right, unless they ask for your advice.
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I retract my suggestion. Did not mean to offend. Best of luck to you.BuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 4:35 pmThe audience here is mostly comprised of folks who do not time the market by virtue of being bogleheads....so I know exactly what kind of feedback I would get. It's really not that complicated. For example, if my cost basis of MGK was $130/share before I sold, then all I have to do is buy back in at a price of less than $130 to be "right". On top of that, by buying in at a lower cost basis I will also have more shares than I had before. For the record, today's closing price of MGK was $139.64. If you want me to come back here every time it trades below $130 and reply to your post, I can do that.Lowlim wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:43 pmBuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:18 pmGiven the volatility we have already seen and will no doubt continue to see in the coming months, and as the true impact of this unprecedented worldwide economic shutdown fully unfolds (which it has not yet), I am quite confident.Lowlim wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:55 pmI'm curious, how confident are you that you can time this properly? In other words, what are your odds of having more value in this IRA account than if you were to have done nothing and held your original positions?BuyandHold37 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 2:39 pm I sold all positions in my IRA yesterday for the second time this calendar year. 2 oil positions were in the red, but the rest were all green. Net gain.
100% cash now in IRA and in brokerage....waiting to buy back in......I believe we are in for new lows in the coming months, worse than March 23rd. Now if I can just keep my greed from making me buy back in too soon for quick trades......
I suggest a separate blog post. I think many people here would be interested. You could document the moves you made, when, and why. Then ultimately the post the results. You might even get some helpful suggestions when others weigh in.
I am not new to investing.....I have personally been investing since 2002, and have done quite well for myself. That said, I don't presume to think my portfolio or my philosophies are superior to those of anyone else, but they do work for me. Everyone has different appetite for risk, different knowledge level of the market....some people enjoy following the markets, and some people don't want to look at their investments until it is time to retire. If you feel like you have got it all figured out, that's great, but I would not waste your energy trying to convince other people that they are wrong and you are right, unless they ask for your advice.
-
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:40 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
I am back forth on that... I am still holding 5% cash which is essentially my EF... anticipating the market going lower.. but who knows... If I dumped it in now I'd spend a few months replenishing that..minimalistmarc wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:32 pm I was naughty and liquidated my emergency fund to buy more equities. Now I’m legit 100% equities , and only have a couple of thousand in cash.
If it starts to just go up... I'll miss the opportunity to use that excess cash at lower valuations... I'm trying to make some purchases of few thousand on days that we are down a a percent or 2...
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:17 am
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
Well let's see, lost my job first of the year which means no health insurance in a few months.Only have about 10,000 in cash. But still 100% equities minus the cash. Pissed because I can no longer contribute towards my retirement. Will I change anything, no way, I will have the utilities turned off before I do.
-
- Posts: 1939
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:06 pm
Re: How are the "100% Stocks" people doing?
But if you have a mortgage then it's a NEGATIVE bond but that's another threadscooter101 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:53 pm Well let's see, lost my job first of the year which means no health insurance in a few months.Only have about 10,000 in cash. But still 100% equities minus the cash. Pissed because I can no longer contribute towards my retirement. Will I change anything, no way, I will have the utilities turned off before I do.