Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

I recently came across a comment by a poster, "CraigTester" who said it was optimal to rebalance every 8 years, on the current "Will BND Be Negative In 2022" thread.

Here is exactly what he said: "8 year rebalancing cycle has been clearly established as optimal if you are maximizing SWR....Maybe this time will be different, but that has been a long-established pattern."


I've been on this forum for a very long time and have been interested in/reading about personal finance for 45 years. I've never seen that before. I asked for a reference, but the poster has not replied, so far. But it sounds like he may be on to something.

I've struggled with the whole rebalance issue since 2008. I came to realize, then, that in a 1929 type scenario, rebalancing large, taxable, mature portfolios in a long-term bear market could result in flushing good/safe money after bad. I pretty much decided to never rebalance from bonds to stocks again. It's almost 14 years later, and I'm now realizing that "NEVER" rebalancing might be problematic, as things can get far out of whack and never buying stocks could result in not enough horsepower for the long haul. Or too much horsepower in the wrong direction if things go the wrong way.

At any rate, has anyone else seen any sort of study that shows that 8 year rebalancing is optimal? It does sound like this might be the sweet spot between too much rebalancing and too little rebalancing. But I'd like to tease out more on this.
Last edited by Leesbro63 on Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by JoeRetire »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:25 am I've struggled with the whole rebalance issue since 2008.
Do you think it's important to maintain a relatively constant asset allocation?
At any rate, has anyone else seen any sort of study that shows that 8 year rebalancing is optimal?
No.
It does sound like this might be the sweet spot between too much rebalancing and too little rebalancing.
8 years is a sweet spot? Why do you think this?
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
zuma
Posts: 641
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by zuma »

I don't think anyone can say it's "optimal" or not without first understanding what the objective is.
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 16260
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by JoMoney »

Never seen any such study, but I could easily imagine a scenario where someone back-tested something over some specific time period or even a randomized simulation of a specific time period. There are market-timer/traders that do tests on moving averages and find some "optimal" amount of time to use for their moving-average triggers... some like 10mo. averages, I'm sure under other scenarios 60mo. averages looked better... these things can easily change over time, and there's no promises that whatever worked in the past will work similarly going forward.

It also needs to be explicitly said whats' being "optimized" for. Most of the time, allowing the risky (stocks) portfolio to drift higher over longer periods of time has mostly lead to higher returns... until it doesn't. At which point people are usually glad to have some cushion, and relative to some previous market high, the optimal situation would have been to rebalance more into cash/bonds sooner.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

JoeRetire wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:31 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:25 am I've struggled with the whole rebalance issue since 2008.
Do you think it's important to maintain a relatively constant asset allocation?
At any rate, has anyone else seen any sort of study that shows that 8 year rebalancing is optimal?
No.
It does sound like this might be the sweet spot between too much rebalancing and too little rebalancing.
8 years is a sweet spot? Why do you think this?
1. I think relatively constant asset allocation is important, but not at any cost. I won't pay big capgains taxes to rebalance. To me that's money that becomes permanently dead when it might otherwise only temporarily die or even live on and prosper.

1a. I think that there's a big potential "Pascal's Wager" problem. Where rebalancing in a long bear market, which can't be predicted ahead of time, eats up "safe money".

2. Why do I think that 8 years is the sweet spot of rebalancing? The answer is that I never thought about it until CraigTester stated it in the above referenced thread. But upon reflection, it sort of just intuitively sounds like it might make sense. And it helps reduce the Pascal's Wager problem, because even a long bear market will have a great chance of finally being played out after 8 years. And a long bull market will have a great chance of being tired after 8 years.
Last edited by Leesbro63 on Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
livesoft
Posts: 86079
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by livesoft »

Sounds like using Presidential Elections to do market timing. Or a peculiar effect of backtesting: March 2000, March 2008, March ...
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

OP,

1) Paying taxes for locking in your gains is better than losing money. Or else, you may hit with a long bear market after a bull market.

2) The answer to long bear market is not no rebalancing. It is to set a minimum limit on x years of expenses in bond for your rebalancing.

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
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:46 am OP,

1) Paying taxes for locking in your gains is better than losing money. Or else, you may hit with a long bear market after a bull market.

2) The answer to long bear market is not no rebalancing. It is to set a minimum limit on x years of expenses in bond for your rebalancing.

KlangFool
I don't think this is correct for large taxable portfolios. Particularly after capital gains taxes rose around 2011. There were lots of threads about this way back. The consensus was that large taxable portfolios shouldn't be rebalanced often, if ever. Even with x years of expenses in bonds. And by the way, if you start rebalancing into a long bear market, your x years in bonds becomes x-y years in bonds.
z3r0c00l
Posts: 3809
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by z3r0c00l »

Rebalancing in taxable can often be accomplished with new contributions and dividends, at least in part. I wouldn't buy and sell in taxable to rebalance but thankfully that isn't often needed because it is rare for things to be that out of whack for that long. And usually, when they are, it is stocks that have crashed and so selling bonds, largely tax neutral of an activity, since bond funds typically have modest capital gains and losses, can rebalance into stocks.
70% Global Stocks / 30% Bonds
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 4414
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
Location: Southern Appalachia

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by firebirdparts »

Maybe there's something that would lead a person to do it every 8 years, but you have to define the function you're trying to maximize. That's not simple in this case. You could probably invent some set of goals where that's the result, but I didn't. It seems like to me, if you're talking about today, where we are today, the optimal rebalance frequency in the past would have been never ever. But I have done no work on this.

"Optimal" means something. It may not have been appropriately used, I don't know.
This time is the same
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

I would rather see you do 8 months rather than 8 years.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by JoeRetire »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:39 am
JoeRetire wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:31 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:25 am I've struggled with the whole rebalance issue since 2008.
Do you think it's important to maintain a relatively constant asset allocation?
At any rate, has anyone else seen any sort of study that shows that 8 year rebalancing is optimal?
No.
It does sound like this might be the sweet spot between too much rebalancing and too little rebalancing.
8 years is a sweet spot? Why do you think this?
1. I think relatively constant asset allocation is important, but not at any cost. I won't pay big capgains taxes to rebalance. To me that's money that becomes permanently dead when it might otherwise only temporarily die or even live on and prosper.

1a. I think that there's a big potential "Pascal's Wager" problem. Where rebalancing in a long bear market, which can't be predicted ahead of time, eats up "safe money".
The point was that we pick an asset allocation for a reason. But market conditions may cause the actual allocation to "drift" from the plan. (You could have planned on a conservative 60/40, but after 8 years end up with a relatively riskier 90/10, for example). Rebalancing is a way of maintaining a relatively constant level of risk.

If you don't care about your actual asset allocation or risk level, then there's no need for ever rebalancing. Set it, forget it, and hope that you don't feel regret if a market crash/reset occurs.
2. Why do I think that 8 years is the sweet spot of rebalancing? The answer is that I never thought about it until CraigTester stated it in the above referenced thread. But upon reflection, it sort of just intuitively sounds like it might make sense. And it helps reduce the Pascal's Wager problem, because even a long bear market will have a great chance of finally being played out after 8 years. And a long bull market will have a great chance of being tired after 8 years.
I don't see any magic in "8 years". But I suppose it's an individual choice.

Personally, I favor rebalancing upon seeing a certain amount of "drift" (say 10%) in your asset allocation.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:53 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:46 am OP,

1) Paying taxes for locking in your gains is better than losing money. Or else, you may hit with a long bear market after a bull market.

2) The answer to long bear market is not no rebalancing. It is to set a minimum limit on x years of expenses in bond for your rebalancing.

KlangFool
I don't think this is correct for large taxable portfolios. Particularly after capital gains taxes rose around 2011. There were lots of threads about this way back. The consensus was that large taxable portfolios shouldn't be rebalanced often, if ever. Even with x years of expenses in bonds. And by the way, if you start rebalancing into a long bear market, your x years in bonds becomes x-y years in bonds.
Leesbro63,

A) With my 5/25 band based rebalancing, the stock market has to be up or down more than 30% before it triggered rebalancing. It only happened once every few years.

So, if the stock market jump up 30%, do you choose not to rebalance due to taxes?

I only have one portfolio. In most cases, I do not have to rebalance via my taxable account.

B) X is the minimum. Hence, it could never be X-y years in bonds. For example, if you have 10 years in bond and 5 years is your minimum, you would never rebalance below 5 years.

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
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:57 am Rebalancing in taxable can often be accomplished with new contributions and dividends, at least in part. I wouldn't buy and sell in taxable to rebalance but thankfully that isn't often needed because it is rare for things to be that out of whack for that long. And usually, when they are, it is stocks that have crashed and so selling bonds, largely tax neutral of an activity, since bond funds typically have modest capital gains and losses, can rebalance into stocks.
z3r0c00l,

I use 5/25. The asset allocation would be maintained in normal times with new contribution. The only time that I need to actively rebalance is like in March 2020. Aka, the stock market goes up or down by more than 30%.

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
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by vineviz »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:39 am 1. I think relatively constant asset allocation is important, but not at any cost. I won't pay big capgains taxes to rebalance. To me that's money that becomes permanently dead when it might otherwise only temporarily die or even live on and prosper.
I think that's backwards. Unless you intend to never spend the money from your taxable account, any gains are going to be taxed eventually. Quite often it makes very little difference whether you pay the tax sooner rather than later.

Obviously taxes do matter and you always want to be cognizant of them. But when that morphs into the dogmatic advice we sometimes see in these discussions (e.g. "NEVER rebalance in taxable accounts if it results in a tax") then it's likely IMHO that we've lost the actually plot.

To your actual question, there's no evidence that 8 years is optimal. It certainly would result in dramatic shifts in your asset allocation: a 60/40 portfolio could easily drift to 75/25 or 45/55 under such a scheme. For instance, starting in January 2009 a 60/40 portfolio without rebalancing would have ended 2016 at 78/22 which I think most people would consider to be significantly riskier.

The Bogleheads wiki has some notes on rebalancing bands, which rely on the percentage of drift from the target allocation to trigger a rebalance instead of a fixed time schedule. This can be more tax-efficient, especially if the bands are somewhat wide.

It's also reasonable to consider a strategy wherein you only rebalance halfway back to your target whenever a rebalancing is triggered. This blog post from AllianceBernstein refers to target date funds, but the same logic applies to taxable portfolios or tax-advantaged portfolios which have trading costs. Note that these authors refer to a 3% rebalancing band, which is unneccessily small for an individual Investors IMHO. 5% or even 10% might be more appropriate.
Transaction costs also factor into the decision of how far target-date allocations should be returned toward their strategic targets when rebalancing. Based on our research, the answer isn’t “all the way back.” The optimal approach is actually to rebalance halfway back to target (see image). The benefit of rebalancing—in terms of reducing a portfolio’s tracking error—rises geometrically. On the other hand, the transaction costs rise in a straight line—it costs twice as much to rebalance back to target from a 2% deviation than it costs to rebalance back from a 1% deviation. The net result: the benefits of rebalancing allocations all the way back to strategic targets aren’t justified by the cost. Halfway is best.
Image
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
Doc7
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:55 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Doc7 »

I firmly believe that you can choose any rebalancing method you like and you will have the same chance of a positive outcome as any other rebalancing method. This was shown in the Vanguard paper.

The key is : pick one, and then do it.

If you choose "once a year on my birthday"

or

"5/25 bands"

or

"every 6 months"

or

"3% tolerance to AA"


and then you do that exactly that for 30 years, your given AA will be within rounding error of the optimal gains for that AA for any of the methods chosen. just pick one and spend mental energy on other things.
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

vineviz wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:39 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:39 am 1. I think relatively constant asset allocation is important, but not at any cost. I won't pay big capgains taxes to rebalance. To me that's money that becomes permanently dead when it might otherwise only temporarily die or even live on and prosper.
I think that's backwards. Unless you intend to never spend the money from your taxable account, any gains are going to be taxed eventually. Quite often it makes very little difference whether you pay the tax sooner rather than later.

Obviously taxes do matter and you always want to be cognizant of them. But when that morphs into the dogmatic advice we sometimes see in these discussions (e.g. "NEVER rebalance in taxable accounts if it results in a tax") then it's likely IMHO that we've lost the actually plot.

To your actual question, there's no evidence that 8 years is optimal. It certainly would result in dramatic shifts in your asset allocation: a 60/40 portfolio could easily drift to 75/25 or 45/55 under such a scheme. For instance, starting in January 2009 a 60/40 portfolio without rebalancing would have ended 2016 at 78/22 which I think most people would consider to be significantly riskier.

The Bogleheads wiki has some notes on rebalancing bands, which rely on the percentage of drift from the target allocation to trigger a rebalance instead of a fixed time schedule. This can be more tax-efficient, especially if the bands are somewhat wide.

It's also reasonable to consider a strategy wherein you only rebalance halfway back to your target whenever a rebalancing is triggered. This blog post from AllianceBernstein refers to target date funds, but the same logic applies to taxable portfolios or tax-advantaged portfolios which have trading costs. Note that these authors refer to a 3% rebalancing band, which is unneccessily small for an individual Investors IMHO. 5% or even 10% might be more appropriate.
Transaction costs also factor into the decision of how far target-date allocations should be returned toward their strategic targets when rebalancing. Based on our research, the answer isn’t “all the way back.” The optimal approach is actually to rebalance halfway back to target (see image). The benefit of rebalancing—in terms of reducing a portfolio’s tracking error—rises geometrically. On the other hand, the transaction costs rise in a straight line—it costs twice as much to rebalance back to target from a 2% deviation than it costs to rebalance back from a 1% deviation. The net result: the benefits of rebalancing allocations all the way back to strategic targets aren’t justified by the cost. Halfway is best.
Image
Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.
Silk McCue
Posts: 8954
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:11 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Silk McCue »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:25 am
At any rate, has anyone else seen any sort of study that shows that 8 year rebalancing is optimal? It does sound like this might be the sweet spot between too much rebalancing and too little rebalancing. But I'd like to tease out more on this.
My first reaction is why would a long term adherent to Boglehead principles be so readily swayed to consider embracing such a strategy that apparently came out of left field.

The likelihood that such a strategy would be appropriate with the full continuum of starting points for the eight year periods occurring anew every trading day with equally positive results is nil.

Cheers
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by vineviz »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:48 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.
I get that, but understand that is not reasonable (or even possible) for most investors. The vast majority of people are investing today precisely because they expect to use those investments to fuel their consumption later.

Furthermore, "never selling" implies a level of wealth notably in excess of what is needed to fund future consumption of goods and services. At those levels of wealth, by definition, none of this matters. In fact, if there is little risk of selling the investment in the future it might be reasonable to ask why any of it is in bonds to begin with: if someone doesn't need the money, what risk are they trying to mitigate?
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

vineviz wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:14 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:48 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.
I get that, but understand that is not reasonable (or even possible) for most investors. The vast majority of people are investing today precisely because they expect to use those investments to fuel their consumption later.

Furthermore, "never selling" implies a level of wealth notably in excess of what is needed to fund future consumption of goods and services. At those levels of wealth, by definition, none of this matters. In fact, if there is little risk of selling the investment in the future it might be reasonable to ask why any of it is in bonds to begin with: if someone doesn't need the money, what risk are they trying to mitigate?

There are two schools of thought on wealth where one has 50x spending/2% SWR. One is what you just articulated. Put it all in stocks, live off the puny-but-enough dividend and don’t worry about stock fluctuations.

The other school of thought is when you have enough, stop playing the game. Go to a 30/70(ish) portfolio and don’t risk losing what you have.

I’m kinda in the middle of that: 55/45
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by vineviz »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:19 am I’m kinda in the middle of that: 55/45
And the good news for you is that you've saved yourself into the fortunate position of not needing to care about rebalancing if you don't want to. Sounds like you're going to be fine financially no matter what you do.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

vineviz wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:23 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:19 am I’m kinda in the middle of that: 55/45
And the good news for you is that you've saved yourself into the fortunate position of not needing to care about rebalancing if you don't want to. Sounds like you're going to be fine financially no matter what you do.
I guess that finding myself with 45% in zero percent fixed income, now with 7% inflation, has reawakened my interest in long term wealth preservation.
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:48 am
vineviz wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:39 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:39 am 1. I think relatively constant asset allocation is important, but not at any cost. I won't pay big capgains taxes to rebalance. To me that's money that becomes permanently dead when it might otherwise only temporarily die or even live on and prosper.
I think that's backwards. Unless you intend to never spend the money from your taxable account, any gains are going to be taxed eventually. Quite often it makes very little difference whether you pay the tax sooner rather than later.

Obviously taxes do matter and you always want to be cognizant of them. But when that morphs into the dogmatic advice we sometimes see in these discussions (e.g. "NEVER rebalance in taxable accounts if it results in a tax") then it's likely IMHO that we've lost the actually plot.

To your actual question, there's no evidence that 8 years is optimal. It certainly would result in dramatic shifts in your asset allocation: a 60/40 portfolio could easily drift to 75/25 or 45/55 under such a scheme. For instance, starting in January 2009 a 60/40 portfolio without rebalancing would have ended 2016 at 78/22 which I think most people would consider to be significantly riskier.

The Bogleheads wiki has some notes on rebalancing bands, which rely on the percentage of drift from the target allocation to trigger a rebalance instead of a fixed time schedule. This can be more tax-efficient, especially if the bands are somewhat wide.

It's also reasonable to consider a strategy wherein you only rebalance halfway back to your target whenever a rebalancing is triggered. This blog post from AllianceBernstein refers to target date funds, but the same logic applies to taxable portfolios or tax-advantaged portfolios which have trading costs. Note that these authors refer to a 3% rebalancing band, which is unneccessily small for an individual Investors IMHO. 5% or even 10% might be more appropriate.
Transaction costs also factor into the decision of how far target-date allocations should be returned toward their strategic targets when rebalancing. Based on our research, the answer isn’t “all the way back.” The optimal approach is actually to rebalance halfway back to target (see image). The benefit of rebalancing—in terms of reducing a portfolio’s tracking error—rises geometrically. On the other hand, the transaction costs rise in a straight line—it costs twice as much to rebalance back to target from a 2% deviation than it costs to rebalance back from a 1% deviation. The net result: the benefits of rebalancing allocations all the way back to strategic targets aren’t justified by the cost. Halfway is best.
Image
Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.
Leesbro63,

<< Never selling is exactly my goal, >>

A) That means you can afford to lose it all. Aka, you have no risk. And, you do not need risk management.

B) That also mean you won't mind if there are zero inheritance too. Aka, someone inherit nothing.

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
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Patzer »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:39 am
JoeRetire wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:31 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:25 am I've struggled with the whole rebalance issue since 2008.
Do you think it's important to maintain a relatively constant asset allocation?
At any rate, has anyone else seen any sort of study that shows that 8 year rebalancing is optimal?
No.
It does sound like this might be the sweet spot between too much rebalancing and too little rebalancing.
8 years is a sweet spot? Why do you think this?
1. I think relatively constant asset allocation is important, but not at any cost. I won't pay big capgains taxes to rebalance. To me that's money that becomes permanently dead when it might otherwise only temporarily die or even live on and prosper.

1a. I think that there's a big potential "Pascal's Wager" problem. Where rebalancing in a long bear market, which can't be predicted ahead of time, eats up "safe money".

2. Why do I think that 8 years is the sweet spot of rebalancing? The answer is that I never thought about it until CraigTester stated it in the above referenced thread. But upon reflection, it sort of just intuitively sounds like it might make sense. And it helps reduce the Pascal's Wager problem, because even a long bear market will have a great chance of finally being played out after 8 years. And a long bull market will have a great chance of being tired after 8 years.
Quarterly rebalancing can get you into trouble in a series of continuous crashes, but annual rebalancing gave a pretty good result even in the great depression.
8 years is way too long and during a bull market would let you take on way too much risk compared to your asset allocation.
You would want to passively rebalance the entire time at a minimum, whereby you are withdrawing to spend from your over target asset.
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:26 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.


Leesbro63,

<< Never selling is exactly my goal, >>

A) That means you can afford to lose it all. Aka, you have no risk. And, you do not need risk management.

B) That also mean you won't mind if there are zero inheritance too. Aka, someone inherit nothing.

KlangFool
A) No, it does not mean I can afford to lose it all. It means that I've recognized that there are no risk-less investments, including cash, and it's about optimizing/minimizing the risks that investors have to endure.

B) Hopefully there will be a nice inheritance for my heirs, but the point of my portfolio is to take care of myself while I'm here. An inheritance to my heirs is just a byproduct of that.
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:43 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:26 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.


Leesbro63,

<< Never selling is exactly my goal, >>

A) That means you can afford to lose it all. Aka, you have no risk. And, you do not need risk management.

B) That also mean you won't mind if there are zero inheritance too. Aka, someone inherit nothing.

KlangFool
A) No, it does not mean I can afford to lose it all. It means that I've recognized that there are no risk-less investments, including cash, and it's about optimizing/minimizing the risks that investors have to endure.

B) Hopefully there will be a nice inheritance for my heirs, but the point of my portfolio is to take care of myself while I'm here. An inheritance to my heirs is just a byproduct of that.
Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

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
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:57 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:43 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:26 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.


Leesbro63,

<< Never selling is exactly my goal, >>

A) That means you can afford to lose it all. Aka, you have no risk. And, you do not need risk management.

B) That also mean you won't mind if there are zero inheritance too. Aka, someone inherit nothing.

KlangFool
A) No, it does not mean I can afford to lose it all. It means that I've recognized that there are no risk-less investments, including cash, and it's about optimizing/minimizing the risks that investors have to endure.

B) Hopefully there will be a nice inheritance for my heirs, but the point of my portfolio is to take care of myself while I'm here. An inheritance to my heirs is just a byproduct of that.
Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

KlangFool
Again, I'm not sure that's right.
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:02 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:57 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:43 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:26 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.


Leesbro63,

<< Never selling is exactly my goal, >>

A) That means you can afford to lose it all. Aka, you have no risk. And, you do not need risk management.

B) That also mean you won't mind if there are zero inheritance too. Aka, someone inherit nothing.

KlangFool
A) No, it does not mean I can afford to lose it all. It means that I've recognized that there are no risk-less investments, including cash, and it's about optimizing/minimizing the risks that investors have to endure.

B) Hopefully there will be a nice inheritance for my heirs, but the point of my portfolio is to take care of myself while I'm here. An inheritance to my heirs is just a byproduct of that.
Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

KlangFool
Again, I'm not sure that's right.
This is not an opinion. It is simple math. If you disagreed, please run through some simulation.

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
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:07 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:02 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:57 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:43 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:26 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.


Leesbro63,

<< Never selling is exactly my goal, >>

A) That means you can afford to lose it all. Aka, you have no risk. And, you do not need risk management.

B) That also mean you won't mind if there are zero inheritance too. Aka, someone inherit nothing.

KlangFool
A) No, it does not mean I can afford to lose it all. It means that I've recognized that there are no risk-less investments, including cash, and it's about optimizing/minimizing the risks that investors have to endure.

B) Hopefully there will be a nice inheritance for my heirs, but the point of my portfolio is to take care of myself while I'm here. An inheritance to my heirs is just a byproduct of that.
Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

KlangFool
Again, I'm not sure that's right.
This is not an opinion. It is simple math. If you disagreed, please run through some simulation.

KlangFool
Yes, it's about math. Pascal's Wager. Including risks and consequences. The risk of a big crash with further crashes is small. But it's happened. And if you rebalance after the first crash, you've traded safe money for more risk. Then it crashes again and you suddenly don't have enough safe money. Pascal's Wager.

I'd like to hear from other deep thinkers on this point! :)

What if you rebalanced just after the 1929 crash? Would you rebalance again in 1930, just in time for another crash?
Last edited by Leesbro63 on Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Da5id
Posts: 5066
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Da5id »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:02 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:57 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:43 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:26 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.


Leesbro63,

<< Never selling is exactly my goal, >>

A) That means you can afford to lose it all. Aka, you have no risk. And, you do not need risk management.

B) That also mean you won't mind if there are zero inheritance too. Aka, someone inherit nothing.

KlangFool
A) No, it does not mean I can afford to lose it all. It means that I've recognized that there are no risk-less investments, including cash, and it's about optimizing/minimizing the risks that investors have to endure.

B) Hopefully there will be a nice inheritance for my heirs, but the point of my portfolio is to take care of myself while I'm here. An inheritance to my heirs is just a byproduct of that.
Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

KlangFool
Again, I'm not sure that's right.
I'm with you. If you have enough between current fixed income allocation and pensions/SS to cover your lifetime expenses, letting your stock allocation drift upwards seems fine. That will probably result in you having more wealth in the end, given that you don't care about keeping the volatility/risk of your portfolio at some set level.

As to the OPs 8 year thing, I don't believe it comes from anywhere. Never heard of it. Of course, maybe for some particular definition of "optimal" one can show in a back test that it is indeed "optimal"???
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

Da5id wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:12 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:02 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:57 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:43 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:26 am Never selling is exactly my goal, as is the goal of many here. And under current law there will be no capgains taxes at death due to the step up in basis.


Leesbro63,

<< Never selling is exactly my goal, >>

A) That means you can afford to lose it all. Aka, you have no risk. And, you do not need risk management.

B) That also mean you won't mind if there are zero inheritance too. Aka, someone inherit nothing.

KlangFool
A) No, it does not mean I can afford to lose it all. It means that I've recognized that there are no risk-less investments, including cash, and it's about optimizing/minimizing the risks that investors have to endure.

B) Hopefully there will be a nice inheritance for my heirs, but the point of my portfolio is to take care of myself while I'm here. An inheritance to my heirs is just a byproduct of that.
Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

KlangFool
Again, I'm not sure that's right.
I'm with you. If you have enough between current fixed income allocation and pensions/SS to cover your lifetime expenses, letting your stock allocation drift upwards seems fine. That will probably result in you having more wealth in the end, given that you don't care about keeping the volatility/risk of your portfolio at some set level.

As to the OPs 8 year thing, I don't believe it comes from anywhere. Never heard of it. Of course, maybe in some back test it is "optimal", which was CraigTester's word for some particular meaning of "optimal"?
Thanks for the reply. It's not only about letting a stock allocation drift upwards. That's the good situation. It's also about tolerating a down stock allocation so that you don't risk fixed income to top off stock allocation. See my post just above yours.

Oh, and I agree that, so far, CraigTester (or anyone else) has not provided any reference to support an 8 year rebalance.
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by quantAndHold »

Several years ago I read something, I think might have been in Bill Bernstein’s “Ages of the Investor” book, that said while you’re still making money and making contributions, that rebalancing didn’t really help. It didn’t hurt, either, but the new contributions would keep it relatively in balance. And in fact, when I was working, I only rebalanced when I changed jobs. But that was laziness, not any kind of plan. After retirement, though, rebalancing on a regular schedule made a real difference to preservation of the portfolio. I don’t remember what he said about the optimum timeframe, but I think it was on the order of between six months to two years, not eight years.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by vineviz »

quantAndHold wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:35 am Several years ago I read something, I think might have been in Bill Bernstein’s “Ages of the Investor” book, that said while you’re still making money and making contributions, that rebalancing didn’t really help. It didn’t hurt, either, but the new contributions would keep it relatively in balance.
Right, it's not so much that it "doesn't help" as it is that portfolios with regular contributions or withdrawals are already being rebalanced in part through those cash flows. The need for additional rebalancing actions, therefore, is reduced.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:11 am

Yes, it's about math. Pascal's Wager. Including risks and consequences. The risk of a big crash with further crashes is small. But it's happened. And if you rebalance after the first crash, you've traded safe money for more risk. Then it crashes again and you suddenly don't have enough safe money. Pascal's Wager.

I'd like to hear from other deep thinkers on this point! :)

What if you rebalanced just after the 1929 crash? Would you rebalance again in 1930, just in time for another crash?
Leesbro63,

And, I had answered this question.

It is very simple.

Set a minimum limit on the years of expense on your bond. Then, you would not rebalance again in 1930.

Do not rebalance away the amount of money that you cannot afford to lose.

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
User avatar
Svensk Anga
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:16 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Svensk Anga »

Jim Otar, in “Unveiling the Retirement Myth”, recommends rebalancing at four year intervals, coordinated with the presidential election cycle. That’s as long as I’ve seen. Maybe someone extended the idea assuming presidents get two terms.

Bill Bernstein has written that one year intervals may be too short because they don’t allow sufficient time for momentum to run its course and reverse.

I’ve seen studies that try to find the optimum rebalance strategy to optimize returns. My take away was that any advantage was slim and dependent on the study period. Rebalance primarily to control risk.
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:54 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:11 am

Yes, it's about math. Pascal's Wager. Including risks and consequences. The risk of a big crash with further crashes is small. But it's happened. And if you rebalance after the first crash, you've traded safe money for more risk. Then it crashes again and you suddenly don't have enough safe money. Pascal's Wager.

I'd like to hear from other deep thinkers on this point! :)

What if you rebalanced just after the 1929 crash? Would you rebalance again in 1930, just in time for another crash?
Leesbro63,

And, I had answered this question.

It is very simple.

Set a minimum limit on the years of expense on your bond. Then, you would not rebalance again in 1930.

Do not rebalance away the amount of money that you cannot afford to lose.

KlangFool
Well then you are saying almost the same thing I’m saying. I’m just drawing the line (refusing to rebalance) at a higher percentage fixed income anchor.
User avatar
vanbogle59
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:30 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by vanbogle59 »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:25 am I've struggled with the whole rebalance issue since 2008. I came to realize, then, that in a 1929 type scenario, rebalancing large, taxable, mature portfolios in a long-term bear market could result in flushing good/safe money after bad. I pretty much decided to never rebalance from bonds to stocks again.
I think that just means you have looked in the mirror and said: "I am willing to risk $X. No more. If it goes up, great. If it goes down, well, too bad. That was all I had to put at risk. I'm done."

I don't find that ridiculous at all.
(Assuming the fixed-income portion of the portfolio is of sufficient size/quality to meet your long-term investment objectives...which is what I am inferring from these adjectives: "large, taxable, mature")
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:03 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:54 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:11 am

Yes, it's about math. Pascal's Wager. Including risks and consequences. The risk of a big crash with further crashes is small. But it's happened. And if you rebalance after the first crash, you've traded safe money for more risk. Then it crashes again and you suddenly don't have enough safe money. Pascal's Wager.

I'd like to hear from other deep thinkers on this point! :)

What if you rebalanced just after the 1929 crash? Would you rebalance again in 1930, just in time for another crash?
Leesbro63,

And, I had answered this question.

It is very simple.

Set a minimum limit on the years of expense on your bond. Then, you would not rebalance again in 1930.

Do not rebalance away the amount of money that you cannot afford to lose.

KlangFool
Well then you are saying almost the same thing I’m saying. I’m just drawing the line (refusing to rebalance) at a higher percentage fixed income anchor.
No, it is not the same. I am not using a percentage as my minimum limit.

Let's assume that you are at 25X and 60/40. Your bond limit = 10X.

The market goes up and your portfolio at 40X. You rebalance by selling the stock to buy the bond. Hence, you have 24X in stock and 16X in the bond.

In my system. if the stock market crashes later, I would sell the bond to buy the stock until the bond is at 10X.

In your system, you do not rebalance when the stock goes up or down.

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
2pedals
Posts: 1988
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:31 am

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by 2pedals »

I little more than three years into retirement and my plan is not to rebalance on stock market equity drops to avoid adding low-risk buckets to risky stocks. I plan to let my asset allocation float up until I reach 70% equity (currently at 62%). The reason for this is personal, I believe it will help me sleep well at night. I know from personal experience it is very hard to add stocks in a prolonged market drop and a 70% stock allocation is about the limit in risk that I am willing to take.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by JoeRetire »

Doc7 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:43 am I firmly believe that you can choose any rebalancing method you like and you will have the same chance of a positive outcome as any other rebalancing method. This was shown in the Vanguard paper.

and then you do that exactly that for 30 years, your given AA will be within rounding error of the optimal gains for that AA for any of the methods chosen. just pick one and spend mental energy on other things.
So, by this reasoning, "rebalance every 8 years" is equally effective? And at the extreme, "rebalance every 30 years"? Or even "rebalance never"?

I'll have to see if I can find the Vanguard paper, so I can understand the limits to the concept.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by KlangFool »

2pedals wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:11 am I little more than three years into retirement and my plan is not to rebalance on stock market equity drops to avoid adding low-risk buckets to risky stocks. I plan to let my asset allocation float up until I reach 70% equity (currently at 62%). The reason for this is personal, I believe it will help me sleep well at night. I know from personal experience it is very hard to add stocks in a prolonged market drop and 70% stock allocation is about the limit in risk that I am willing to take.
2pedals,

In my opinion, what helps you Sleep Well At Night (SWAN) is you know that you have X years of expense in the emergency fund and Y years of expense in the bond. It is not Z% of your portfolio is in the bond.

This distinction may be important for you.

If your equity portfolio reaches 70% and you rebalance into the bond, you may have more than enough bond for rebalancing later.

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
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by JoeRetire »

Svensk Anga wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:58 am Jim Otar, in “Unveiling the Retirement Myth”, recommends rebalancing at four year intervals, coordinated with the presidential election cycle.
Because???
Rebalance primarily to control risk.
Agreed.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
User avatar
Offshore
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Michigan's West Coast

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Offshore »

All I can contribute is my real life experience. I retired 2 years ago and am in the situation where, in my working years, I would be rebalancing on the taxable side (equities) and paying taxes out of future wages. I have no more future wages. Also, there are carryover losses from 2020 TLH'ing. Those losses will be used to offset taxable gains when shares are sold (in the future) to fund living expenses. Rebalancing on the taxable side would trigger capital gains taxes that far exceed carryover losses. Taxes would need to be paid from the portfolio. This doesn't seem like a warranted move since the equity AA is off by about 3% (within various equity holdings). The overall portfolio remains within 1% of its AA, remarkably, even after the gains from the past couple of years. BTW, my AA is 45:55 stocks:bonds and my age is 61.

As a retiree, every penny of taxable holding is precious and it's easy to say "Rebalance and pay taxes". It's harder than you think to forgo "good" for "perfect". For me, my AA is still within 1% of my IPS, but, it's off its mark within the equity side (less than 3%). Until my stock:bond AA gets 5% out of whack, I do not plan on rebalancing. Also, such a move will increase MAGI and impact Roth conversions in important years before SS and RMD's kick in.

These are my real-life observations and conclusions, for my particular situation. I have found that portfolio management in retirement is not nearly as straightforward as I had hoped. There are few "clear" correct directions because a retiree's situation may be quite different from one person to the next.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Marseille07 »

No offense to the poster but 8 years being optimal is pure nonsense. In fact the goal of rebalancing isn't to optimize the returns.
User avatar
vanbogle59
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:30 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by vanbogle59 »

Marseille07 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:26 am No offense to the poster but 8 years being optimal is pure nonsense. In fact the goal of rebalancing isn't to optimize the returns.
LadyGeek has spent WAY too much time trying to train me to write this kind of post.
:shock:
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

Offshore wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:23 am All I can contribute is my real life experience. I retired 2 years ago and am in the situation where, in my working years, I would be rebalancing on the taxable side (equities) and paying taxes out of future wages. I have no more future wages. Also, there are carryover losses from 2020 TLH'ing. Those losses will be used to offset taxable gains when shares are sold (in the future) to fund living expenses. Rebalancing on the taxable side would trigger capital gains taxes that far exceed carryover losses. Taxes would need to be paid from the portfolio. This doesn't seem like a warranted move since the equity AA is off by about 3% (within various equity holdings). The overall portfolio remains within 1% of its AA, remarkably, even after the gains from the past couple of years. BTW, my AA is 45:55 stocks:bonds and my age is 61.

As a retiree, every penny of taxable holding is precious and it's easy to say "Rebalance and pay taxes". It's harder than you think to forgo "good" for "perfect". For me, my AA is still within 1% of my IPS, but, it's off its mark within the equity side (less than 3%). Until my stock:bond AA gets 5% out of whack, I do not plan on rebalancing. Also, such a move will increase MAGI and impact Roth conversions in important years before SS and RMD's kick in.

These are my real-life observations and conclusions, for my particular situation. I have found that portfolio management in retirement is not nearly as straightforward as I had hoped. There are few "clear" correct directions because a retiree's situation may be quite different from one person to the next.
Great post, Offshore. My only thought is wondering if 55% of your portfolio, now returning zero or less and losing 7% to inflation, can be overcome with only 45% horsepower (stocks). Unless you have a serious health issue, 61 is pretty young.
2pedals
Posts: 1988
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:31 am

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by 2pedals »

KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:20 am
2pedals wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:11 am I little more than three years into retirement and my plan is not to rebalance on stock market equity drops to avoid adding low-risk buckets to risky stocks. I plan to let my asset allocation float up until I reach 70% equity (currently at 62%). The reason for this is personal, I believe it will help me sleep well at night. I know from personal experience it is very hard to add stocks in a prolonged market drop and 70% stock allocation is about the limit in risk that I am willing to take.
2pedals,

In my opinion, what helps you Sleep Well At Night (SWAN) is you know that you have X years of expense in the emergency fund and Y years of expense in the bond. It is not Z% of your portfolio is in the bond.

This distinction may be important for you.

If your equity portfolio reaches 70% and you rebalance into the bond, you may have more than enough bond for rebalancing later.

KlangFool
I agree. I just don't think I will need or will want more than 70%....unless the extra becomes much more than expected.
User avatar
Candor
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 4:25 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Candor »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:15 am
Da5id wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:12 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:02 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:57 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:43 am

A) No, it does not mean I can afford to lose it all. It means that I've recognized that there are no risk-less investments, including cash, and it's about optimizing/minimizing the risks that investors have to endure.

B) Hopefully there will be a nice inheritance for my heirs, but the point of my portfolio is to take care of myself while I'm here. An inheritance to my heirs is just a byproduct of that.
Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

KlangFool
Again, I'm not sure that's right.
I'm with you. If you have enough between current fixed income allocation and pensions/SS to cover your lifetime expenses, letting your stock allocation drift upwards seems fine. That will probably result in you having more wealth in the end, given that you don't care about keeping the volatility/risk of your portfolio at some set level.

As to the OPs 8 year thing, I don't believe it comes from anywhere. Never heard of it. Of course, maybe in some back test it is "optimal", which was CraigTester's word for some particular meaning of "optimal"?
Thanks for the reply. It's not only about letting a stock allocation drift upwards. That's the good situation. It's also about tolerating a down stock allocation so that you don't risk fixed income to top off stock allocation. See my post just above yours.

Oh, and I agree that, so far, CraigTester (or anyone else) has not provided any reference to support an 8 year rebalance.
You may be waiting a while since he has posted the below in another thread when asked about specifics of his investing "formula".
I am sure it is obvious to you why I wouldn’t publish my “formula” on the internet
you can't really expect anyone to just publish a proprietary process that has been decades in the making, on the internet....
The fool, with all his other faults, has this also - he is always getting ready to live. - Seneca Epistles < c. 65AD
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 10640
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Leesbro63 »

Candor wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:35 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:15 am
Da5id wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:12 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:02 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:57 am

Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

KlangFool
Again, I'm not sure that's right.
I'm with you. If you have enough between current fixed income allocation and pensions/SS to cover your lifetime expenses, letting your stock allocation drift upwards seems fine. That will probably result in you having more wealth in the end, given that you don't care about keeping the volatility/risk of your portfolio at some set level.

As to the OPs 8 year thing, I don't believe it comes from anywhere. Never heard of it. Of course, maybe in some back test it is "optimal", which was CraigTester's word for some particular meaning of "optimal"?
Thanks for the reply. It's not only about letting a stock allocation drift upwards. That's the good situation. It's also about tolerating a down stock allocation so that you don't risk fixed income to top off stock allocation. See my post just above yours.

Oh, and I agree that, so far, CraigTester (or anyone else) has not provided any reference to support an 8 year rebalance.
You may be waiting a while since he has posted the below in another thread when asked about specifics of his investing "formula".
I am sure it is obvious to you why I wouldn’t publish my “formula” on the internet
you can't really expect anyone to just publish a proprietary process that has been decades in the making, on the internet....
Thanks, Candor. That’s a VERY telling post. I thought I he was a traditional Boglehead, but perhaps his thinking differs from what I expected.
Da5id
Posts: 5066
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Rebalance Every 8 Years?

Post by Da5id »

Candor wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:35 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:15 am
Da5id wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:12 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:02 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:57 am

Leesbro63,

If you need wealth preservation, then, you need to rebalance.

KlangFool
Again, I'm not sure that's right.
I'm with you. If you have enough between current fixed income allocation and pensions/SS to cover your lifetime expenses, letting your stock allocation drift upwards seems fine. That will probably result in you having more wealth in the end, given that you don't care about keeping the volatility/risk of your portfolio at some set level.

As to the OPs 8 year thing, I don't believe it comes from anywhere. Never heard of it. Of course, maybe in some back test it is "optimal", which was CraigTester's word for some particular meaning of "optimal"?
Thanks for the reply. It's not only about letting a stock allocation drift upwards. That's the good situation. It's also about tolerating a down stock allocation so that you don't risk fixed income to top off stock allocation. See my post just above yours.

Oh, and I agree that, so far, CraigTester (or anyone else) has not provided any reference to support an 8 year rebalance.
You may be waiting a while since he has posted the below in another thread when asked about specifics of his investing "formula".
I am sure it is obvious to you why I wouldn’t publish my “formula” on the internet
you can't really expect anyone to just publish a proprietary process that has been decades in the making, on the internet....
"I've got a secret" is a sure sign of lack of a secret IMO.
Posting "I've got a secret to beat the market but won't tell you what it is", even if actually somehow true, is indistinguishable from trolling. Again IMO.
Last edited by Da5id on Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply