Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
So I understand why we should hold bonds: portfolio and income stability, psychology, ability to rebalance, etc. However, for someone currently in retirement and making withdrawals, wouldn't it theoretically make sense to move to a higher equity allocation in a crash?
Quick thought experiment:
Say I have a traditional 60% stocks / 40% bonds. I'm making yearly withdrawals in my retirement. If stocks crash and lose 50% of their value, it's pretty safe to assume they will trend mostly up in the future. If I were to sell all my bonds and buy stocks at that 50% crash, I won't be losing money if I sell those stocks for income in the future, even if they stay down for a long time, because they'd have the same value as the bonds I held or higher.
Obviously this is contrived, the stock market might drop 30%, or it might drop 50% and then continue to drop all the way to 80 or 90%, but I think the point still stands: there's some point where it makes sense to increase your equity allocation during a crash.
Do you think this makes any sense?
If I am interested in something like this (and am willing to accept the risks, etc), can you think of a structured way I could add it to my IPS?
Quick thought experiment:
Say I have a traditional 60% stocks / 40% bonds. I'm making yearly withdrawals in my retirement. If stocks crash and lose 50% of their value, it's pretty safe to assume they will trend mostly up in the future. If I were to sell all my bonds and buy stocks at that 50% crash, I won't be losing money if I sell those stocks for income in the future, even if they stay down for a long time, because they'd have the same value as the bonds I held or higher.
Obviously this is contrived, the stock market might drop 30%, or it might drop 50% and then continue to drop all the way to 80 or 90%, but I think the point still stands: there's some point where it makes sense to increase your equity allocation during a crash.
Do you think this makes any sense?
If I am interested in something like this (and am willing to accept the risks, etc), can you think of a structured way I could add it to my IPS?
-
- Posts: 1726
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:31 pm
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
That all hinges on your ability to 100% time the bottom of the crash and start buying back at the front of the pack.
That's typically a Three-card Monte risk level.
That's typically a Three-card Monte risk level.
70% AVGE | 20% FXNAX | 10% T-Bill/Muni
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
It depends on how much cushion your portfolio has for further losses. I suspect that if you were to look back and hypothetically buy stocks in a "crash" situation (VIX at 50+, stocks down 20%, etc.), you would have made better than average gains in the following months or years. However, if that crash has already diminished your portfolio to a dangerous low level, you might not have the freedom to double down by gambling on a game with positive expected return but disastrous consequences if you lose.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
It doesn't have to be done perfectly to be profitable.brad.clarkston wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:36 pm That all hinges on your ability to 100% time the bottom of the crash and start buying back at the front of the pack.
That's typically a Three-card Monte risk level.
Besides, most Bogleheads seem to think 50% is about the maximum stocks can drop so that would seem to be an obvious buying opportunity.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
See if you can make yourself rebalance first.
After. During what hopefully looks like a recovery. But it might not be. So there's that....I think the point still stands: there's some point where it makes sense to increase your equity allocation during a crash.
Yes and no. It can be done, except you have to make yourself do it. And then it might turn out to be a terrible thing to have done once you do it. You might do it too early and give in. You might do it too late and what's the point really. You might do it at the exact perfect time and then the real recovery doesn't actually happen for another 10 years (that's not terrible, but another what's the point really scenario)...Do you think this makes any sense?
You can make some rules that you will then almost certainly ignore. Or rewrite. Or rewrite and then ignore.If I am interested in something like this (and am willing to accept the risks, etc), can you think of a structured way I could add it to my IPS?
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Sure. Did you buy a bunch of stocks during March of last year? Personally, I thought the economy was going to continue to tank ( well I guess it did, but stocks soared), so I was happy to have some bond allocation.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Ok, fair, some (most?) people will be scared and won't be able to commit to buying during a crash. I don't think I'm one of them. I used all my cash to buy stocks in the covid crash, and I'm very confident when the math is on my side.
But can we ignore the psychology for a little longer and see if we can come up with a sound strategy? Let's assume that we are NOT trying to time the market exactly. We don't know when the bottom is, but we do know that during a 50% crash stocks are relatively much cheaper than they used to be. That knowledge seems like it should be actionable.
Here's a poor strawman: start at 60/40 (adjust for risk tolerance), during a crash of 30% or higher, rebalance to 70/30, at 40%, rebalance to 80/20, etc. So at a 50% crash you'd be 90/10, and a 60% crash would be 100% stocks.
But can we ignore the psychology for a little longer and see if we can come up with a sound strategy? Let's assume that we are NOT trying to time the market exactly. We don't know when the bottom is, but we do know that during a 50% crash stocks are relatively much cheaper than they used to be. That knowledge seems like it should be actionable.
Here's a poor strawman: start at 60/40 (adjust for risk tolerance), during a crash of 30% or higher, rebalance to 70/30, at 40%, rebalance to 80/20, etc. So at a 50% crash you'd be 90/10, and a 60% crash would be 100% stocks.
-
- Posts: 3908
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:19 am
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
How about the market only drop 49%?
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Right, how can we make this more sophisticated so it works with a smaller (or bigger) crash?
-
- Posts: 1726
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:31 pm
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
I'm not saying it's a dumb idea but you will not know how scared you can be until you actually experience a real crash. Covid was barely a bounce, I didn't even notice it. I'll admit I did buy some REIT's at a discount but it was part of my overall plan and not outside my norm I just got a better price.
I'm not sure everyone in this thread is talking the same thing. When I think about what you are saying it's about re-balancing my 3-fund out of bonds and into well priced total stock or small cap value. I might even buy a few blue chip divi stocks for my Roth but that's about it.
I suspect what your talking about is buying 100% stock not index funds ?
70% AVGE | 20% FXNAX | 10% T-Bill/Muni
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Yes, it theoretically makes sense when it comes to risk/reward.
My IPS has tactical asset allocation rules that are optional overlays on the default AA portfolio size goals.
The the shifts are +/- 10% in/out adjustments to equities based upon valuations, as opposed to market drops, although they are related.
"Market timing is an investment sin, and for once I recommend that you sin a little." -- Paul Samuelson
The November 2015 issue of Institutional Investor has an article on the topic worth reading, although I differ from the larger moves used in their model.
Suggested supplemental material, which delves into the valuation model used by Vanguard in their outlook reports:
https://mebfaber.com/wp-content/uploads ... ecasts.pdf
Last edited by watchnerd on Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Sure. I'll play!embwbam wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:07 pm But can we ignore the psychology for a little longer and see if we can come up with a sound strategy? Let's assume that we are NOT trying to time the market exactly. We don't know when the bottom is, but we do know that during a 50% crash stocks are relatively much cheaper than they used to be. That knowledge seems like it should be actionable.
Here's a poor strawman: start at 60/40 (adjust for risk tolerance), during a crash of 30% or higher, rebalance to 70/30, at 40%, rebalance to 80/20, etc. So at a 50% crash you'd be 90/10, and a 60% crash would be 100% stocks.
How about smaller increments? Like 2-3% shifts in AA while trying to catch that knife and do a cool flippy twist toss thing with it. Then you're less likely to end up watching it keep falling and being all out of the stuff you need to catch it and just sitting there watching your balance drop not knowing when it's going to end.
How about setting a dollar amount for a bond floor (since you're theoretically retired -- what in the name of the universe would you be doing going to 100% stocks during a crash while retired, that's crazy unless you have a bazillion dollars)?
How about just rebalancing to your actual AA when bands are triggered until stocks actually crash 50% and only making a 5% shift in AA then? Then another 5% for every additional 10% down from high? Plus a bond floor. That would be gut wrenching enough.
How about running all the different kinds of strategies you can think of with an actual starting $ amount. See how that $ amount would change as you follow the theoretical plan(s). There will come a $ amount where you go "No! Thus far and no further!" You liquidate. Stocks recover. Ouch.
Just take your 60/40 example with a $1m portfolio and assume the fixed income portion isn't affected by the market at all (since it makes the math so much easier). With your perfectly acceptable fun and games first scenario:
At a 30% crash, you have $420k/$400 (you're down to $820k) -- you decide to change your AA to 70/30, so now you're at $574k/$246k. The crash keeps going... At 40% off highs (or ~14% down from the last spot), you have $494k/$246k (you're down to $740k) -- you decide to change your AA to 80/20, so now you're at $592k/$148k. It keeps going... At 50% off highs (or ~17% down from the last spot), you have $491k/$148k (you're down to $639k) -- you decide to change your AA to 90/10, so now you're at $575k/$64k. It keeps going... At 60% off highs (or 20% down from the last spot), you have $460k/$64k (you're down to $524k) -- you decide to change your AA to 100/0, so now you're at $524k/$0. If it keeps going, then at 70% off highs (or 25% down from the last spot), you have $393k/$0. I would be sick. You would be sick. How many people could even make that first move and shove $154k from bonds into stocks after a 30% drop and who knows where it will end?
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
You are making this too complicated.
If you have a fixed stock and bond asset allocation then you will automatically be selling bonds to buy stocks after a stock market crash.
If you have a fixed stock and bond asset allocation then you will automatically be selling bonds to buy stocks after a stock market crash.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Make rules like:
-10%: Rebalance back to 60/40
-20%: 70/30
-30%: 80/20
-40%: 90/10
-50%: 100/0
-55%: 110/0/-10
-60%: 120/0/-20
-65%: 140/0/-40
-70%: 160/0/-60
-75%: 180/0/-80
-80%: 200/0/-100
-85%: 250/0/-150
-90%: 300/0/-200
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Shoulds like you need a more aggressive AA. You'll already be selling bonds and buying stocks in a market crash.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Maybe could go years without a 30% crash. Maybe, maybe not
https://www.yardeni.com/pub/sp500corrbear.pdf
https://www.yardeni.com/pub/sp500corrbear.pdf
Don’t let anyone else ruin your portfolio. It’s your portfolio. Ruin it yourself!!!
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Investing in market downturns is already built into buy and rebalance strategy.
-
- Posts: 897
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:23 pm
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
makes total sense. many will immediately jump in with 'timing the market... blah blah blah'. i get it.
but its exactly what i did in FEB - MAR of last year and have been rewarded for it.
now i don't move large percentages in and out. but from my cash position -- if the market dips 20% for example you bet I'm buying some VTI, VUG, RSP VXF, etc
and the flip side to that coin is : i am trimming some equity into cash currently with markets at all time highs. (in tax deferred accounts -- no trading fees / tax implications). people can get the buy low / sell high part of investing wrong
again i am largely a set it forget it -- have been for decades (a bunch of my $$ is in a 'boring' Target Date Fund which is a permanent holding) -- but when opportunity avails itself i am not averse at all to moving money. ymmv
--------------------------------------------
Last edited by mr_brightside on Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
What is your current rebalancing rule?
Did you follow the rule?
All you need is the 5/25 rebalancing rule and you don't have to change your AA.
KlangFool
Did you follow the rule?
All you need is the 5/25 rebalancing rule and you don't have to change your AA.
KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
All bear markets aren't crashes. Some are just an ongoing grind lower for years. See 2000-2002 that lasted almost 3 years.
Last year was an extreme anomaly
Last year was an extreme anomaly
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Good point, AA already accomplishes a lot of this. I have been following my rebalancing rules carefully.
I arrived at this idea because my rebalancing strategy is McClung's Prime Harvesting, which already has my bond allocation float. I started at 75/25, and my strategy is happily buying bonds, taking me to about 70/30.
With McClung, you never buy stocks again (it works because you only ever sell bonds for income, giving your stocks a long time to recover). I would like to modify it, if I can do so in a rigorous and advantageous way, to buy stocks when markets are low enough.
My logic was that it kind of makes sense if you already accept Prime Harvesting, and realize that buying stocks with your bonds at an extreme low is the same as holding your existing stocks and bonds (the bonds become stocks at the low cost but they don't go down any more).
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
This is great, thanks for the illustration.Beensabu wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:08 amSure. I'll play!embwbam wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:07 pm But can we ignore the psychology for a little longer and see if we can come up with a sound strategy? Let's assume that we are NOT trying to time the market exactly. We don't know when the bottom is, but we do know that during a 50% crash stocks are relatively much cheaper than they used to be. That knowledge seems like it should be actionable.
Here's a poor strawman: start at 60/40 (adjust for risk tolerance), during a crash of 30% or higher, rebalance to 70/30, at 40%, rebalance to 80/20, etc. So at a 50% crash you'd be 90/10, and a 60% crash would be 100% stocks.
How about smaller increments? Like 2-3% shifts in AA while trying to catch that knife and do a cool flippy twist toss thing with it. Then you're less likely to end up watching it keep falling and being all out of the stuff you need to catch it and just sitting there watching your balance drop not knowing when it's going to end.
How about setting a dollar amount for a bond floor (since you're theoretically retired -- what in the name of the universe would you be doing going to 100% stocks during a crash while retired, that's crazy unless you have a bazillion dollars)?
How about just rebalancing to your actual AA when bands are triggered until stocks actually crash 50% and only making a 5% shift in AA then? Then another 5% for every additional 10% down from high? Plus a bond floor. That would be gut wrenching enough.
How about running all the different kinds of strategies you can think of with an actual starting $ amount. See how that $ amount would change as you follow the theoretical plan(s). There will come a $ amount where you go "No! Thus far and no further!" You liquidate. Stocks recover. Ouch.
Just take your 60/40 example with a $1m portfolio and assume the fixed income portion isn't affected by the market at all (since it makes the math so much easier). With your perfectly acceptable fun and games first scenario:
At a 30% crash, you have $420k/$400 (you're down to $820k) -- you decide to change your AA to 70/30, so now you're at $574k/$246k. The crash keeps going... At 40% off highs (or ~14% down from the last spot), you have $494k/$246k (you're down to $740k) -- you decide to change your AA to 80/20, so now you're at $592k/$148k. It keeps going... At 50% off highs (or ~17% down from the last spot), you have $491k/$148k (you're down to $639k) -- you decide to change your AA to 90/10, so now you're at $575k/$64k. It keeps going... At 60% off highs (or 20% down from the last spot), you have $460k/$64k (you're down to $524k) -- you decide to change your AA to 100/0, so now you're at $524k/$0. If it keeps going, then at 70% off highs (or 25% down from the last spot), you have $393k/$0. I would be sick. You would be sick. How many people could even make that first move and shove $154k from bonds into stocks after a 30% drop and who knows where it will end?
I think a big part of the reason why we have such a strong psychological component is that we use portfolio value as a poor abstraction of lifetime income. Portfolio value doesn't matter. It's just a score we think approximates our income.
I'm a big believer of Amortization Based Withdrawals, and while I love seeing my nest egg tick higher, the real number I look at is my yearly income.
Would the emotional component change if you had an income number that was ticking UP as you executed a strategy like this, even while the portfolio value was down?
(Because, in your example, valuations are so good that future rate of return is really high, so at each of those steps, making the move into stocks increases it)
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
+1. This.
"Never underestimate one's capacity to overestimate one's abilities" - The Dunning-Kruger Effect
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Right, but something like this would work very well in a long bear market. If stocks stay down for 10 years, and you buy them with your bonds, it's the same as holding on to your bonds the entire time.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
What you are describing is not rebalancing in the BH philosophy sense.
"Never underestimate one's capacity to overestimate one's abilities" - The Dunning-Kruger Effect
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
OP,
You may want to check out this thread.
viewtopic.php?t=335902
"PSA: Fixed AA with 5/25 rebalancing works!"
KlangFool
You may want to check out this thread.
viewtopic.php?t=335902
"PSA: Fixed AA with 5/25 rebalancing works!"
KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
- climber2020
- Posts: 2709
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:06 pm
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
If you do this, write down your exact plan so when the time comes there are clear instructions on what to do.
One consideration is to have a floor of bonds that you don't touch for rebalancing/over-rebalancing purposes so that if the bear market lasts longer than expected, you still have some safe assets to draw from to pay the bills.
One consideration is to have a floor of bonds that you don't touch for rebalancing/over-rebalancing purposes so that if the bear market lasts longer than expected, you still have some safe assets to draw from to pay the bills.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Oh yes it does. It definitely does if you're not working anymore.
I'd imagine so, for certain people. It's a different world when you're in accumulation vs. retirement. If you make enough money that your portfolio value doesn't matter to you while you're working, then... good for you I guess.I'm a big believer of Amortization Based Withdrawals, and while I love seeing my nest egg tick higher, the real number I look at is my yearly income.
Would the emotional component change if you had an income number that was ticking UP as you executed a strategy like this, even while the portfolio value was down?
Maybe. Or maybe at some point in that example, they've simply normalized. Or perhaps, forward earnings prospects become poor for whatever reason even as share price plummets.(Because, in your example, valuations are so good that future rate of return is really high, so at each of those steps, making the move into stocks increases it)
Here's the assumption I think you're making that you might want to think about: When stocks crash, they will recover eventually (even if it takes several years) and eventually reach new all time highs. It's the same assumption people make when they're 100% equities. It might turn out to be true. It might not.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Oh, definitely, this whole idea is based on that assumption. Do you think making that assumption is a mistake? Do you think that an assumption-breaking bear market worse than the any in history is worth spending any energy on?Beensabu wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:16 pm Here's the assumption I think you're making that you might want to think about: When stocks crash, they will recover eventually (even if it takes several years) and eventually reach new all time highs. It's the same assumption people make when they're 100% equities. It might turn out to be true. It might not.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
embwbam,embwbam wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:14 pmOh, definitely, this whole idea is based on that assumption. Do you think making that assumption is a mistake? Do you think that an assumption-breaking bear market worse than the any in history is worth spending any energy on?Beensabu wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:16 pm Here's the assumption I think you're making that you might want to think about: When stocks crash, they will recover eventually (even if it takes several years) and eventually reach new all time highs. It's the same assumption people make when they're 100% equities. It might turn out to be true. It might not.
I had planned and prepared for it. So, whether it will happen or not, it won't matter to me. Hope for the best and plan for the worst.
KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
embwbam wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:07 pm Ok, fair, some (most?) people will be scared and won't be able to commit to buying during a crash. I don't think I'm one of them. I used all my cash to buy stocks in the covid crash, and I'm very confident when the math is on my side.
But can we ignore the psychology for a little longer and see if we can come up with a sound strategy? Let's assume that we are NOT trying to time the market exactly. We don't know when the bottom is, but we do know that during a 50% crash stocks are relatively much cheaper than they used to be. That knowledge seems like it should be actionable.
Here's a poor strawman: start at 60/40 (adjust for risk tolerance), during a crash of 30% or higher, rebalance to 70/30, at 40%, rebalance to 80/20, etc. So at a 50% crash you'd be 90/10, and a 60% crash would be 100% stocks.
You start your 2nd round with 90/10. Now how will you dial it back down? Market can go up 10-15 years?
"My conscience wants vegetarianism to win over the world. And my subconscious is yearning for a piece of juicy meat. But what do i want?" (Andrei Tarkovsky)
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
How about the opposite scenario when stocks increase nearly 50% in the past year (like it has). Would you argue for moving to a more conservative asset allocation. Does not all the same logic apply?
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
I’m 100% stocks and plan to stay that way for awhile. I have started mentally preparing for moving some money into UPRO after a drop of 20%+. Haven’t figured out exactly how much and at what intervals.
It would need to account for the possibility of dropping a further 30%+ and lasting multiple years.
It would need to account for the possibility of dropping a further 30%+ and lasting multiple years.
-
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:52 am
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
The market isn't dropping 80%, not even close, it probably isn't even dropping 30%, that is just wishful thinking. Think about it this way... we had the greatest PANIC in 100 years last March 2020 and the market still dropped only 35%. Now, things are much much better and the market will drop 80%? That makes no logical sense.
Also forward earnings for the SPX are estimated at 185 and it may even come in at 200, that puts forward PE at 22. This may be historically high but not absurd at all, especially given interest rates.
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
I did increase my stocks in March 2020 (I was not 100% stocks before or even after); but I did so understanding it could take 5+ years to come out of a hole. Obviously, it did recovered very fast; but I never plan to win in the short-term on my moves, unless it is something like massive ETF discounts in March 2020, which made considerable short-term profits (or at worst would have a cushion of possible losses).as9 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:26 pm I’m 100% stocks and plan to stay that way for awhile. I have started mentally preparing for moving some money into UPRO after a drop of 20%+. Haven’t figured out exactly how much and at what intervals.
It would need to account for the possibility of dropping a further 30%+ and lasting multiple years.
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
-
- Posts: 1279
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:44 am
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
stocknoob4111 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:41 pmThe market isn't dropping 80%, not even close, it probably isn't even dropping 30%, that is just wishful thinking. Think about it this way... we had the greatest PANIC in 100 years last March 2020 and the market still dropped only 35%. Now, things are much much better and the market will drop 80%? That makes no logical sense.
Also forward earnings for the SPX are estimated at 185 and it may even come in at 200, that puts forward PE at 22. This may be historically high but not absurd at all, especially given interest rates.
Wow what a comment, trying to extrapolate causation by just one event.
There are many countries like Turkey\Brazil who wants to print money but they cannot because currency will go to trash. so they tighten belts and take the chops as they come.
If we keep printing 20% of GDP on every crisis then a time will come where stocks could drop 70% and still the US government cannot do a thing.
36% (IRA) - Individual LT Corporate Bonds , 33%(taxable) - schy, 33%(taxable) - SCHD Dividend Growth
-
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:52 am
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
What has printing money got to do with how much the market dropped? The printing was in response to the drop and did not occur before it. Yes, we can extrapolate something which is market panic response in relationship to a systemic shock. My point was that to cause a 50% drop in the market there has to be a wave of tremendous panic.invest2bfree wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:11 pm If we keep printing 20% of GDP on every crisis then a time will come where stocks could drop 70% and still the US government cannot do a thing.
What factors do you see at the moment that would cause such a panic? There are at the moment none. Can some black swan show up? Sure. Anything can happen.
But at the moment to surmise that there is going to be an imminent crash simply because the market has risen seems erroneous to me.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
I do. I'm fairly certain I will see it while I'm still working. And maybe it will make retirement a pipe dream for me. Many (most, probably) do not agree with me. They might be right. But I am not in the category of people to whom portfolio value does not matter. And I am not in the category of people who can rely on the power of huge future contributions to offset major losses in portfolio value. I'm also not the only one, no matter how it seems on this forum. I'm not naysaying your idea entirely. But there are conservative ways of implementing aggressive strategies. I myself am absolutely a market timer. I have X amount that I must try to turn into Y amount by a certain point in time. And while I will never cease contributions, I am fully aware that they will not have the ability to make up for major losses. Your situation sounds very different. But that doesn't mean you can't implement an aggressive strategy in a conservative way.embwbam wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:14 pmOh, definitely, this whole idea is based on that assumption. Do you think making that assumption is a mistake? Do you think that an assumption-breaking bear market worse than the any in history is worth spending any energy on?Beensabu wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:16 pm Here's the assumption I think you're making that you might want to think about: When stocks crash, they will recover eventually (even if it takes several years) and eventually reach new all time highs. It's the same assumption people make when they're 100% equities. It might turn out to be true. It might not.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Tools become duller with use. Is what I think they're saying.stocknoob4111 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:28 pmWhat has printing money got to do with how much the market dropped? The printing was in response to the drop and did not occur before it. Yes, we can extrapolate something which is market panic response in relationship to a systemic shock. My point was that to cause a 50% drop in the market there has to be a wave of tremendous panic.invest2bfree wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:11 pm If we keep printing 20% of GDP on every crisis then a time will come where stocks could drop 70% and still the US government cannot do a thing.
What factors do you see at the moment that would cause such a panic? There are at the moment none. Can some black swan show up? Sure. Anything can happen.
But at the moment to surmise that there is going to be an imminent crash simply because the market has risen seems erroneous to me.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 2697
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:38 pm
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Yes, this definitely makes sense.embwbam wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:24 pm So I understand why we should hold bonds: portfolio and income stability, psychology, ability to rebalance, etc. However, for someone currently in retirement and making withdrawals, wouldn't it theoretically make sense to move to a higher equity allocation in a crash?
Quick thought experiment:
Say I have a traditional 60% stocks / 40% bonds. I'm making yearly withdrawals in my retirement. If stocks crash and lose 50% of their value, it's pretty safe to assume they will trend mostly up in the future. If I were to sell all my bonds and buy stocks at that 50% crash, I won't be losing money if I sell those stocks for income in the future, even if they stay down for a long time, because they'd have the same value as the bonds I held or higher.
Obviously this is contrived, the stock market might drop 30%, or it might drop 50% and then continue to drop all the way to 80 or 90%, but I think the point still stands: there's some point where it makes sense to increase your equity allocation during a crash.
Do you think this makes any sense?
If I am interested in something like this (and am willing to accept the risks, etc), can you think of a structured way I could add it to my IPS?
The stock market goes up and it goes down. The long term trend is always very clearly up.
Ride the wave and never panic.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Theoretically yes. I believe there is a article published in a respectable financial journal which shows the benefit of this strategy. ( Do not have it handy)
I would be too scared to do this in my retirement accounts once I have no ability to make money (retired).
However I have a modest size 529 account where I did exactly as you propose and in terms of percentage returns got handsome returns over the last 1 year. But this account is a small fraction of my investible assets.
Also of note my kids have most likely completed their education and these 529 funds will most likely be used by the as yet not born next generation. In other words this 529 account could go down to zero without any significant consequences for me.
I would be too scared to do this in my retirement accounts once I have no ability to make money (retired).
However I have a modest size 529 account where I did exactly as you propose and in terms of percentage returns got handsome returns over the last 1 year. But this account is a small fraction of my investible assets.
Also of note my kids have most likely completed their education and these 529 funds will most likely be used by the as yet not born next generation. In other words this 529 account could go down to zero without any significant consequences for me.
Ram
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:25 am
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Stocks go back up. Stocks always go back to all time highs. Stocks always going past all time highs.Beensabu wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:08 amSure. I'll play!embwbam wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:07 pm But can we ignore the psychology for a little longer and see if we can come up with a sound strategy? Let's assume that we are NOT trying to time the market exactly. We don't know when the bottom is, but we do know that during a 50% crash stocks are relatively much cheaper than they used to be. That knowledge seems like it should be actionable.
Here's a poor strawman: start at 60/40 (adjust for risk tolerance), during a crash of 30% or higher, rebalance to 70/30, at 40%, rebalance to 80/20, etc. So at a 50% crash you'd be 90/10, and a 60% crash would be 100% stocks.
How about smaller increments? Like 2-3% shifts in AA while trying to catch that knife and do a cool flippy twist toss thing with it. Then you're less likely to end up watching it keep falling and being all out of the stuff you need to catch it and just sitting there watching your balance drop not knowing when it's going to end.
How about setting a dollar amount for a bond floor (since you're theoretically retired -- what in the name of the universe would you be doing going to 100% stocks during a crash while retired, that's crazy unless you have a bazillion dollars)?
How about just rebalancing to your actual AA when bands are triggered until stocks actually crash 50% and only making a 5% shift in AA then? Then another 5% for every additional 10% down from high? Plus a bond floor. That would be gut wrenching enough.
How about running all the different kinds of strategies you can think of with an actual starting $ amount. See how that $ amount would change as you follow the theoretical plan(s). There will come a $ amount where you go "No! Thus far and no further!" You liquidate. Stocks recover. Ouch.
Just take your 60/40 example with a $1m portfolio and assume the fixed income portion isn't affected by the market at all (since it makes the math so much easier). With your perfectly acceptable fun and games first scenario:
At a 30% crash, you have $420k/$400 (you're down to $820k) -- you decide to change your AA to 70/30, so now you're at $574k/$246k. The crash keeps going... At 40% off highs (or ~14% down from the last spot), you have $494k/$246k (you're down to $740k) -- you decide to change your AA to 80/20, so now you're at $592k/$148k. It keeps going... At 50% off highs (or ~17% down from the last spot), you have $491k/$148k (you're down to $639k) -- you decide to change your AA to 90/10, so now you're at $575k/$64k. It keeps going... At 60% off highs (or 20% down from the last spot), you have $460k/$64k (you're down to $524k) -- you decide to change your AA to 100/0, so now you're at $524k/$0. If it keeps going, then at 70% off highs (or 25% down from the last spot), you have $393k/$0. I would be sick. You would be sick. How many people could even make that first move and shove $154k from bonds into stocks after a 30% drop and who knows where it will end?
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Fixed it for you.bugleheadd wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:35 pm US stocks have gone back up. Stocks have always gone back to all time highs. Stocks have always going gone past all time highs.
You ever notice how right when everyone figures out how best to take advantage of a strategy based on historical performance suddenly it doesn't work the same way anymore?
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
In March I decided I was going to buy some if the market dropped 40% from the top. Eventually I pulled the trigger. Only later had I figured out that the market hadn't quite dropped 40% and not sure it ever did.
Thank goodness for my error.
In the end it probably mostly amounted to an aggressive rebalance.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
If you're using valuation-based logic (as opposed to drop/gain percentages), it should apply in both directions.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Verifiably false.bugleheadd wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:35 pm
Stocks go back up. Stocks always go back to all time highs. Stocks always going past all time highs.
You seem to be ignorant of the Nikkei.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
I’ll take that betwatchnerd wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:17 pmVerifiably false.bugleheadd wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:35 pm
Stocks go back up. Stocks always go back to all time highs. Stocks always going past all time highs.
You seem to be ignorant of the Nikkei.
Re: Move towards a higher stock allocation after a crash
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder