Hi, I'm the poster who mentioned being at least 30% fixed from the start. I'm now past 60, and I agree that 60% bonds is way too much. I'm personally at 48%, including bank accounts. I honestly can't see going past 50%. There's been plenty of more recent studies that suggest as our life nears end, we should just "go for it" and increase our equity exposure and perhaps leave a legacy, or maybe not. But who cares. You are dead. (Unless you really, really care about giving an inheritance.)I had never thought of this before, but the posts above about "don't know your own risk tolerance" would make you think that young people should start out at 100% equities. Who knows, maybe you take it.
Anyway, to the OP question, it sure feels a lot better at 5% than 0%, but I think 60% bonds at age 60 is still way too much. I know the USA data that we typically look at is way too limited, but at least in that data set you can say it's clearly not favored. Given this, to tibbets, I don't know how anybody would come up with an algorithm to do something that's clearly not called for in the data. You almost have to include some element of market timing. When I say market timing, I mean buying Tips at 2% is different from buying tips at negative 2%, whatever age you happen to be.
Statistics: Posted by Tubes — Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:04 pm — Replies 46 — Views 5507