|
Post by Mustang on Oct 11, 2021 1:53:30 GMT
I have read comments criticizing Shiller's CAPE ratio before. One said that about the time it proved convincing, it stopped working and that using it would have meant missing out on the bull market of the last 10 years. That, and its complexity, were the reasons I discarded it as a method my wife could use for determining which fund to withdraw money.
I thought about using the equal withdrawal method but I couldn't shake the idea that at some time the funds should be re-balanced. Withdrawing from the best performing fund does that and the two withdrawal methods had very similar outcomes.
I liked the author's comment about eating canned goods when fresh food is in the field. My plan intends to take withdrawals from the portfolio every year unless there is a crash. Then the annual withdrawal will come from cash letting the portfolio recover. This is different from the Bucket approach which spends cash first.
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Oct 11, 2021 20:20:14 GMT
I have read comments criticizing Shiller's CAPE ratio before. One said that about the time it proved convincing, it stopped working and that using it would have meant missing out on the bull market of the last 10 years. That, and its complexity, were the reasons I discarded it as a method my wife could use for determining which fund to withdraw money. I thought about using the equal withdrawal method but I couldn't shake the idea that at some time the funds should be re-balanced. Withdrawing from the best performing fund does that and the two withdrawal methods had very similar outcomes. I liked the author's comment about eating canned goods when fresh food is in the field. My plan intends to take withdrawals from the portfolio every year unless there is a crash. Then the annual withdrawal will come from cash letting the portfolio recover. This is different from the Bucket approach which spends cash first. I'm with you on this one..."Withdrawing from the best performing fund". When you have enough, I don't like to eat canned good, it's not going to happen. My answer for cash FOR ME is usually NO. Sure, hold several months in cash, but not more. A retiree with both bond + stocks fund can have high-rated funds, especially treasuries. Treasuries usually do well when most other categories fail and when things get better, higher-rated funds will be back in just several months. I just don't like making almost nothing on cash. =========== BTW, I presented the following to many CFP, other financial pro. I will give you half of my portfolio and later everything. You don't get fees. These are my parameters, if you beat it per performance + volatility, you get 50% from the extra performance. You can do whatever. If you lose, you pay me only 10% from the difference. The answer is always no. OK, let's make it easier. This is what I told Fidelity financial advisers who contact me twice per year: you have to beat VWIAX for performance + volatility. Same payout at 5:1 for the "expert". The answer is again NO.
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Oct 11, 2021 23:32:05 GMT
FD, you know advisors are for uneducated investors or investors that don’t care about investing. They may have more than enough but only want some results.
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Oct 12, 2021 2:03:44 GMT
FD1000 , Putting a bunch of conditions on someone then asking them to solve your problem is sort of way out there. If someone ever asked me to help them out with a list of what I couldn’t do I’d say no thanks also. Maybe most people would. Why does that surprise you? Capital preservation is a big puzzle with many starting points which hopefully lead to the same solution. After all your posts I still don’t get your point. Endless repetition, graphs, information overload, a “system” doesn’t make it any better then anyones “method”. Just like a few others on these forums. Adding my 2 cents to your post, my capital preservation strategy is known already. Everything I spend each month is replaced by rising SS and CEF income in excess of my current needs. After 12 years of that excess invested mostly in equity indexes and a muni fund I now have about 60% of our portfolio on reinvestment or about a 30 year reserve. Of course anyone can believe that or not. This amateur is happy with that and never “loses” money because I invest and hold starting at DOW 750. All that with just what I see, the Fed notes and can tolerate during bad markets. What if that’s all I care about? A rising portfolio value for the rest of my days baring an extended stay in a LTC facility. Your the KISS proponent. This isn’t simple enough without all the restraints you have?
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Oct 12, 2021 3:40:37 GMT
steelpony10, I think my request is pretty simple. Just beat VWIAX per risk/reward, if you beat it, I'll pay you 50% for anything above, if you lose you pay me just 10% of the loss. Looks pretty fair to me. mmm...you say I repeat my stuff, I heard your stuff at least 10 times. I pretty much know how anybody invests if they are posting over one year what they do.
|
|
bf22
Commander
Posts: 135
|
Post by bf22 on Oct 12, 2021 8:46:07 GMT
However, steelpony does not "insist" that his "method" is better than mine/others (I'm trying to keep up with ""). "No guru, No method, No teacher"
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Oct 12, 2021 10:59:34 GMT
FD1000 , That’s a short and sweet post. So maybe we both present wrong. I have my nasty streaks also. In my case anyway this is just entertainment. Well you can do fund performance to check with no qualifiers VTI, VUG, and VOT with your OEF or any other and forget my 4 stocks. Of course CEF’s beat on yield. You should realize by now some don’t care to beat anything. Investing is a past time that they play with, some daily. I play poker. You’re the KISS guy. In my case I think I KISS better and make a lot more return. I can live with the warts others can’t. You are correct I do explain what I do as another example of a simple but more risky then many investing methods which I think is more lucrative and reliable. Most on here are fund people with some dalliances in stocks. Probably not for them. People also have egos. I try to leave out all the details for simplicity though unless someone asks a question. I’ve also stated this isn’t my passion. A “set it and forget it” investing method. This is for any newbies, open minded or those interested looking for alternatives with the same mindset and little interest in investing as a hobby which requires minimal monitoring. It worked from 1982-2017 as a simpler version with our parents because cash flows in under all market conditions which was the primary goal, not dying richer.
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Oct 12, 2021 13:17:27 GMT
However, steelpony does not "insist" that his "method" is better than mine/others (I'm trying to keep up with ""). "No guru, No method, No teacher" I like to see an opinion with a proof. This is how we all learn. ====== steelpony10, I'm the KISS guy for most OTHER investors. I like to discuss generic concepts and show you can do it easier and maybe better. As you know I don't use KISS:-)
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Oct 12, 2021 15:22:11 GMT
FD1000 , So you personally don’t KISS? Neither do most others. Proof of what? Well my portfolio has been posted also but not the changes as I cut back on risk because I think we’re done investing. A big dive or correction will get me to look closer at markets though for irresistible bargains while others flee to cash. This is a major difference between spending down and income investing. Assure cash flow for present and possible future needs by guesstimating unknowns early on even before retirement. This leaves you excess income into an unknown future. To me this is capital preservation (spending) strategy. Very simple to establish and market dependency diminishes over time because secondary values compound over that same time period and hopefully rise faster then your personal inflation rate. I saw this work already.
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Oct 12, 2021 19:07:47 GMT
FD1000 , So you personally don’t KISS? Neither do most others. Proof of what? Well my portfolio has been posted also but not the changes as I cut back on risk because I think we’re done investing. A big dive or correction will get me to look closer at markets though for irresistible bargains while others flee to cash. This is a major difference between spending down and income investing. Assure cash flow for present and possible future needs by guesstimating unknowns early on even before retirement. This leaves you excess income into an unknown future. To me this is capital preservation (spending) strategy. Very simple to establish and market dependency diminishes over time because secondary values compound over that same time period and hopefully rise faster then your personal inflation rate. I saw this work already. We discussed higher income many times, cash flow/income/or other names are not a replacement for the total value of your portfolio. 1) Option one: at this moment, A 2 millions portfolio is worth more than 1.5 regardless of higher income. 2) Option two: If 2 retirees start with one million each. After 20 years: the first investor has 2 millions and her average annual income has been 2%. The second investor has 1.5 millions and her average income has been 4%. The first investor is still the winner. NEXT, we can discuss risk attributes (SD, max loss, Sharpe, Sortino). There are investors who care about it, especially retirees. 3) Option three: If 2 retirees start with 5 millions each. After 20 years: the first investor has 10 millions and her SD was 15. The second investor has 7.5 millions and her SD was only 7.5. There is no question the first portfolio is larger, again, income doesn't matter. We can discuss now other goals. If both had a goal of never losing more than 20% and only the first investor lost more than that. The second one is the winner because she met her goal while the first one failed, regardless of the income each had. Next, if both don't care about risk attributes, the first retiree is always the winner in all 3 options. You can claim that income is very important for you, it still doesn't change the facts. Sure, both investors finish well, but the first investor did better, there is no if or buts about it, just simple math. More, higher income doesn't guarantee better performance or better risk attributes or even easier to live on. It also doesn't matter if you have 20% or 80% of your portfolio in high producing income securities. Suppose a retiree has a portfolio with zero distributions, and needs $2000 a month for expenses. She can select any fund and set up monthly sell at $2000 in about 2 minutes for the next 20 years. Of course, a smart retiree who own stocks + bond funds can select to be more hand-on and sell several times annually her best performing fund, instead of any fund.
|
|
bf22
Commander
Posts: 135
|
Post by bf22 on Oct 12, 2021 19:35:32 GMT
FD1000 , So you personally don’t KISS? Neither do most others. Proof of what? Well my portfolio has been posted also but not the changes as I cut back on risk because I think we’re done investing. A big dive or correction will get me to look closer at markets though for irresistible bargains while others flee to cash. This is a major difference between spending down and income investing. Assure cash flow for present and possible future needs by guesstimating unknowns early on even before retirement. This leaves you excess income into an unknown future. To me this is capital preservation (spending) strategy. Very simple to establish and market dependency diminishes over time because secondary values compound over that same time period and hopefully rise faster then your personal inflation rate. I saw this work already. We discussed higher income many times, cash flow/income/or other names are not a replacement for the total value of your portfolio. 1) Option one: at this moment, A 2 millions portfolio is worth more than 1.5 regardless of higher income. 2) Option two: If 2 retirees start with one million each. After 20 years: the first investor has 2 millions and her average annual income has been 2%. The second investor has 1.5 millions and her average income has been 4%. The first investor is still the winner. NEXT, we can discuss risk attributes (SD, max loss, Sharpe, Sortino). There are investors who care about it, especially retirees. 3) Option three: If 2 retirees start with 5 millions each. After 20 years: the first investor has 10 millions and her SD was 15. The second investor has 7.5 millions and her SD was only 7.5. There is no question the first portfolio is larger, again, income doesn't matter. We can discuss now other goals. If both had a goal of never losing more than 20% and only the first investor lost more than that. The second one is the winner because she met her goal while the first one failed, regardless of the income each had. Next, if both don't care about risk attributes, the first retiree is always the winner in all 3 options. You can claim that income is very important for you, it still doesn't change the facts. Sure, both investors finish well, but the first investor did better, there is no if or buts about it, just simple math. More, higher income doesn't guarantee better performance or better risk attributes or even easier to live on. It also doesn't matter if you have 20% or 80% of your portfolio in high producing income securities. Suppose a retiree has a portfolio with zero distributions, and needs $2000 a month for expenses. She can select any fund and set up monthly sell at $2000 in about 2 minutes for the next 20 years. Opinion: What in the world are you talking about? Proof: Pudding.
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Oct 12, 2021 21:13:21 GMT
bf22 , Often times I don’t know what many are talking about. Most are IT or engineer guys I guess. I think their gobblygook somehow will control an unknown future event, those types. Lol Some want income like me that delays spend down. I don’t like the market Gods determining my future. I sacrifice growth by not going all in with equities. So I suppose by not holding equities primarily I’m “losing money”. But that depends on what the future holds. I already know what I’m getting in income and what my lifestyle will be pretty much for years baring unknowns. Spend down investors need to be more careful. They are primarily dependent on the the largesse of short term headlines and future unknowns as I see it within a perpetual wall of woe. If markets keep going up the rest of my life I “lose money”. If China invades Taiwan and whatever the financial crystal ball readers can make up etc. who knows. I still might “lose money”. Way too many moving parts for amateurs. I saw what I did for my parents work for 35 years. The biggest complaint I ever heard was low MM fund interest. Their portfolio went up in value most years just like ours so far. My future financial needs seems way more secure just like my parents were. The title of the OP interpreted by me as spending preservation, not dying with a bigger portfolio value.
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Oct 12, 2021 22:47:00 GMT
We discussed higher income many times, cash flow/income/or other names are not a replacement for the total value of your portfolio. 1) Option one: at this moment, A 2 millions portfolio is worth more than 1.5 regardless of higher income. 2) Option two: If 2 retirees start with one million each. After 20 years: the first investor has 2 millions and her average annual income has been 2%. The second investor has 1.5 millions and her average income has been 4%. The first investor is still the winner. NEXT, we can discuss risk attributes (SD, max loss, Sharpe, Sortino). There are investors who care about it, especially retirees. 3) Option three: If 2 retirees start with 5 millions each. After 20 years: the first investor has 10 millions and her SD was 15. The second investor has 7.5 millions and her SD was only 7.5. There is no question the first portfolio is larger, again, income doesn't matter. We can discuss now other goals. If both had a goal of never losing more than 20% and only the first investor lost more than that. The second one is the winner because she met her goal while the first one failed, regardless of the income each had. As many know I'm not an income investor. I pay absolutely no attention to yield. I pay attention to total return.
A far as option 1, of course $2 million is worth more than $1.5 million.
For option 2, you are saying income but I read that as withdrawal, money needed to pay living expenses. It looks like the first investor is withdrawing $20K per year. The second investor is withdrawing $40K per year. If living in poverty is winning then the first investor wins. But that is not how I define winning in retirement. My definition is a comfortable, stable lifestyle with a little left over for the kids.
Option 3 was a little confusing. Risk is not knowing the outcome. Risk reduction's purpose in the withdrawal phase is to not prematurely deplete the portfolio's assets. If the outcome is known then there is no risk. Assuming both investors withdrew the same amount each year, neither one depleted their portfolio and in spite of volatility the first investor ended the 20 year period with $2.5 million more. Most people would say that the first investor won. Why? Perhaps it was better risk management during the decline and subsequent recovery making a greater than 20% decline insignificant to the eventual outcome.
It is unfortunate that we cannot see the future. But even if the market falls 20% there is no loss unless the investor sells and there are multiple risk management techniques that can be used to prevent that.
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Oct 12, 2021 23:58:57 GMT
FD1000: "2) Option two: If 2 retirees start with one million each. After 20 years: the first investor has 2 millions and her average annual income has been 2%. The second investor has 1.5 millions and her average income has been 4%. The first investor is still the winner.
How can that be the case if one required 2% and the other required 4%. You would call the 4% person a loser because their portfolio grew, but less than the other person? I call them both winners since they funded their retirement successfully.
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Oct 13, 2021 3:07:46 GMT
@fd1001: "2) Option two: If 2 retirees start with one million each. After 20 years: the first investor has 2 millions and her average annual income has been 2%. The second investor has 1.5 millions and her average income has been 4%. The first investor is still the winner.
How can that be the case if one required 2% and the other required 4%. You would call the 4% person a loser because their portfolio grew, but less than the other person? I call them both winners since they funded their retirement successfully. Looks like I didn't make it clear. They both take the same withdrawal. The first has yearly distribution of 2%, the second has 4%. Of course, the first was a better choice. I like to show that distributions has nothing to do with the end result. Even if the second had 8%(imagine, she owns very high distribution CEFs) instead of 4%, she still lost. The whole idea is to show that no matter what are the distribution, ONLY TOTAL RETURN matters.
|
|
|
Post by rhythmmethod on Oct 13, 2021 3:20:38 GMT
I’m scheduling surgery to remove my palm from my face. Carry on. 🤦🏼♂️
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Oct 13, 2021 3:39:26 GMT
As many know I'm not an income investor. I pay absolutely no attention to yield. I pay attention to total return.
A far as option 1, of course $2 million is worth more than $1.5 million.
For option 2, you are saying income but I read that as withdrawal, money needed to pay living expenses. It looks like the first investor is withdrawing $20K per year. The second investor is withdrawing $40K per year. If living in poverty is winning then the first investor wins. But that is not how I define winning in retirement. My definition is a comfortable, stable lifestyle with a little left over for the kids.
Option 3 was a little confusing. Risk is not knowing the outcome. Risk reduction's purpose in the withdrawal phase is to not prematurely deplete the portfolio's assets. If the outcome is known then there is no risk. Assuming both investors withdrew the same amount each year, neither one depleted their portfolio and in spite of volatility the first investor ended the 20 year period with $2.5 million more. Most people would say that the first investor won. Why? Perhaps it was better risk management during the decline and subsequent recovery making a greater than 20% decline insignificant to the eventual outcome.
It is unfortunate that we cannot see the future. But even if the market falls 20% there is no loss unless the investor sells and there are multiple risk management techniques that can be used to prevent that.
Mustang: "I pay absolutely no attention to yield. I pay attention to total return." FD: of course, you do. It's basic math.================= Mustang: Option 2: It looks like the first investor is withdrawing $20K per year. The second investor is withdrawing $40K per year. FD:I think I made it clearer in my answer to Chahta. Both are withdrawing the same, but the second has higher income=distributions. Hand down, the first is better ================= Mustang: option 3: Most people would say that the first investor won. FD: I don't use the term risk because it can be different for several investors and not accurately define. I will make it clearer. Both have 2 goals: never lose 20% from any last top + SD must be under 10. The first one made more money but failed on both. I wanted to make very simple because several people have very defined numbers, including a min performance criteria. These investors don't care it their portfolio will make 8% or 11% (or 6% vs 8%) annually, but they never want to lose a certain amount. BTW, these numbers could change in the future when they get older. Sure, I can make it more complicated. When the 2 investors don't have definite criteria, it depends. I'm one of those that prefer a better Sharpe in most cases without sacrificing performance. Example for 2 retirees, withdrawing 4% annually Example 1: PRWCX(allocation) vs VFINX(stocks) since 1986 ( link). It's pretty clear that PRWCX was a better choice. When performance+SD+Sharpe was better. This is where I was in my first 15-16 years of investing Example 2: VWINX (conservative allocation) vs VWELX(moderate allocation) ( link). The results are not a clear-cut, they are based on your preference. Most typical retirees prefer VWINX. You gave up 1.3% annually for performance, but it's worth it because VWELX had 50% more volatility (you can even quantify it, VWINX max draw was under 19% while VWELX was over 32%). Most retirees would be very happy with 9.35% annually instead of 10.64%, after all, 9.35% is enough.
|
|
bf22
Commander
Posts: 135
|
Post by bf22 on Oct 13, 2021 10:39:22 GMT
So the whole point is that if you want less volatility/risk, you'll accept less TR. Got it... Better question is whether one can get anywhere close to the past Wellesley results in the next few years. IMO, that's the real risk.
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Oct 14, 2021 3:24:24 GMT
So the whole point is that if you want less volatility/risk, you'll accept less TR. Got it... Better question is whether one can get anywhere close to the past Wellesley results in the next few years. IMO, that's the real risk. I would disagree. If you have a constantly upward-trending market, then of course your diversified ETF outperforms the low-volatility asset. But markets do not go up constantly and steadily. One might choose to trade a low-volatility etf (like USMV) instead of ,say, SPY. And if your low-volatility trader can avoid most (or even some) of the bearish days, his USMV TR will outpace the buy-and-hold SPY owner.
|
|
bf22
Commander
Posts: 135
|
Post by bf22 on Oct 14, 2021 8:49:23 GMT
So the whole point is that if you want less volatility/risk, you'll accept less TR. Got it... Better question is whether one can get anywhere close to the past Wellesley results in the next few years. IMO, that's the real risk. I would disagree. If you have a constantly upward-trending market, then of course your diversified ETF outperforms the low-volatility asset. But markets do not go up constantly and steadily. One might choose to trade a low-volatility etf (like USMV) instead of ,say, SPY. And if your low-volatility trader can avoid most (or even some) of the bearish days, his USMV TR will outpace the buy-and-hold SPY owner. That is certainly possible. I was only responding to the generic Example 1 and Example 2 above. The argument was that TR is all that matters, but was then qualified with parameters such as max 20% loss, and therefore VWIAX should be good enough.
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Oct 14, 2021 11:55:00 GMT
TR is all that matters......to some investors.
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Oct 14, 2021 12:15:15 GMT
I would disagree. If you have a constantly upward-trending market, then of course your diversified ETF outperforms the low-volatility asset. But markets do not go up constantly and steadily. One might choose to trade a low-volatility etf (like USMV) instead of ,say, SPY. And if your low-volatility trader can avoid most (or even some) of the bearish days, his USMV TR will outpace the buy-and-hold SPY owner. Mustang , FD1000 , Chahta , bf22 , rhythmmethod , richardsok , Traders, spend down, whatever., how do you think 7-10% distributing CEF’s perform in all scenarios you mention? I’ve seen them outperformed in up markets probably by about 2% a year because of the lack of a growth element. That’s why we back our investment up with VTI and 2 growth indexes allowing our portfolio the possibility to grow overall. In the 3 of 10 down years we still get that 7-10% distribution and excess to DCA for future possible growth. As far as trading that always seemed like market timing to me, sorry. As a buy and holder it seems like more of a random event method sorta like poker without the ability to bluff favorable results to help fund what for most is a 15-20 year retirement. So overall this is 80% of our portfolio with 20% in munis and cash. I’d like someone to point out any long term flaws in this capital preservation strategy.
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Oct 14, 2021 13:31:16 GMT
Pony -- First let me amend my earlier post a bit. I should have written, "If a trader can avoid most bearish trends...." I was wrong to say "...avoid bearish DAYS..." That was sloppy of me, and gives a false meaning. Of course I expect to have losing days, but am certainly ready to accept them so long as the trend is bullish. When the trend (signalled by the technicals I use) changes, then I change -- quickly and without regret. Actually, you said the magic word: "POKER". One of the most influential investing books I have ever read had nothing whatever to do with the stock market. "POSITIVELY FIFTH STREET" is an engaging study of the practices of world-class poker players. The take-away -- superior card players keep continuous track of probabilities. Given all the unknowns of unseen cards, they find an edge working with the limited information in front of them -- and the accumulation of all those SLIGHTLY advantageous edges results in a winning evening of play. The thought grew, "Could I try to treat my investments like a poker player? And, if so, how would I do that? My tactics are the clumsy, imperfect attempt to do just that -- attempt to identify probabilities using low-volatility assets -- the lowest I can find -- while eliminating biases and opinions. A semi-related fault in my writing (and in one or two others') is I must give the impression I believe my thinking is superior to the reader's. I don't mean to imply I am better or smarter in investing; I just try to clearly explain what I do. If I were skilled at stock analysis, I would largely forget technicals. But expert equity analysis is far beyond me, so I try to use what I'm competent at .... and no delusions. Please look at the attached multi-year SPY chart. ( It's the maximum-length period of SPY's full history) Pony, you CANNOT deny the market works in great waves with smaller waves within them. We CANNOT be blind that RIGHT NOW, AT THIS MOMENT, buy-and-hold investing has worked wonderfully from a confluence of great economic forces and nurturing government support. I argue that this happy trend MAY continue for a while --- but it MUST end -- and when it does -- buy-and hold, for all its past successes, may be a disaster. finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPY/chart?p=SPY#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--
|
|
|
Post by xray on Oct 14, 2021 14:35:14 GMT
richardsok, You can reduce the size of url's by going to tiny url.com [which has been very helpful to many of us IMHO].... Live Long and Prosper....
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on Oct 14, 2021 15:59:49 GMT
Or just use PB Link-tool, SPY Chart (9th icon from the right).
|
|
|
Post by rhythmmethod on Oct 14, 2021 16:08:19 GMT
Just adding that the reports of the death of BTD might have been exaggerated. Stay well.
|
|
|
Post by Norbert on Oct 14, 2021 16:17:57 GMT
Just adding that the reports of the death of BTD might have been exaggerated. Stay well. Now you tell me!
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Oct 14, 2021 16:32:37 GMT
richardsok , I saw the same similar traits of investing to poker. Poker is one of my hobbies. I had a long run with both parents portfolios and it took 10 years until it dawned on me. I learned from seasoned investors, classes, kept a journal of the buys, sells and why’s plus had up to 5 minor league experimental portfolios and a good library. So leaving out details that last post was the bare bones outline of what my wife and I settled on. It should cover all markets because 60% of our portfolio is held as a secondary income which grows at the present time as you mentioned. You’re correct about the rhythm of markets and the same applies to individual stocks like AMZN now. Inflation and great managements driving earnings forward attracts investors eventually leading to higher values. Our personal inflation rate is below 3% at this time probably like many others. So with 7-10% distributions from CEF’s even with cuts we should be good. As in poker we tried to cover as much of the unknowns as possible and eliminate (automate) all the maintenance. Your graph is precisely why we went for the highest steady income we were willing to invest in and shoved markets to a secondary position.
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Oct 14, 2021 19:48:23 GMT
Mustang , FD1000 , Chahta , bf22 , rhythmmethod , richardsok , Traders, spend down, whatever., how do you think 7-10% distributing CEF’s perform in all scenarios you mention? I’ve seen them outperformed in up markets probably by about 2% a year because of the lack of a growth element. That’s why we back our investment up with VTI and 2 growth indexes allowing our portfolio the possibility to grow overall. In the 3 of 10 down years we still get that 7-10% distribution and excess to DCA for future possible growth. As far as trading that always seemed like market timing to me, sorry. As a buy and holder it seems like more of a random event method sorta like poker without the ability to bluff favorable results to help fund what for most is a 15-20 year retirement. So overall this is 80% of our portfolio with 20% in munis and cash. I’d like someone to point out any long term flaws in this capital preservation strategy. Don't confuse trading, allocation, diversification, preservation, high distributions VS performance Suppose now you have 2 choices 1) Fund X pays zero distributions and will make 10%(this is TR) average annually in the next 10 years 2) Fund Y pays 7% distributions and will makes 8%(this is TR) average annually in the next 10 years. Which one is better? BTW, it doesn't matter if you take 2% or 6% withdrawal annually from the above choices. If volatility doesn't bother Pony, which looks like it doesn't, then performance matters more. Sure, when you have enough money, you will make it, regardless, but why high distribution give you more comfort? ============= I agree about trading, unless you have a proven record, in most cases don't do it. When I talk about trading, there is a big difference between, daily trading to weekly or monthly(or longer) trading. ============= Can you tell me what is wrong with buy and hold the SP500 for 40 years? I know a neighbor that sold his business for 20 million in early 90" and invested at 90/10 Munis/LC stocks. Of course, he will make it on $150K per year expenses, but he could do better.
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Oct 14, 2021 19:54:20 GMT
richardsok : buy-and-hold investing has worked wonderfully from a confluence of great economic forces and nurturing government support. I argue that this happy trend MAY continue for a while --- but it MUST end -- and when it does -- buy-and hold, for all its past successes, may be a disaster." How can you assume B&H will not keep working, since it basically does always? steelpony10 : "As far as trading that always seemed like market timing to me'' Of course it is. Have to buy low to sell high and have to find a low to buy then decide when it's time to sell. FD1000 : "Can you tell me what is wrong with buy and hold the SP500 for 40 years?" Nothing!
Too bad this thread has degenerated into income vs. TR investing. Good lord, they are both legitimate depending on what one wants to do. And depending whether dividends are reinvested, income investing turns into TR investing.
|
|