Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
gips
Posts: 1760
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 5:42 pm

Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by gips »

wsj article columnist replies to question around 70-30 vs 60-40 (behind paywall):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ideal-asse ... 1628111980

and refers to this article:
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/art ... t-planning

"Spoiler alert – as the title hints, 75/25 versus 60/40 doesn’t matter that much."

best,
User avatar
David Jay
Posts: 14587
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:54 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by David Jay »

There's a reason why Vanguard's LifeStrategy funds only come in 4 flavors: 80/20, 60/40, 40/60 and 20/80.

Some of us get way to "precise" with our AA.
It's not an engineering problem - Hersh Shefrin | To get the "risk premium", you really do have to take the risk - nisiprius
sailaway
Posts: 8219
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by sailaway »

This is why we put all new monies to stock and only rebalance twice a year, and then only if things are really out of whack. Simplicity over precision, when precision doesn't have much effect on the outcome.
User avatar
galawdawg
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:59 am
Location: Georgia

Re: Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by galawdawg »

That type of comparison has been readily available for years on this Vanguard webpage with included charts with return, maximum gain and maximum loss information from 1926-2020: https://investor.vanguard.com/investing ... allocation

Average annual return for 70/30: 9.4%
Average annual return for 60/40: 9.1%

There isn't a tremendous amount of difference between individual 10% allocation bands but the difference between 90/10 and 60/40 compounded over several decades could be substantial. A portfolio comprised of Vanguard Total Stock Index and Vanguard Total Bond Index with $10k annual contributions starting in 1992 (the earliest year for Total Stock Index) would today be worth about $1.46 million if allocated 60/40. The same portfolio allocated 90/10 would be now be worth about $1.79 million or over 20% more than the 60/40 portfolio.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=40
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by TomatoTomahto »

sailaway wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:28 pm This is why we put all new monies to stock and only rebalance twice a year, and then only if things are really out of whack. Simplicity over precision, when precision doesn't have much effect on the outcome.
We are not technically retired (ie, my wife still works for a paycheck), but are retired in spirit (we have enough, she enjoys her work, etc). We don’t bother rebalancing, and probably will not unless there’s a huge sale on equities. We accumulate into equities, and the only rebalancing we do with new money is domestic vs international equities.

Rising equity glide slope and all that jazz.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by dbr »

Asset allocation is extremely important because there is an extreme range of choices 100/0 to 0/100. That does not imply that small differences in asset allocation produce large changes in outcome.

Once in retirement dependence of safe withdrawal rate on asset allocation is almost non-existent except at extremes. The largest driver is the luck of history when you begin your retirement and after that withdrawal rate. Asset allocation in retirement does affect wealth at death fairly significantly excepting that . . .

. . . even worse your outcomes before and after retirement will be one single experience out of a huge range of possible future outcomes, and those ranges of outcomes overlap tremendously. There is little prospective difference in being in one lottery compared to another one.

All of these things are well known. The article would have been much better if it had given a comprehensive picture of how things work rather than trying to talk about a non-answer.
DB2
Posts: 1396
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:07 pm

Re: Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by DB2 »

David Jay wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:25 pm There's a reason why Vanguard's LifeStrategy funds only come in 4 flavors: 80/20, 60/40, 40/60 and 20/80.

Some of us get way to "precise" with our AA.
+1
N.Y.Cab
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:46 pm

Re: Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by N.Y.Cab »

Interesting that the lower bracket for bad outcome is practically the same for 60:40 thru 100:00. This may be true in theory if people can stick with same allocation over time but the problem is many would go to cash after a big market decline.
iamblessed
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:52 am
Location: St. Louis

Re: Unimportance of Asset Allocation in Retirement Planning

Post by iamblessed »

A 60/40 or 40/60 would work for most retired folks.
David Jay wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:25 pm There's a reason why Vanguard's LifeStrategy funds only come in 4 flavors: 80/20, 60/40, 40/60 and 20/80.

Some of us get way to "precise" with our AA.
One of those four would work for just about 90% of folks.
Post Reply