Author Topic: Investors, how risky are you and why? (Read 8414 times)

K-ice · « **on:** March 01, 2019, 03:47:54 PM »

This has probably been asked before but I went back a few pages in the investing section and couldn't find much discussion.

I am reevaluating my asset allocation.

I was traditionally very conservative and I have really only been in the ETF market for 3 years. So I have wasted a lot of my investment potential with pathetic GIC (CDs) and savings accounts.

Then I found MMM and the Canadian couch potato.

I consider myself more in the balanced range of the table in the link below. So my current vote is 60% stocks.

https://cdn.canadiancouchpotato.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CCP-Model-Portfolios-ETFs-2018.pdf

It seams like many MMMers are in the 90% to 100% stocks. Is that necessary for early retirement to work?

There are many factors that might make someone more or less assertive like:

Job security
Future pension
Rental income
Home ownership with or without a mortgage
Spouse (SAH vs freelance vs great job)
Kids
Health
Parents (They may help you out or need help)
Years to FIRE

For me I think my lack of aggressiveness comes from a lack of understanding. But now that I am better understanding investing I think I am ready to be more aggressive.

So how risky are you and why?

Thanks in advance for sharing your vote and thoughts.

PDXTabs · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2019, 05:45:18 PM »

Quote from: K-ice on March 01, 2019, 03:47:54 PM

It seams like many MMMers are in the 90% to 100% stocks.

Ignoring my emergency fund, I am 100% stocks (in a globally diverse market cap based portfolio). There are some risks to this, but also a lot of safety. I am hopefully protected to some extent from inflation, deflation, and geopolitical unrest in one area of the globe. Bond yields are at historic lows, to me they seem really risky.

ETA - I also have at least 11 more years to work, so I'm not all that worried about fluctuation in the value of my portfolio.

ender · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2019, 06:55:50 PM »

10% bonds
63% US stocks
27% international stocks

Much Fishing to Do · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2019, 07:12:01 PM »

I was 100% stocks until halfway to full stache. Then shifted to 80/20. Now at fi and maybe nearing fire I want a cash buffer, mainly just because of how quickly the big downturns recovered in 2000 and 2008, so having just 2-3 years of cash and a rule to go by (like use the cash and dont sell the equities/bonds when value more than say 25% off highs) would make me feel better during those times. Then cash (even just like Vanguad prime money market) started actually paying something. Then Running 80/20 versus 70/20/10(cash) thru different tools doesn't seem to show hardly any drop in return expectations, etc. So the 70/20/10 is where I am going toward now for FIRE

Andy R · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2019, 09:08:17 PM »

Quote from: K-ice on March 01, 2019, 03:47:54 PM

It seams like many MMMers are in the 90% to 100% stocks. Is that necessary for early retirement to work?

It's surprisingly unnecessary actually.
Over short periods like 10-12 years, the difference between 70/100 and 100/0 are extremely small since most of the money comes from savings and the compounding only really becomes noticeable towards the end when there is a higher balance and a short time left. I would urge people to put this into a spreadsheet where you can actually see how small the difference is. But at the same time, your risk is much higher with 100% equities in a severe bear market. When there is little upside but the downside is significant, it just duesn't make much sense to me.

Having said that, your total investing life will be 30-60 years and this is where I have a bit of an issue with the much lower equity allocations like 40-50% often mentioned for retirees (outside this forum, I mean). Their argument is that if you don't have enough money to live on something like a 50/50 portfolio, the problem is not with the returns but that you have no saved enough. I think they are partly right and that point is unfortunately disregarded by many, but at the same time, why leave money on the table. When a 25 year old is worried about risk and puts all their money in CDs, the advice is to educate yourself, so why is that not the advice for a 50 year old retiree that goes with 50/50 to instead go to say 70/30.

Quote from: K-ice on March 01, 2019, 03:47:54 PM

https://cdn.canadiancouchpotato.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CCP-Model-Portfolios-ETFs-2018.pdf

Just wanted to say, even though the past 20 years for this link has been almost no difference in return between 30/70 and 100/0, does not mean that is what you should expect going forward.
Firstly interest rates are an all time low, so bonds will very likely yield worse, and secondly there is a pretty low chance of 2 massive bear markets in a 20 year period, while it could happen again, what is a realistic chance of it.

shinn497 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2019, 01:05:01 AM »

100% stocks no debt. Highest return and best chance of success with a consistent safe withdrawal rate while simultaneously removing things from my life that cause stress and headache. I want the whole world to work so I don't have to.

dabighen · « **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2019, 02:01:36 AM »

I am 100% stocks minus our 6 month emergency fund. We own just two index funds, 80% fidelity total US Stock Market and 20% Fidelity Global ex us. For some reason I am happier than I have ever been having done this a few years ago and dont plan to do mucb different with it for the rest of my life.

rab-bit · « **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2019, 05:17:46 AM »

We're at about 50/50 because we're less than one year to retirement and concerned about sequence of returns risk. I'm also older than most here (58) so I have less time to make up for a big loss even if I was willing to continue working (which I'm not!).

chasesfish · « **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2019, 06:27:55 AM »

80%. About to retire early and need the sequence of return risk protection

MustacheAndaHalf · « **Reply #9 on:** March 02, 2019, 08:44:14 PM »

Without polling years to retirement, the poll results mix "time until retirement" with level of risk. For example, here's how an investor at Vanguard might allocate at different ages:
Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 holds 62% stocks / 38% bonds
Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 holds 90% stocks / 10% bonds

I'd suggest using Vanguard's target date funds as a starting point, especially since those funds have over $250,000,000,000 in investor assets. For someone far from retirement, it's typically 90% stocks / 10% bonds. But again, a poll that ignores age may give you misleading results based more on the age of those taking the poll rather than a recommended allocation to stocks.

The 585 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2019, 09:13:01 PM »

Target AA is 80/20 Total World Stock/Total Bond... But we are drifting near 84/16 right now.

Travis · « **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2019, 09:24:26 PM »

I used to be 80/20 with 25% in international stocks. Now I'm 90/10 since I'm 4-5 years from retirement and facing a very healthy pension that will take the place of my bond allocation.

RWD · « **Reply #12 on:** March 03, 2019, 06:35:50 AM »

85/15 stocks/bonds for us.

waltworks · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2019, 08:35:25 AM »

We need your definition of "risk" before we can really answer this. Because volatility isn't the same thing.

-W

K-ice · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2019, 09:50:05 AM »

Quote from: waltworks on March 03, 2019, 08:35:25 AM

We need your definition of "risk" before we can really answer this. Because volatility isn't the same thing.

-W

I am looking for your percentage of investments in Stocks/equities.

Obviously having everything in a few companies is riskier than an ETF.

My brokerage account has a section where this % is calculated across my accounts.

You are then welcome to further explain that: my investments are x% but I also have a pension, rental income etc.

I am not looking for stocks as a % of Net worth. But you are free to comment on that as well.

I hope that helps better define it for everyone.

harvestbook · « **Reply #15 on:** March 03, 2019, 11:08:49 AM »

Currently about 93/7 moving to 90/10 for my investments. Age 56 and won't have a pension but will own royalty-bearing properties. Not a big fan of bonds but if I ever traditionally retire (given what I do, there's no age reason for it) then I'd go 80/20 to make sure I had enough bonds to hedge the sequence-of-returns risk. On the other side of that, we live very frugally and have ways to cut the need for money if necessary, so I don't consider this very risky. To me, risk is in being too conservative.

I'd also add that the amount of debt you carry is perhaps as important as age and AA when determining your own risk. I don't have debt and own my home so can more easily grind through any market crashes.

SwitchActiveDWG · « **Reply #16 on:** March 03, 2019, 11:24:49 AM »

100% stocks excluding emergency fund/home equity.

Why: In my 20s.

Kookaburra Risotto · « **Reply #17 on:** March 03, 2019, 12:03:01 PM »

80% stocks here. We're on the older side to be starting this (38 and 40) but not planning to fully retire for 15+ years. We do plan to go part-time at some point though.

Steeze · « **Reply #18 on:** March 03, 2019, 12:39:02 PM »

85% invested / 15% cash : 85% stocks 15% bonds (70/30) US/international overweight REITs and emerging markets.

davisgang90 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 03, 2019, 12:50:18 PM »

I'm basically 100% stocks with a couple caveats.

I am Roth-laddering my traditional IRA at about 2% a year. I keep the next 2 years worth of withdrawals out of the market.

We live on my military pension and VA disability and the Roth withdrawals are bonus. I don't plan to make any significant withdrawals above and beyond the 2% until I hit RMAs at 70.5.

flipboard · « **Reply #20 on:** March 03, 2019, 12:59:37 PM »

I don't agree with the premise of this poll. Risk isn't the same as stocks percentage.

You can increase risk with leverage. You can increase risk by tilting towards certain factors.

Someone with 90% stocks, but tilted heavily towards SCV, could be more risky than someone with 100% stocks in total-market.

SpareChange · « **Reply #21 on:** March 03, 2019, 01:20:40 PM »

~40% stocks, roughly world cap weighted. Rest is in TBM funds located in tax deferred accounts. Why? To keep the dispersion of returns coned down over the short to medium term. I have a high savings rate (80% of net last year). I certainly have the ability to take higher risk, but I don't see the need to. Need trumps ability in my book. I'm mid forties.

waltworks · « **Reply #22 on:** March 03, 2019, 01:50:21 PM »

I guess if we're talking about how much is invested in stocks vs. other stuff, we're almost 100% stocks. But we have a super inexpensive (cost us $70k to build) rental property that pays about 50% of our total expenses. I'm not sure how to account for that here since it's market value is a tiny fraction of our NW and portfolio, but it has enormous (though non-compounding) returns.

So I guess I'll just say something like 80% stocks, 20% RE, no bonds to speak of. If you throw out the ADU, we're basically 100% stocks.

Again, I don't consider a 100% stocks portfolio inherently risky. If you have wide exposure to lots of companies and markets (ie, index funds) you are at lower "risk" in many time frames than owning, say, 100% money market funds earning 2%.

-W

2Birds1Stone · « **Reply #23 on:** March 03, 2019, 02:17:49 PM »

60% stocks for me.

I have an 80%+ savings rate, which is grossly outweighing any missed gains from a conservative portfolio (for now).

moof · « **Reply #24 on:** March 03, 2019, 04:39:45 PM »

The money I saved 20 years ago will be the first pulled out in 5 when I FIRE. The money I am saving today will get pulled out in another 20-40 years if all goes to plan.

Now tell me where is the best place for returns for money to grow untouched for 20–40 years?

Stocks. Hard to beat even the worst case historic gains over a >20 year period using anything but stocks.

My emergency fund is in savings, my stache is in near 100% stocks. I would have been significantly better off if I hadn’t drank the 60/40 Koolade for a peiod years back. Oh well.

Being <100% stocks can greatly reduce the risk that you will freakout and cash-out at the worst possible time during a declining market. You need to be sober about whether that is a big risk or not, and choose a portfolio that matches your tolerance for downturn.

Brother Esau · « **Reply #25 on:** March 03, 2019, 04:52:56 PM »

80% stocks, 10% bonds, 10% cash. In my early 50's and also factoring in SS and a pension.

BicycleB · « **Reply #26 on:** March 03, 2019, 06:54:43 PM »

Financial assets about 70% stock, 30% bonds/cash.

50something in FIRE, last worked late 40s. Half of portfolio is real estate, not financial assets.

There is a wide range of portfolios that will work just fine for FIRE. See portfoliocharts.com. You'll find anything from 40% to 80% stock works great for 20 to 30 year periods. At 40 to 50 years, it helps to be more like 60% to 75% stock, but still 50% is nearly as good. Fwiw, primary advantage of high stock (80, 90, 100%) isn't that it's safer, it's that the high cases are much richer.

WhiteTrashCash · « **Reply #27 on:** March 03, 2019, 07:16:41 PM »

80% VTSAX, 20% VBTLX. I like risk like I like my tea. I don't drink tea.

DCW · « **Reply #28 on:** March 03, 2019, 07:43:23 PM »

Per Personal Capital....about 85% in US Stocks (100% of that in VTSAX or equivalent fund). Another 11% is held in a pension fund that I'm required to contribute to. The rest in cash.

31 y/o. No debt other than a cheap mortgage.

K-ice · « **Reply #29 on:** March 08, 2019, 09:46:52 PM »

I’m surprised no one had said “no stocks”.

That is unfortunately how I spent my 20’s.

soccerluvof4 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 09, 2019, 04:11:24 AM »

4 years Fire'd 60% Stocks about 15% cash/CDS etc.. and 25% bonds. When the market tanks I will work to be more 75/25 but for now I am fine with my portfolio.

TomTX · « **Reply #31 on:** March 09, 2019, 07:46:20 AM »

Quote from: PDXTabs on March 01, 2019, 05:45:18 PM

Quote from: K-ice on March 01, 2019, 03:47:54 PM
It seams like many MMMers are in the 90% to 100% stocks.

Ignoring my emergency fund, I am 100% stocks (in a globally diverse market cap based portfolio). There are some risks to this, but also a lot of safety. I am hopefully protected to some extent from inflation, deflation, and geopolitical unrest in one area of the globe. Bond yields are at historic lows, to me they seem really risky.

ETA - I also have at least 11 more years to work, so I'm not all that worried about fluctuation in the value of my portfolio.

++

"Risk" for the ER investor is often misunderstood. What is the one big risk that we really want to avoid? Portfolio failure (running out of money before we die) I would posit that having too much in bonds is actually riskier.

Sure, stocks have more volatility - so what?

You shouldn't be looking at a mere 20 or 30 year timeframe - you probably need to look at a 50 or 60 year timeframe. For that, you need the growth from stocks far more than the lower volatility of bonds.

Play with some of the simulators and a 50 year timeframe. Vary the stock/bond ratio.

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

2Birds1Stone · « **Reply #32 on:** March 09, 2019, 08:37:26 AM »

@TomTX, I just used $40k spending, $1M portfolio, retire @ 35 years old for 65 year long retirement.

10% spending flexibility, $1,500/month in Today's dollars for SS (@ age 70).

The difference between 60/40 and 90/10 was negligible.

TomTX · « **Reply #33 on:** March 09, 2019, 09:30:46 AM »

Quote from: 2Birds1Stone on March 09, 2019, 08:37:26 AM

@TomTX, I just used $40k spending, $1M portfolio, retire @ 35 years old for 65 year long retirement.

10% spending flexibility, $1,500/month in Today's dollars for SS (@ age 70).

The difference between 60/40 and 90/10 was negligible.

I hadn't been including social security. Without that, I think I otherwise matched what you put in and had the following results:

66% success for 50/50 stock/bond
83% success for 60/40
88% success for 70/30
91% success for 80/20
94% success for 90/10
95% for 100% stocks

lowroller4111 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 09, 2019, 09:41:57 PM »

100% stocks is not efficient meaning after around 80% stocks the reward is minimal compared to the additional risk. In addition there are periods such as 2000-2009 where bonds outperformed equities so some diversification is preferred.

Also a lot of folks these days going 100% have never really experienced a true crash ala 2008. There is a VERY big difference in *thinking* you can ride a 50% haircut out vs actually having the nerves of steel to execute it. They will not know it until they go through it.

PhrugalPhan · « **Reply #35 on:** March 09, 2019, 11:24:53 PM »

I'm at 90+% of stocks, and the reasons are: single, high risk tolerance, high patience to wait out drops. But.... the big reason is I have a gov't backed pension. Its a local government, so the odds of some type of haircut is not zero, but due to various reasons I won't get into here, there are so many reasons why this will never happen I look at the odds to be one in … well a lot. And since the pension should cover all basic needs plus some extra, I don't see why I shouldn't take investment risks. Its served me well over the years, including the 2008-09 meltdown.

Exflyboy · « **Reply #36 on:** March 10, 2019, 03:20:24 AM »

75/25 (Was 80/20) retired at 57 with 40% of spending coming from rent (soon to be replaced by pension).

Why so "risky"?

WR is about 1.5%.. in other words I can afford a 50% drop in the S&P500.. I'm actually kinda looking forward to it because I will then roll to 90/10... Cus its fun...:)

TomTX · « **Reply #37 on:** March 10, 2019, 11:22:31 AM »

Quote from: lowroller4111 on March 09, 2019, 09:41:57 PM

100% stocks is not efficient meaning after around 80% stocks the reward is minimal compared to the additional risk. In addition there are periods such as 2000-2009 where bonds outperformed equities so some diversification is preferred.

Sliiiightly cherry-picking your dates there.

Quote

Also a lot of folks these days going 100% have never really experienced a true crash ala 2008. There is a VERY big difference in *thinking* you can ride a 50% haircut out vs actually having the nerves of steel to execute it. They will not know it until they go through it.

Been through both the 2000 and 2008 crashes, 100% stocks. Still am 100% stocks. Never bailed on the market.

2Birds1Stone · « **Reply #38 on:** March 10, 2019, 11:37:21 AM »

Quote from: TomTX on March 09, 2019, 09:30:46 AM

I hadn't been including social security. Without that, I think I otherwise matched what you put in and had the following results:

66% success for 50/50 stock/bond
83% success for 60/40
88% success for 70/30
91% success for 80/20
94% success for 90/10
95% for 100% stocks

Are you putting in anything for "spending flexibility"?

I used 10% there (which is pretty realistic, cutting back spending by 10% in bad market years to limit SRR). Without SS and got the following results,

for 60/40 - 85% success rate
for 90/10 - 96% success rate

But in either scenario, the longevity risk of dying instead of going broke is rather sobering. I do believe we will get "some" form of SS in the future. That's why I used a very conservative $18k/yr in today's dollars @ age 70, which is 3 years passed current FRA. This really closes the gap between the different AA's which have at least 50% stock.

I admire your steadfast ability to stomach 100% equities though!

the barefoot badger · « **Reply #39 on:** March 10, 2019, 01:32:33 PM »

I'm that outlier who has nearly no equity holdings. My non-deferred funds are almost entirely in municipal bonds. Why? 1. I dabbled in equities for years and those magnificent returns always eluded me. 2. Insured munis pay better than cash assets for nearly the same degree of risk, and the income can be entirely tax free. 3. I live off my income. Very little attention is given to getting money back OUT of equities without ugly tax penalties when it's needed. Bonds provide a steady income stream so liquidation isn't usually necessary. 4. They're so low effort it's ridiculous, once the initial analysis is made they're basically work-free for 5-30 years. 5. I find them a better choice, morally speaking (or at least on the surface it appears so to me). I don't want to fund the US government (treasuries), and I don't want to encourage the shift of wealth into fewer hands, or the wholesale rape of powerless people and the environment for the sake of profit (corporate-based equities). Muni bonds are at least theoretically paying for a reasonable level of improvement in the lives of ordinary citizens. 7. My life is well-funded, I have plenty of income for what I want to do. Unlike most people, I don't care about being rich. I just want my life to go on being well funded. So I'm not chasing wealth and returns, I'm looking for maintenance of my life, with enough extra profit to cover inflation. If I were starting with a tiny nest egg, my muni portfolio wouldn't be appropriate ... but I'm not.

TomTX · « **Reply #40 on:** March 10, 2019, 02:28:48 PM »

Quote from: 2Birds1Stone on March 10, 2019, 11:37:21 AM

Quote from: TomTX on March 09, 2019, 09:30:46 AM
I hadn't been including social security. Without that, I think I otherwise matched what you put in and had the following results:

66% success for 50/50 stock/bond
83% success for 60/40
88% success for 70/30
91% success for 80/20
94% success for 90/10
95% for 100% stocks

Are you putting in anything for "spending flexibility"?

I used 10% there (which is pretty realistic, cutting back spending by 10% in bad market years to limit SRR). Without SS and got the following results,

for 60/40 - 85% success rate
for 90/10 - 96% success rate

But in either scenario, the longevity risk of dying instead of going broke is rather sobering. I do believe we will get "some" form of SS in the future. That's why I used a very conservative $18k/yr in today's dollars @ age 70, which is 3 years passed current FRA. This really closes the gap between the different AA's which have at least 50% stock.

I admire your steadfast ability to stomach 100% equities though!

Yes, I put in 10% spending flexibility.

But anyway - the answers we got are close enough to each other.

The 60/40 portfolio has roughly 3x the failure rate of the 90/10 portfolio - failure 3 times in 20 instead of 1 time in 20.

This is demonstrating that a higher percentage of bonds isn't safer.

So, three times as likely that I would run out of money - for pursuing "safety" in bonds.

I'm puzzled why the illusion of safety in bonds is so appealing.

TomTX · « **Reply #41 on:** March 10, 2019, 02:30:24 PM »

Quote from: the barefoot badger on March 10, 2019, 01:32:33 PM

Very little attention is given to getting money back OUT of equities without ugly tax penalties when it's needed.

This is unequivocally false.

Exflyboy · « **Reply #42 on:** March 10, 2019, 04:41:32 PM »

Quote from: TomTX on March 10, 2019, 11:22:31 AM

Quote from: lowroller4111 on March 09, 2019, 09:41:57 PM
100% stocks is not efficient meaning after around 80% stocks the reward is minimal compared to the additional risk. In addition there are periods such as 2000-2009 where bonds outperformed equities so some diversification is preferred.

Sliiiightly cherry-picking your dates there.

Quote
Also a lot of folks these days going 100% have never really experienced a true crash ala 2008. There is a VERY big difference in *thinking* you can ride a 50% haircut out vs actually having the nerves of steel to execute it. They will not know it until they go through it.

Been through both the 2000 and 2008 crashes, 100% stocks. Still am 100% stocks. Never bailed on the market.

You have giant kahunas sir..:)

Yes, I did the same during the 2008 crash.. Took some nerve but I did it.

efree · « **Reply #43 on:** March 10, 2019, 04:46:59 PM »

I live in Europe and I like the P2P lending asset class - I mean platforms like Mintos, Envestio, Flender, EstateGuru, Viainvest, Crowdestor, Lenndy, and so on. I think some of them might accept Canadian investors. I'd say that these platforms are even riskier than stocks because you never know when a platform might get into difficulties, but that's why I diversify over many of them, and so far I have had more than 10% p.a. returns on all of them, even more than 15% on two of them. I have about 63% in P2P lending and the rest in stocks. But to be fair, my stache is still small and I can afford to be risky.

Mississippi Mudstache · « **Reply #44 on:** March 11, 2019, 06:26:28 AM »

95% stock (75% U.S., 20% international)
5% bonds

I am at the point where I no longer see any use for bonds, but I haven't gotten rid of them just yet. If the market takes a 30-40% nosedive at some point in the future, I will consider switching to a 100% stock portfolio just to simplify my investments. The difference between a 100% and 95% stock portfolio is not really material enough for me to make any changes at this point.

the barefoot badger · « **Reply #45 on:** March 11, 2019, 09:06:43 AM »

Quote from: TomTX on March 10, 2019, 02:30:24 PM

Quote from: the barefoot badger on March 10, 2019, 01:32:33 PM
Very little attention is given to getting money back OUT of equities without ugly tax penalties when it's needed.

This is unequivocally false.

Do you think so? perhaps I should say "tax consequences", not penalties. But my experience has been that "selling low" because you need money is, obviously, a disaster in terms of equity loss, but "selling high" is almost as much of a disaster due to the tax consequences. Unless you get lucky or you have a lot of money to play with, equities aren't a very good vehicle for fixed incomes.

Mississippi Mudstache · « **Reply #46 on:** March 11, 2019, 09:19:08 AM »

Quote from: the barefoot badger on March 11, 2019, 09:06:43 AM

Quote from: TomTX on March 10, 2019, 02:30:24 PM
Quote from: the barefoot badger on March 10, 2019, 01:32:33 PM
Very little attention is given to getting money back OUT of equities without ugly tax penalties when it's needed.

This is unequivocally false.
Do you think so? perhaps I should say "tax consequences", not penalties. But my experience has been that "selling low" because you need money is, obviously, a disaster in terms of equity loss, but "selling high" is almost as much of a disaster due to the tax consequences. Unless you get lucky or you have a lot of money to play with, equities aren't a very good vehicle for fixed incomes.

Capital gains taxes are taxed at a lesser rate than ordinary income in practically all circumstances. Currently, I'm in the 25% tax bracket for income, which puts me in the 15% bracket for capital gains. I expect to be in the 0% capital gains tax bracket when I retire. I'm confused as to why you think a 0% tax is a "disaster" in terms of tax consequences. Do you care to elaborate?

waltworks · « **Reply #47 on:** March 11, 2019, 09:25:26 AM »

In *almost* all cases, selling stock after retirement is going to result in no capital gains at all, since you'll have no/very low ordinary income and hence be well below the cutoff where capital gains is taxed at zero.

If you were living a very luxurious lifestyle, and selling $100k+ worth of VERY appreciated stock every year, you'd have some tax hit, sure. But it would not be a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination.

-W

2Birds1Stone · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2019, 09:30:10 AM »

Long term cap gains for a modest early retiree are a pipe dream!

flipboard · « **Reply #49 on:** March 11, 2019, 10:57:38 AM »

I'm still waiting for the 150% option.

News:

Poll

What is your rough allocation. Stocks includes equities ETF, Mutual funds of x% equities etc.

Author Topic: Investors, how risky are you and why? (Read 8414 times)

The 585