Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by willthrill81 »

Let's flip the title of the thread for a moment, "Does anyone believe 100 percent nominal bonds is not risky?"

Again, it depends on how we define risk. If it's in terms of funding future real consumption, then 100% nominal bonds could be very risky indeed.

In truth, 100% of anything has some level of risk. Even something like a TIPS ladder has risk because (1) you might have underestimated your future expenses and (2) TIPS only go out to 30 years, which could be longer than your lifespan.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 21281
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by HomerJ »

CraigTester wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:22 pm
HomerJ wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:08 pm I am a little worried that you've never experienced a long or deep crash when not working.

Is your self-awareness good enough to accurately imagine how you will react to a 5-10 year crash while pulling money each year?

Your total confidence that all stock market crashes recover quickly makes me worry for you. Because that confidence is badly misplaced. Open a history book.
Homer - you make me proud!

Here are some example dates that can be referred to in the history books you mentioned above.

As shown, it can take up to 20 years to retain earlier high water marks if 100% equities

20 yrs. May 1901-Aug 1921.
20 yrs. Aug 1929–May 1949
15 yrs. Nov 1968-Mar 1983
13 yrs. Mar 2000- Jan 2013

All the best,

CraigTester
You're ignoring dividends, which is a cardinal sin.

Especially for those earlier dates when dividends were in the 4%-6% range.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 21281
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by HomerJ »

T-NYC wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:33 pm We are 100% equities in three index funds. We can meet our base expenses without any distributions. At some point we will be building a home and will reduce our equities to fund it. The remaining portfolio will stay in equities. While we would not want to lose our investment, we could and it would only affect our house-building plans. Realistically, if all three index funds went to zero then there are bigger, more immediate problems.
Yes, if you have pensions or other income sources that cover all your expenses, then there is zero risk with all your "extra unnecessary money" in stocks.

There is zero risk investing it all in beanie babies as well.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
barberakb
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:14 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by barberakb »

Everything is risky, a 100% bond fund is risky, all cash is risky...
T-NYC
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2021 7:21 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by T-NYC »

returns in index funds are likely to outperform beanie babies, thus our choice.
Normchad
Posts: 5648
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:20 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by Normchad »

barberakb wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:04 pm Everything is risky, a 100% bond fund is risky, all cash is risky...
Yep. Life is risky. Everybody has risks in their life, and you can’t eliminate all of them. Over half of all accidental deaths happen at home, so staying at home is risky too….

For me, it’s a question if what’s appropriate. I think a 100% equity portfolio is appropriate for lots of people, but not for everybody. That is the portfolio I had until I got within 10 years of retirement.
H-Town
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by H-Town »

barberakb wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:04 pm Everything is risky, a 100% bond fund is risky, all cash is risky...
What is the odds of cash is the worst asset class in 10 years? 100% :mrgreen:
Time is the ultimate currency.
sabhen
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:03 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by sabhen »

For 100% equities, you need to ask over what time-frame.

This is important and tends to be overlooked.

Bogle himself, demonstrated in his book on mutual funds that over a 1 year period, (S&P 500) you can lose over 50%, over 5-year rolling period the loss is far less (few percents), but over 20-year rolling period, you are positive. Also portfolio volatility is reduced drastically. Risk is defined as nominal loss of capital.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by willthrill81 »

sabhen wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:33 pmRisk is defined as nominal loss of capital.
I believe that inflation-adjusted loss of capital is a big risk.
The Sensible Steward
sabhen
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:03 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by sabhen »

willthrill81 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:35 pm
sabhen wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:33 pmRisk is defined as nominal loss of capital.
I believe that inflation-adjusted loss of capital is a big risk.
It depends on which period we are talking about. This can be run over portfolio visualizer or similar. Stocks have returned over long periods something like 7-8 %. Inflation maybe 3-4%. So over long periods you are better off with stocks. That is still better than bonds.
ronno2018
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:31 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by ronno2018 »

Picketty seems to show what you want for multiple centuries of family wealth is real estate ==

"As Piketty points out, for most of history, the return on capital could be understood as the value of land. Think about Downton Abbey. Lady Grantham doesn’t know what a weekend is because her family never worked. But yet, before the wars anyway, between help from wealthy relatives and the value of Downton, the Granthams were always well-off. Or imagine Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy. The wealth he reaps from Pemberley Mansion is self-perpetuating. Return on capital, then, is how much you get for every dollar (or pound) that you invest. In the 19th century, and again today, that rate has been high."

(from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how ... cys-wealth )
Topic Author
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

Does this mean a one fund portfolio is not a good idea, like VTSAX?
SeasOfCheese
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:40 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by SeasOfCheese »

Riprap wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:52 am If the cash flow from 75% of the dividends is sufficient for your needs, then 100% equity is fine. It's really not a whole lot different than being a small business owner and having most of your net worth tied up in your business. If fluctuating values are a concern for one reason or another, then 100% is probably not a good idea.
:sharebeer

(but don't tell the dividend haters.)
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 21281
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by HomerJ »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:24 pm Does this mean a one fund portfolio is not a good idea, like VTSAX?
Again, it all depends on each individual's situation.

That's what you need to understand.

You can't make a blanket statement like that.

Stock market can crash and take a long time to recover. This has happened. It's not theoretical.

If your finances can withstand a 50%+ crash that takes a long time to recover, then 100% VTSAX still might work for you.

If one has a secure job (or two people working in a couple), and you're still young, accumulating with years to go, then sure 100% VTSAX could be a good idea.

If one in retired and has a pension and Social Security that covers all your basic needs, and the investments are just for vacations/luxuries/inheritance for the kids, then sure 100% VTSAX could be a good idea.

If one is pulling 4%-5% a year from your portfolio in retirement in order to pay for basic needs, then 100% VTSAX is not a good idea. Because a big crash that takes a while to recover could leave you broke.
Last edited by HomerJ on Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
retire2022
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:10 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by retire2022 »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:24 pm Does this mean a one fund portfolio is not a good idea, like VTSAX?
When I was working for city and state government 34 years, my AA never held bonds and 100% equities ie 1987-2021.

2.23 million portfolio and retired 11 months at 95 equities and 5 % cash.

Having pension at 66k a year mitigates risk.
Caleb4387
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:43 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by Caleb4387 »

My wife and I started late so for us it's too risky NOT to be 100 percent equities for at least 25 years. We are simple people and can live thrifty. If we were to retire today SS would cover 100 percent of our expenses assuming we had a paid off house which we plan to have by retirement, and I have no objection to working part time jobs well into old age if needed. If we want to have the kind of financial life we dream of then 100 percent is the way to go for us. If we reach a substantial (to us) net worth then well rebalance into fixed income, but long downturns are just part of the risk we accept.
LFKB
Posts: 1264
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:06 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by LFKB »

If you’re 20 or more years from retirement, I would say 100% equities is the least risky strategy. I believe there has never been a 20 year period where bonds outperformed equities.

As you get closer to and enter retirement, that risk profile changes given your timeframe and cash needs.
BernardShakey
Posts: 1147
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:52 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by BernardShakey »

retire2022 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:07 pm
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:24 pm Does this mean a one fund portfolio is not a good idea, like VTSAX?
When I was working for city and state government 34 years, my AA never held bonds and 100% equities ie 1987-2021.

2.23 million portfolio and retired 11 months at 95 equities and 5 % cash.

Having pension at 66k a year mitigates risk.
Are your expenses less than 66k annually, or at least not too much above that level ? Or are you pulling 80-90k annually from your portfolio ? Makes a huge difference.
An important key to investing is having a well-calibrated sense of your future regret.
retire2022
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:10 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by retire2022 »

BernardShakey wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:41 pm
retire2022 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:07 pm
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:24 pm Does this mean a one fund portfolio is not a good idea, like VTSAX?
When I was working for city and state government 34 years, my AA never held bonds and 100% equities ie 1987-2021.

2.23 million portfolio and retired 11 months at 95 equities and 5 % cash.

Having pension at 66k a year mitigates risk.
Are your expenses less than 66k annually, or at least not too much above that level ? Or are you pulling 80-90k annually from your portfolio ? Makes a huge difference.
Yes my expenses is 48k per year, my retirement income for 2021 was 208k and this year it is projected to be 321k, which includes withdrawals from pretax 457 and Roth conversions.

My income in retirement is higher than while I was working which was never over 98k.

I turned 62 this year and could apply for SSA but will delay
until 70, 28k a year versus 42k.
BernardShakey
Posts: 1147
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:52 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by BernardShakey »

retire2022 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:44 pm
BernardShakey wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:41 pm
retire2022 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:07 pm
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:24 pm Does this mean a one fund portfolio is not a good idea, like VTSAX?
When I was working for city and state government 34 years, my AA never held bonds and 100% equities ie 1987-2021.

2.23 million portfolio and retired 11 months at 95 equities and 5 % cash.

Having pension at 66k a year mitigates risk.
Are your expenses less than 66k annually, or at least not too much above that level ? Or are you pulling 80-90k annually from your portfolio ? Makes a huge difference.
Yes my expenses is 48k per year, my retirement income for 2021 was 208k and this year it is projected to be 321k, which includes withdrawals from pretax 457 and Roth conversions.

My income in retirement is higher than while I was working which was never over 98k.

I turned 62 this year and could apply for SSA but will delay
until 70, 28k a year versus 42k.
Yeah, well then you can be 100% equities.
An important key to investing is having a well-calibrated sense of your future regret.
CraigTester
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:34 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by CraigTester »

HomerJ wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 5:44 pm
CraigTester wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:22 pm
HomerJ wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:08 pm I am a little worried that you've never experienced a long or deep crash when not working.

Is your self-awareness good enough to accurately imagine how you will react to a 5-10 year crash while pulling money each year?

Your total confidence that all stock market crashes recover quickly makes me worry for you. Because that confidence is badly misplaced. Open a history book.
Homer - you make me proud!

Here are some example dates that can be referred to in the history books you mentioned above.

As shown, it can take up to 20 years to retain earlier high water marks if 100% equities

20 yrs. May 1901-Aug 1921.
20 yrs. Aug 1929–May 1949
15 yrs. Nov 1968-Mar 1983
13 yrs. Mar 2000- Jan 2013

All the best,

CraigTester
You're ignoring dividends, which is a cardinal sin.

Especially for those earlier dates when dividends were in the 4%-6% range.
Homer. That is not correct.

We’ve discussed this before.

The above periods of course include dividends.

And they are inflation adjusted.

This is a real blind spot for you, but it’s very easy to confirm the data for yourself.

You don’t have to take my word for it.

Just run the numbers. (Or if you don’t know how, ask someone you trust to do it for you).

I know it doesn’t fit the happy talk to acknowledge it can take 20 years to recover an earlier high water mark in the SP500, but the data is what the data is.

Hopefully by understanding this, you can avoid making an ill informed risk-reward trade off.

And you can also avoid steering someone else in the wrong direction.

All the best,

CraigTester
CraigTester
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:34 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by CraigTester »

willthrill81 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:23 pm
CraigTester wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:22 pm As shown, it can take up to 20 years to retain earlier high water marks if 100% equities
In other places, it's taken much longer than that at times.
Excellent point. Japan certainly comes to mind but definitely not the only one….
User avatar
mrspock
Posts: 2158
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:49 am
Location: Vulcan

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by mrspock »

Totally relative. Many could take a 50% drop and have 0 impact on their lifestyle. After 10-15 years, 100% equities is probably less risky in absolute terms for a given fixed lifestyle because you have a ton more money than your 60/40 friends.

This is why measuring risk in terms of volatility is a bit silly. Who’s less risky? The guy with $15m at 100% equities or the 60/40 guy with $4m, the first guy withdrawing 1% (150k) and falling or the $4m withdrawing 3% (120k)?

The first guy all day long has less risk in absolute terms. But that’s not what volatility would tell us… it would say the opposite.

But again, I’m talking to the most conservative investment crowd on planet earth. So I already know what the opinion here will be… human brains aren’t wired to experience market swoons like this. They see a loss of $7.5m (on $15m) and lose their marbles, the 60/40 guy who lost 600k bringing them down to $3.4m sleeps like a baby with half the money. Just bizarre.
fisher0815
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:10 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by fisher0815 »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:33 am I am in the camp that 100% equities is a great investment approach because you get to participate in 100% of the Index Fund rallies without drag down.

I believe the risky assets are not equity Index Funds but rather:

Options Trading
Individual Stocks
Speculative Assets like Cryptocurrencies

Do you agree?
If you can wait 29 years for a recovery you will doing fine:
Image

Source: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/com ... ink-part-2

You can also check out here if you would outrun of money: https://cfiresim.com/
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15363
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by Northern Flicker »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:15 am
DSBH wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:13 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:33 am I am in the camp that 100% equities is a great investment approach because you get to participate in 100% of the Index Fund rallies without drag down.
...
Do you agree?
Yes, if you have no issue with losing 50% of your investment, assuming that "risky" is about losing invested money.
The market will recover faster than you could have ever imagined and you will get to participate in that recovery to the fullest extent possible.
You do not know that.
Dude2
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:40 pm
Location: FL

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by Dude2 »

dbr wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:23 am This chart is the data for making that assessment: https://engaging-data.com/visualizing-4-rule/
This tool is amazing if it can be believed. I've got a friend that had to retire early due to health, but he's luckier than most. He retired at 53, and he's got about 2M in the S&P500. According to the tool, (just like you said) if he pulls out > 3%, he starts to see failure modes. If he keeps it to < than 3%, the tool says it will last him 100 years. Basically, if he can live off of only 50k a year, he should be ok -- even more so once SS kicks in. I'm happy for my friend although my gut tells me he's in financial danger, and I can't imagine the psychological impact of having to drain your resources when you know there's nothing that can ever change your situation. Can always play the lottery I guess to get a glimmer of hope, but every time you turn around there are additional expenses.

Perhaps, it's ok to be 100% stocks as long as you have enough soup and your spoon is small.

It reminds me of how things used to be in the distant past -- where you could inherit a large sum or you could set somebody up and they could live off of the interest. This is the plot of many a 19th century novel. Fathers might set up their daughters this way, or sons always had something to fall back on while they made their moves in life. The worst case scenario was that these people would ever have to tap into their principal because that would equate to "ruin". It makes sense with bonds. It might make sense with rent from ownership of property, but a surprising alternative says you could do the same with stock. I wonder why we don't read about that? Must be a brave new world. Scary.
Then ’tis like the breath of an unfee’d lawyer.
Topic Author
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

fisher0815 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:49 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:33 am I am in the camp that 100% equities is a great investment approach because you get to participate in 100% of the Index Fund rallies without drag down.

I believe the risky assets are not equity Index Funds but rather:

Options Trading
Individual Stocks
Speculative Assets like Cryptocurrencies

Do you agree?
If you can wait 29 years for a recovery you will doing fine:
Image

Source: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/com ... ink-part-2

You can also check out here if you would outrun of money: https://cfiresim.com/
Absolutely. My plan calls for a 30 year period of zero returns. The reason this is possible is because of the dividend payouts and keeping expenses low.
Last edited by tvubpwcisla on Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Topic Author
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

Northern Flicker wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:08 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:15 am
DSBH wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:13 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:33 am I am in the camp that 100% equities is a great investment approach because you get to participate in 100% of the Index Fund rallies without drag down.
...
Do you agree?
Yes, if you have no issue with losing 50% of your investment, assuming that "risky" is about losing invested money.
The market will recover faster than you could have ever imagined and you will get to participate in that recovery to the fullest extent possible.
You do not know that.
Correct. When it does recover, being 100% equity Index Funds allow you participate in the full recovery. If the market goes up 5% in one day, you get the full 5%.
User avatar
oldcomputerguy
Moderator
Posts: 17934
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 5:50 am
Location: Tennessee

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by oldcomputerguy »

A contentious exchange was removed. As a reminder, see: Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include: ... discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc.
There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way. (Christopher Morley)
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 14921
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by vineviz »

Dude2 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:34 am
dbr wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:23 am This chart is the data for making that assessment: https://engaging-data.com/visualizing-4-rule/
This tool is amazing if it can be believed.
You can "believe" it, but you shouldn't rely on it for planning purposes. It's just a reflection of past returns, with no thought given to what might be appropriate assumptions about future returns.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
Nowizard
Posts: 4842
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:33 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by Nowizard »

Not risky? Compared to what? Investing is risky, period, though there are vast differences among investors in terms of need and willingness to take risk. The risks one takes needs defining. If it is the risk of lesser return during market rallies, that is one approach. If it is risk during downturns, then 100 percent equities is very risky. Even bonds are risky in substantial downturns such as we have recently experienced, as is being all cash. Risk is a complex term, and what is expressed here is opinion based on interpretation of available data. Generally, however, few would say 100 percent equities is not risky.

Tim
User avatar
Mountain Doc
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:15 pm
Location: Life Elevated

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by Mountain Doc »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:15 am The market will recover faster than you could have ever imagined and you will get to participate in that recovery to the fullest extent possible.
That seems frighteningly overconfident.

The market can fall farther and take longer to recover than you could have ever imagined.
Topic Author
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

Mountain Doc wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:09 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:15 am The market will recover faster than you could have ever imagined and you will get to participate in that recovery to the fullest extent possible.
That seems frighteningly overconfident.

The market can fall farther and take longer to recover than you could have ever imagined.
Absolutely, no one knows what the market will do. When it does goes up 5 or 7 percent in a single trading session, it feels great to participate and capture all of those gains.
KlangFool
Posts: 31525
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by KlangFool »

OP,

Just to be very sure where you come from.

1) Are you 100% US Stock?

2) Do you have an emergency fund?

3) What is the size of your emergency fund? 6 months of expense?

4) Size of your portfolio? 4 years of expense.

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
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

KlangFool wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:24 am OP,

Just to be very sure where you come from.

1) Are you 100% US Stock?

Yes

2) Do you have an emergency fund?

Yes

3) What is the size of your emergency fund? 6 months of expense?

1-2 Years

4) Size of your portfolio? 4 years of expense.

Yes

KlangFool
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by dbr »

vineviz wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:45 am
Dude2 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:34 am
dbr wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:23 am This chart is the data for making that assessment: https://engaging-data.com/visualizing-4-rule/
This tool is amazing if it can be believed.
You can "believe" it, but you shouldn't rely on it for planning purposes. It's just a reflection of past returns, with no thought given to what might be appropriate assumptions about future returns.
Yes. As historical data it is exactly correct by tabulation assuming there are not some data collecting errors.

As a forecast of the future it is more an education of the nature of things than a tool that tells you what is going to happen exactly. This thread is in the topic of risk rather than on the topic of how to plan to retire in 2022. That is why it is useful or not useful. The actual lesson is to see how unpredictable outcomes of investing in stocks and bonds can be. It might provoke discussion that one look for alternatives.

An important point is that a single individual retiring now gets the trace that will be in that chart 30 years from now and that trace will not be a repeat of any single one of the past traces. The forecast is that there is a weighted probability it will be somewhere from within the weight of the distribution of past traces. Extracting a safe rate or a worst case assumes that 2022 is not a new worst or a new best. People do try to figure out where in there one might be given what we know of conditions today. I think that is hard to do because there is likely to be as much error in trying to figure out the conditional chances from today as there is in just relying on a gross probability.

My purpose is for people to learn to be realistic about how unpredictable investing outcomes over time really are.
KlangFool
Posts: 31525
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by KlangFool »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:34 am
KlangFool wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:24 am OP,

Just to be very sure where you come from.

1) Are you 100% US Stock?

Yes

2) Do you have an emergency fund?

Yes

3) What is the size of your emergency fund? 6 months of expense?

1-2 Years

4) Size of your portfolio? 4 years of expense.

Yes

KlangFool
Sorry. One mistake on my part. I believe that your portfolio = 40 years of expense.

Thanks.

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
Triple digit golfer
Posts: 10433
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by Triple digit golfer »

A portfolio that has 1-2 years of cash and 4 years of stock is nowhere close to 100% stock. It's 67-80% stock.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by dbr »

Dude2 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:34 am
dbr wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:23 am This chart is the data for making that assessment: https://engaging-data.com/visualizing-4-rule/
This tool is amazing if it can be believed. I've got a friend that had to retire early due to health, but he's luckier than most. He retired at 53, and he's got about 2M in the S&P500. According to the tool, (just like you said) if he pulls out > 3%, he starts to see failure modes. If he keeps it to < than 3%, the tool says it will last him 100 years. Basically, if he can live off of only 50k a year, he should be ok -- even more so once SS kicks in. I'm happy for my friend although my gut tells me he's in financial danger, and I can't imagine the psychological impact of having to drain your resources when you know there's nothing that can ever change your situation. Can always play the lottery I guess to get a glimmer of hope, but every time you turn around there are additional expenses.

Perhaps, it's ok to be 100% stocks as long as you have enough soup and your spoon is small.

It reminds me of how things used to be in the distant past -- where you could inherit a large sum or you could set somebody up and they could live off of the interest. This is the plot of many a 19th century novel. Fathers might set up their daughters this way, or sons always had something to fall back on while they made their moves in life. The worst case scenario was that these people would ever have to tap into their principal because that would equate to "ruin". It makes sense with bonds. It might make sense with rent from ownership of property, but a surprising alternative says you could do the same with stock. I wonder why we don't read about that? Must be a brave new world. Scary.
As I am writing below the chart is exact as a historical tabulation. The lesson should be more about the unpredictable nature of investing results than about planning what is going to happen to a certain person at a certain time. The general history of looking at data like this is to warn people how bad the worst case can be but also to give a perspective on the fact that the worst cases are rare and the better cases tend to be ok.

I don't think anyone has yet solved the dilemma that safe withdrawal rates (aka worst cases) are as bad as they are and also as uncommon as they are while the better outcomes are hugely better. I personally am thankful to have a pension that never had the option of a lump sum and to have SS chosen at as old an age as possible and I didn't need to make very many decisions.
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by burritoLover »

fisher0815 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:49 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:33 am I am in the camp that 100% equities is a great investment approach because you get to participate in 100% of the Index Fund rallies without drag down.

I believe the risky assets are not equity Index Funds but rather:

Options Trading
Individual Stocks
Speculative Assets like Cryptocurrencies

Do you agree?
If you can wait 29 years for a recovery you will doing fine:
Image

Source: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/com ... ink-part-2

You can also check out here if you would outrun of money: https://cfiresim.com/
That looks like a price chart not total return, despite being labeled as such.
Topic Author
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

dbr wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:49 am
Dude2 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:34 am
dbr wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:23 am This chart is the data for making that assessment: https://engaging-data.com/visualizing-4-rule/
This tool is amazing if it can be believed. I've got a friend that had to retire early due to health, but he's luckier than most. He retired at 53, and he's got about 2M in the S&P500. According to the tool, (just like you said) if he pulls out > 3%, he starts to see failure modes. If he keeps it to < than 3%, the tool says it will last him 100 years. Basically, if he can live off of only 50k a year, he should be ok -- even more so once SS kicks in. I'm happy for my friend although my gut tells me he's in financial danger, and I can't imagine the psychological impact of having to drain your resources when you know there's nothing that can ever change your situation. Can always play the lottery I guess to get a glimmer of hope, but every time you turn around there are additional expenses.

Perhaps, it's ok to be 100% stocks as long as you have enough soup and your spoon is small.

It reminds me of how things used to be in the distant past -- where you could inherit a large sum or you could set somebody up and they could live off of the interest. This is the plot of many a 19th century novel. Fathers might set up their daughters this way, or sons always had something to fall back on while they made their moves in life. The worst case scenario was that these people would ever have to tap into their principal because that would equate to "ruin". It makes sense with bonds. It might make sense with rent from ownership of property, but a surprising alternative says you could do the same with stock. I wonder why we don't read about that? Must be a brave new world. Scary.
As I am writing below the chart is exact as a historical tabulation. The lesson should be more about the unpredictable nature of investing results than about planning what is going to happen to a certain person at a certain time. The general history of looking at data like this is to warn people how bad the worst case can be but also to give a perspective on the fact that the worst cases are rare and the better cases tend to be ok.

I don't think anyone has yet solved the dilemma that safe withdrawal rates (aka worst cases) are as bad as they are and also as uncommon as they are while the better outcomes are hugely better. I personally am thankful to have a pension that never had the option of a lump sum and to have SS chosen at as old an age as possible and I didn't need to make very many decisions.
A 100% safe withdrawal rate would be equal to the dividend payout of the equity Index Fund.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by dbr »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:53 am
A 100% safe withdrawal rate would be equal to the dividend payout of the equity Index Fund.
I would turn that around and say that the dividend payout of the equity index fund happens to be currently equal to the safe withdrawal rate predicted for 100% stocks.
Last edited by dbr on Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
H-Town
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by H-Town »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:34 am
KlangFool wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:24 am OP,

Just to be very sure where you come from.

1) Are you 100% US Stock?

Yes

2) Do you have an emergency fund?

Yes

3) What is the size of your emergency fund? 6 months of expense?

1-2 Years

4) Size of your portfolio? 4 years of expense.

Yes

KlangFool
Now we know.

1) You are not 100% stocks. You have 1-2 years of expenses in cash, and 4 years of expense in stock portfolio. So maybe 75-80% stock? And by the way, cash is the worst asset class over the long run. Period.

2) Your portfolio may not be large enough to make your stomach turn during a crash. It’s fine to lose a year of hard earned income. It’s the other matter when you lose all 10 years of income on paper. Many felt that during 2008.

3) You repeated many times that you don’t want to miss the recovery. If you follow bogleheads investing strategies, you still participate in the run up regardless of your AA. Bogleheads buy and hold, so we don’t sell low.

I don’t know why it gets in your head that 100% is good overall. I hope that you can learn from many posters chimed in above.
Time is the ultimate currency.
Topic Author
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

dbr wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:09 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:53 am
A 100% safe withdrawal rate would be equal to the dividend payout of the equity Index Fund.
I would turn that around and say that the dividend payout of the equity index fund happens to be currently equal to the safe withdrawal rate predicted for 100% stocks.
Absolutely correct!
Topic Author
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

H-Town wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:09 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:34 am
KlangFool wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:24 am OP,

Just to be very sure where you come from.

1) Are you 100% US Stock?

Yes

2) Do you have an emergency fund?

Yes

3) What is the size of your emergency fund? 6 months of expense?

1-2 Years

4) Size of your portfolio? 4 years of expense.

Yes

KlangFool
Now we know.

1) You are not 100% stocks. You have 1-2 years of expenses in cash, and 4 years of expense in stock portfolio. So maybe 75-80% stock? And by the way, cash is the worst asset class over the long run. Period.

Emergency fund is fully invested.

2) Your portfolio may not be large enough to make your stomach turn during a crash. It’s fine to lose a year of hard earned income. It’s the other matter when you lose all 10 years of income on paper. Many felt that during 2008.

I tend to look forward to the recovery periods more.

3) You repeated many times that you don’t want to miss the recovery. If you follow bogleheads investing strategies, you still participate in the run up regardless of your AA. Bogleheads buy and hold, so we don’t sell low.

If the market goes up 7% in one day, if you are not 100% equity Index Funds, then you will be missing out on those gains and will receive much lower than what the market is providing to you.

I don’t know why it gets in your head that 100% is good overall. I hope that you can learn from many posters chimed in above.

I feel 100% equity Index Funds is safe and what is not safe are Options Trading, owning Individual Stocks, and speculative assets like Crypto.
Firemenot
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by Firemenot »

mrspock wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:28 pm Totally relative. Many could take a 50% drop and have 0 impact on their lifestyle. After 10-15 years, 100% equities is probably less risky in absolute terms for a given fixed lifestyle because you have a ton more money than your 60/40 friends.

This is why measuring risk in terms of volatility is a bit silly. Who’s less risky? The guy with $15m at 100% equities or the 60/40 guy with $4m, the first guy withdrawing 1% (150k) and falling or the $4m withdrawing 3% (120k)?

The first guy all day long has less risk in absolute terms. But that’s not what volatility would tell us… it would say the opposite.

But again, I’m talking to the most conservative investment crowd on planet earth. So I already know what the opinion here will be… human brains aren’t wired to experience market swoons like this. They see a loss of $7.5m (on $15m) and lose their marbles, the 60/40 guy who lost 600k bringing them down to $3.4m sleeps like a baby with half the money. Just bizarre.
+1. This is exactly the way I think and why I’m 100% equities in my investment accounts.
H-Town
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by H-Town »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:14 am
H-Town wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:09 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:34 am
KlangFool wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:24 am OP,

Just to be very sure where you come from.

1) Are you 100% US Stock?

Yes

2) Do you have an emergency fund?

Yes

3) What is the size of your emergency fund? 6 months of expense?

1-2 Years

4) Size of your portfolio? 4 years of expense.

Yes

KlangFool
Now we know.

1) You are not 100% stocks. You have 1-2 years of expenses in cash, and 4 years of expense in stock portfolio. So maybe 75-80% stock? And by the way, cash is the worst asset class over the long run. Period.

Emergency fund is fully invested.

2) Your portfolio may not be large enough to make your stomach turn during a crash. It’s fine to lose a year of hard earned income. It’s the other matter when you lose all 10 years of income on paper. Many felt that during 2008.

I tend to look forward to the recovery periods more.

3) You repeated many times that you don’t want to miss the recovery. If you follow bogleheads investing strategies, you still participate in the run up regardless of your AA. Bogleheads buy and hold, so we don’t sell low.

If the market goes up 7% in one day, if you are not 100% equity Index Funds, then you will be missing out on those gains and will receive much lower than what the market is providing to you.

I don’t know why it gets in your head that 100% is good overall. I hope that you can learn from many posters chimed in above.

I feel 100% equity Index Funds is safe and what is not safe are Options Trading, owning Individual Stocks, and speculative assets like Crypto.
I get that. IMO, young investors should accumulate equity funds. As they get older, they should reconsider their AA depends on their personal situation.

You like the market recovery so I got a riddle for you: if your portfolio drops 50%, how much gain would you need to recover to the level before?
Time is the ultimate currency.
alfaspider
Posts: 4816
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by alfaspider »

7eight9 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:38 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:33 am I am in the camp that 100% equities is a great investment approach because you get to participate in 100% of the Index Fund rallies without drag down.

I believe the risky assets are not equity Index Funds but rather:

Options Trading
Individual Stocks
Speculative Assets like Cryptocurrencies

Do you agree?
No. Investors in the Nikkei circa 1989 agree with me.
We've talked about Japan quite a lot on these forums, but just a reminder that almost nobody went-all in starting 1989. A mid-career Japanese investor would have done ok on a lifetime basis if they had started with an all Nikkei portfolio in the mid 1970s and continued contributing in the steady BH manner through a mid 2010s retirement. Yes, they would have seen huge losses, but those would have come on the back of huge gains in the early contributions, and decent gains for the post-crash contributions made in the early 00s. The big (and permanent) losses would have only been for contributions over a ~4 year period in the late 80s and early 90s. So, for steady (inflation adjusted) lifetime contributions, only about 10% of their contributions over a 40 year career would have seen big losses.

The ones who might have been in trouble would have been someone who retired in 1989 based on their portfolio on that date. But I don't think there are too many advocates for 100% equities in retirement (there are a few, I'm sure). Such a person would have also been fairly under-saved if they only had enough to retire after the late 80s blow-off top. I think most retirement savers would hope to have retirement-ready portfolio several years before actually pulling the trigger.
Last edited by alfaspider on Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
Topic Author
tvubpwcisla
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:09 am

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by tvubpwcisla »

H-Town wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:27 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:14 am
H-Town wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:09 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:34 am
KlangFool wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:24 am OP,

Just to be very sure where you come from.

1) Are you 100% US Stock?

Yes

2) Do you have an emergency fund?

Yes

3) What is the size of your emergency fund? 6 months of expense?

1-2 Years

4) Size of your portfolio? 4 years of expense.

Yes

KlangFool
Now we know.

1) You are not 100% stocks. You have 1-2 years of expenses in cash, and 4 years of expense in stock portfolio. So maybe 75-80% stock? And by the way, cash is the worst asset class over the long run. Period.

Emergency fund is fully invested.

2) Your portfolio may not be large enough to make your stomach turn during a crash. It’s fine to lose a year of hard earned income. It’s the other matter when you lose all 10 years of income on paper. Many felt that during 2008.

I tend to look forward to the recovery periods more.

3) You repeated many times that you don’t want to miss the recovery. If you follow bogleheads investing strategies, you still participate in the run up regardless of your AA. Bogleheads buy and hold, so we don’t sell low.

If the market goes up 7% in one day, if you are not 100% equity Index Funds, then you will be missing out on those gains and will receive much lower than what the market is providing to you.

I don’t know why it gets in your head that 100% is good overall. I hope that you can learn from many posters chimed in above.

I feel 100% equity Index Funds is safe and what is not safe are Options Trading, owning Individual Stocks, and speculative assets like Crypto.
I get that. IMO, young investors should accumulate equity funds. As they get older, they should reconsider their AA depends on their personal situation.

You like the market recovery so I got a riddle for you: if your portfolio drops 50%, how much gain would you need to recover to the level before?
Whatever gain the market provides I am very happy with, as long as I participate fully in that gain. Being 100% equity Index Funds allows an investor to fully participate in the market returns.
H-Town
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Does anyone believe 100 percent equities is not risky?

Post by H-Town »

tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:30 am
H-Town wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:27 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:14 am
H-Town wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:09 am
tvubpwcisla wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:34 am
Now we know.

1) You are not 100% stocks. You have 1-2 years of expenses in cash, and 4 years of expense in stock portfolio. So maybe 75-80% stock? And by the way, cash is the worst asset class over the long run. Period.

Emergency fund is fully invested.

2) Your portfolio may not be large enough to make your stomach turn during a crash. It’s fine to lose a year of hard earned income. It’s the other matter when you lose all 10 years of income on paper. Many felt that during 2008.

I tend to look forward to the recovery periods more.

3) You repeated many times that you don’t want to miss the recovery. If you follow bogleheads investing strategies, you still participate in the run up regardless of your AA. Bogleheads buy and hold, so we don’t sell low.

If the market goes up 7% in one day, if you are not 100% equity Index Funds, then you will be missing out on those gains and will receive much lower than what the market is providing to you.

I don’t know why it gets in your head that 100% is good overall. I hope that you can learn from many posters chimed in above.

I feel 100% equity Index Funds is safe and what is not safe are Options Trading, owning Individual Stocks, and speculative assets like Crypto.
I get that. IMO, young investors should accumulate equity funds. As they get older, they should reconsider their AA depends on their personal situation.

You like the market recovery so I got a riddle for you: if your portfolio drops 50%, how much gain would you need to recover to the level before?
Whatever gain the market provides I am very happy with, as long as I participate fully in that gain. Being 100% equity Index Funds allows an investor to fully participate in the market returns.
I presume you already know the answer to my question?
Time is the ultimate currency.
Post Reply