100% stocks still?

[pdxvandal]

Many on this forum are Millennials or younger who have seen an unprecedented bull market the past decade and often proclaimed being 100% in stocks ... with zero bonds or conservative investments. I wonder if this market rout will change that behavior going forward?

I've lost quite a bit as well, but feel slightly better with ~18% bond holdings. Not that I had any crystal ball, but I was at 100% stocks in my workplace 401k until last fall when I moved a chunk to bonds. I probably would be panicking more if I were still 100% stocks.

Quite a roller coaster we're all on!

[Bernard]

I'm 62, not FIRE yet, and 100% equities. No plan on bonding anything . . .

[AM43]

I am Gen X and have been through 2008 market drop and everything in between.
I am 100% stocks since year 2000 and not planning to change anything till I get to my late 50s or early 60s, and even then I will have most of my assets in stocks but will def get some bonds to preserve my assets.

[Psychstache]

Mid-30s here. 100% VTSAX. no plans to change.

[StashingAway]

I'm a Millennial.

This market volatility is expected. It wasn't a matter of if but when it would happen. With that background, yes, 100% stocks. To be honest, I check my portfolio maybe 3 times a year, and just auto-dump cash into it every month. I don't watch the daily news, so my only clue that there was even a drop is from co-workers' remarks and forums.

I don't speak for all millennials, but a 100% stocks strategy is long term investment. It could be down for the next 10 years. Doesn't really matter, that was understood before I got into the game.  One of my very favorite parts of this investment strategy is that I don't need to know or care about daily, weekly, or even yearly swings. So I will continue doing what I have been since the beginning of this plan: nothing! No "buying extra stocks on sale" because that's timing the market too. Just monthly contributions until I retire (ideally early).

If I were to time the market... this is the time to be in 100% stocks anyway. Market correction during my prime earning years? Yes please (assuming I don't get laid off).

[SubL stache]

Millennial here with 100% stocks, 100% VTSAX.

I've pushed in another 14k in the last 9 days.  Will move another 5k into VTSAX today.  Only 10k left in cash available for investing after that.

[PDXTabs]

Many on this forum are Millennials or younger who have seen an unprecedented bull market the past decade and often proclaimed being 100% in stocks ... with zero bonds or conservative investments. I wonder if this market rout will change that behavior going forward?

Bonds are getting more expensive by the day while stocks are getting cheaper. In my mind that means buy more stocks.

I'm not willing to buy even $1 of US treasury bonds at today's rates.

[Alternatepriorities]

Many on this forum are Millennials or younger who have seen an unprecedented bull market the past decade and often proclaimed being 100% in stocks ... with zero bonds or conservative investments. I wonder if this market rout will change that behavior going forward?

Bonds are getting more expensive by the day while stocks are getting cheaper. In my mind that means buy more stocks.

I'm not willing to buy even $1 of US treasury bonds at today's rates.

I felt that way a month ago so it's even stranger to think of buying them today. I've been wrong for most of the last ten years though expecting inflation and rates to rise with easy money... I would never have guessed that some countries would be getting paid to borrow money. Maybe the US is next? If interest rates are key factor in determining the fair valuation of equities (paraphrasing buffet) what value do negative rates imply for stocks? I remain committed to a 70/30 ish US/Int equities AA at least until I start drawing down the account.

[Stimpy]

Hmm...  As a millennial, and someone 100% in stocks (Minus a small emerg fund).  I have to say that:

In for the long run.

Will there be those whom are spooked and jump out.  Hell yea, been there, seen it, got the t-shirt.  I am not gonna be one of those, but just remember if you are one of those.... Give that shirt off your back to the next guy waiting in line!

Also, get those hands up for the downhill!  We need a good photo from this coaster!

[frugalnacho]

I'm 100% stocks (60/40 dom/international) and not planning to change that. 

[DadJokes]

100% US equities.

I'll probably switch to something more conservative 2-3 years before my planned retirement and maintain that for 2-3 years following my retirement. Until then...meh?

[solon]

Late 40s.

100% VTSAX, except for house, and cash in checking account.

I don't believe I'll ever change my allocation. When I retire I'll sell enough VTSAX to pay expenses, but I don't see a need for bonds. If I don't have enough in stocks to weather a downturn, I don't have enough.

[Villanelle]

My target allocation is 8% bonds.  (It's the lowest number I could get my spouse to agree to.  I'd be 0% if it weren't for marital compromise.)  I'm in my mid-40s. 

I have no plans to change that, although at the moment it might be slightly higher given what has happened the last couple weeks.  I hear stocks have dropped.  I don't pay attention and it's not time for a review/rebalance, so I don't really know exactly what they look like right now. 

[Dogastrophe]

Late 40s, not planning to retire for another 7 or 8 years.  100% VFV, which is the Canadian wrapper for VOO (S&P500 etf).

[Monocle Money Mouth]

I'm 38, so I'm technically a millennial. I'm also 100% equities. I got a late start saving for retirement which forced me to accept the extra volatility of equities. I check my accounts daily and I've found the the volatility doesn't bother me. I'm going to buy all the way down and all the way back up like I've done during every other correction since 2014.

[Bloop Bloop]

I started off 100% property (because I needed a place to live in) and have been rebalancing lately to be about 80% property/20% shares and will keep buying shares since they're on discount.

Can I ask, why do people not diversify into investment properties? It's a conservative hedge against the volatility of the market and every house you buy and rent out is another house that a first-home buyer can't get for themselves. There's a bit of safety in bricks and mortar - just a bit.

My goal is to end up 50% shares / 50% property.

[Villanelle]

I started off 100% property (because I needed a place to live in) and have been rebalancing lately to be about 80% property/20% shares and will keep buying shares since they're on discount.

Can I ask, why do people not diversify into investment properties? It's a conservative hedge against the volatility of the market and every house you buy and rent out is another house that a first-home buyer can't get for themselves. There's a bit of safety in bricks and mortar - just a bit.

My goal is to end up 50% shares / 50% property.

I can only speak for myself, but when I say I'm 92% stocks, I mean that 92% of my investment accounts are in stocks.  That doesn't cover my entire stache or net worth, which does also include rental property. 

[Caoineag]

38, 100% stock except for cash in checking, 2 years into retirement. Like another poster if I can't stay 100% stocks in retirement, then I don't have enough. I am keeping an eye on sequence of return risk but I am not seeing anything to scare me back into a job yet.

I know people who retired with rental properties because they didn't trust stocks. I however don't want to be a landlord as that is too much of a job especially back when my day job took a massive amount of time and energy and now I full time travel.

[eyesonthehorizon]

...and every house you buy and rent out is another house that a first-home buyer can't get for themselves.

This is factually true, of course, but what's the significance of it to you?

[PDXTabs]

Can I ask, why do people not diversify into investment properties?

Because as your average middle class person its very hard to diversify in real estate. Right now VT has 8413 different holdings. How am I supposed to get that level of diversification buying investment properties?

[diapasoun]

Older Millennial here. Something like 98% stocks and 2% bonds for my investments. I also have six months of emergency savings.

Can I ask, why do people not diversify into investment properties?

Well, I live in a VHCOLA (can't afford property near me whatsoever) and have no desire to be a long-distance landlord.

[Bloop Bloop]

...and every house you buy and rent out is another house that a first-home buyer can't get for themselves.

This is factually true, of course, but what's the significance of it to you?

Because it factors into the price of homes and the demographics of the market. This may be more of an Australian consideration (we only have two large, over-packed cities - the rest of the country is some way behind when it comes to jobs and opportunities), but our property market is buoyed by limited land close to infrastructure, high demand for family homes, high migration and subsidies for investors. Banking up properties in desirable areas works primarily because you are assured of rental demand. It wouldn't work if we had more spread out cities because everyone could just build their own home rather than buying established homes.

[badger1988]

I'm 31. Made my first $5,000 Roth IRA contribution as a college student in August 2008...just in time to see its value drop by 50% within 3 months. I've been 100% stocks in my investment accounts since my starting point, and have no plans to change asset allocation anytime soon.

[maizefolk]

Millennial here. Roughly 100% stocks (may be some odds and ends in a target date fund somewhere). Still comfortable with my investment mix.

Hopefully that if this turns out to be "a big one" it'll be the end of the weird phenomenon where folks who need more bonds in their asset mix to sleep well at night go on and on about how everyone who doesn't also need those bonds is just fooling themselves because of the last decade of bull market.

[Michael in ABQ]

Mid-30s, still 100% stocks in my retirement accounts. I've got about 5-10% of my total net worth in alternative investments and cash - but that's really just what's in checking and savings. Everything in my investment accounts is fully invested in the market and will remain so even if the market drops another 20, 30, 40%. I made it through 2008 watching my portfolio of individual financial stocks drop 70% or more, I'll make it through the next recession, and the one after that, and the one after that - keeping my automatic contributions going every other week like clockwork.

[Holocene]

I'm at 90% stocks, 10% bonds and have been for a few years.  I'm young but also hope to FIRE in around 2 years, so I've been trying to figure out what I want my AA to be in (very early) retirement.  I know I want at least 10% bonds and probably more like 15-25%.  It's been hard for me to buy bonds over the last several years since stocks have done SO much better.

It's kind of nice having bonds now because I can rebalance and buy stocks while they're so low.  Then again, I know in hindsight that I still would have been better off with 100% stocks from the get-go.  I'm sort of considering going down to 5% bonds while stocks are on sale but not sure I want to go there.  I'm glad that the only thing I've wanted to do in the downturn so far is buy more stocks!  Oh and refinance my mortgage...so I can invest in more stocks!

[2Birds1Stone]

Godspeed.

PTF in the coming weeks/months.

[Monocle Money Mouth]

Millennial here. Roughly 100% stocks (may be some odds and ends in a target date fund somewhere). Still comfortable with my investment mix.

Hopefully that if this turns out to be "a big one" it'll be the end of the weird phenomenon where folks who need more bonds in their asset mix to sleep well at night go on and on about how everyone who doesn't also need those bonds is just fooling themselves because of the last decade of bull market.

I think those people will always be around. The usernames of the finger waggers saying “I told you so!” will just change as the forum gets older :D

[Imma]

Milennial here who was a young adult in 2008 and had a rough start in adulthood because of it. I saved up in high school for college, my parents invested it for me (badly, I now know) and when it was time to go to uni I had to sell at the lowest point. I worked temp jobs for years and my parents lost their home.

My pre-tax retirement accounts are all 100% stocks as far as I can influence it (some retirement money is in company pensions where I don't get to decide the investment policy) because the money won't be accessible for decades, so there's plenty of time to recover. I'll reassess that situation when I'm in my 50s or so.

My post-tax investment accounts are 20% bonds, because in case of recession there's quite a chance that I may need more money than I have in my emergency fund and that way there's a relatively safe 'buffer' I can use before selling stocks at a loss. During a recession there's a higher chance of job loss and if you can't find another job you may need to move or pay for additional training. Also unexpected costs like medical costs could come up that you would normally just cash flow, but if you're on unemployment or a lower-paid temp job you may not be able to.

[Paul der Krake]

Being 100% stocks is the new "I don't even have a TV".

[RWTL]

100% US equities.

I'll probably switch to something more conservative 2-3 years before my planned retirement and maintain that for 2-3 years following my retirement. Until then...meh?

Gen-X here.  I was 100% stocks my whole career - through the 2000 crash and the 2008 bubble.  At the time I piled in money knowing that stocks were on sale.

Now, I'm about three years from retirement.  About 6 months ago, I moved to a 60% stock/40% bond allocation thinking that we could take a 50% drop in the market and still retire. 

Now, with the market drop, I'm still piling money in - ever dollar I can scrape together, but I'm glad I diversified.

After retirement, I'll slowly increase my stock percentage as sequence of return risk dissipates.

[ender]

I'm 90/10 and have been for a while. Will rebalance later this year on my birthday, like every year.

The market is barely back to where it was at less than a year ago though. This massive drop is way overhyped for anyone that can do math, unless you think that until you sell you are guaranteed the returns and so anytime it goes down to a point it was at within the past year it's a crisis.

[frugalnacho]

Millennial here. Roughly 100% stocks (may be some odds and ends in a target date fund somewhere). Still comfortable with my investment mix.

Hopefully that if this turns out to be "a big one" it'll be the end of the weird phenomenon where folks who need more bonds in their asset mix to sleep well at night go on and on about how everyone who doesn't also need those bonds is just fooling themselves because of the last decade of bull market.

Agreed.  I've been 100% stocks the whole time, and I know there is a crash coming and I'm fine with it.  I've been mentally prepping for it, and I've known it was going to happen, and it's just part of the deal.  That roller coaster is the price you pay to get those sweet long term stock returns, and in the end it doesn't even matter, it will eventually recover just like every other time.

I've been sleeping just fine with stocks down 5%, or 10%, or ~19% as they are now.  I will continue to sleep fine and not alter my plans even if it continues dive bombing.  I don't particularly enjoy watching the value of my accounts plummet, but it's not going to alter my behavior and it's balanced out with some relief of knowing I am now buying at a discount.  100% stocks for life.

[Spitfire]

100% U.S. stocks here as well (S&P 500 in 401k, VTSAX in taxable and Roth), age 39.

[Photograph 51]

I started off 100% property (because I needed a place to live in) and have been rebalancing lately to be about 80% property/20% shares and will keep buying shares since they're on discount.

Can I ask, why do people not diversify into investment properties? It's a conservative hedge against the volatility of the market and every house you buy and rent out is another house that a first-home buyer can't get for themselves. There's a bit of safety in bricks and mortar - just a bit.

My goal is to end up 50% shares / 50% property.

Because rental properties seem like a lot of work to maintain, whereas stock are no work.

[maizefolk]

Because rental properties seem like a lot of work to maintain, whereas stock are no work.

+1. Optimizing for time/attention/effort required is very much like optimizing for expense ratios.

Some people seem to enjoy the type of work landlording requires so I can definitely understand why for them it makes sense, particularly since the returns are partially uncorrelated with stock market returns and it is possible to employ relatively low risk leverage to goose their returns.

I don't enjoy that type of work effort and would rather have those hours and attention to devote to other parts of my life that I enjoy (whole reason I pursued FI and am pursuing RE).

[Imma]

In my country rental property investments are taxed in a way that makes them a very interesting investment, but I wouldn't want to bet a significant part of my wealth on a single horse and I'm not really much of a DIY person.

I'm from a working class background and most people I know who FIRE'd before the word was invented got their income from rental property though. They were smalltime landlords with plenty of construction experience.

[G-String]

Early 40s.  Mid-late last year I was around 92% stocks, but I was getting nervous that this bull run was just too much.  So over the course of a few months I transferred approximately 20% of my stocks into bonds.  So just a few weeks ago I was 30% bonds and 70% stocks.  I've been incrementally re-balancing over the past couple weeks during this crash, so I am more like 80/20 now, but will keep buying down to 100% stocks if I feel the prices are right. 

[Buffaloski Boris]

Gen X or boomer I guess.

100% equities? Oh heck No! I’ve thought equities, at least in the US, have been overpriced for awhile.

I suppose I was about 35% a couple weeks ago, and the bulk of that international. Thanks to the market that’s probably closer to 30% now. Too bad it was that high. Oh well. That’ll learn me.

Needless to say I’m looking at the recent market moves kind of like a hungry dog let loose in a butcher shop. Some international stuff is looking downright delicious! Probably even more so in coming weeks.

[Alternatepriorities]

I suppose I was about 35% a couple weeks ago, and the bulk of that international. Thanks to the market that’s probably closer to 30% now. Too bad it was that high. Oh well. That’ll learn me.

Needless to say I’m looking at the recent market moves kind of like a hungry dog let loose in a butcher shop. Some international stuff is looking downright delicious! Probably even more so in coming weeks.

Can I ask what your other assets are and why?

[ketchup]

100% equities, especially now.  No half-measures.

[frugalnacho]

100% equities, especially now.  No half-measures.

[DeniseNJ]

I'm all in.  47 years old, dh is 52, or 53, I forget.  Vangaurd total stock all the way and scrounging up as much as I can to buy more!

[Buffaloski Boris]

I suppose I was about 35% a couple weeks ago, and the bulk of that international. Thanks to the market that’s probably closer to 30% now. Too bad it was that high. Oh well. That’ll learn me.

Needless to say I’m looking at the recent market moves kind of like a hungry dog let loose in a butcher shop. Some international stuff is looking downright delicious! Probably even more so in coming weeks.

Can I ask what your other assets are and why?

Sure thing. For the most part cash. Or more accurately short term treasuries and the like. Much as I’ve not been a fan of equities of late, I‘ve liked long term bonds even less. For the past several months I’ve been increasing my equities exposure gradually. Mostly international.

Why: with CAPE and PE rates as high as they’ve been, the volatility and risk for owning equities just hasn’t merited the return. A quick rule of thumb in gauging future expected returns is to divide 1 by the CAPE rate for the market as a whole. When that CAPE is at 30, as it has been for the SP 500, your expected return is 3.33%. That’s not enough for me. I’d rather have the flexibility of cash, albeit at a lousy rate of return than 3 to 4% or thereabouts for risk-on assets.

[Alternatepriorities]

I suppose I was about 35% a couple weeks ago, and the bulk of that international. Thanks to the market that’s probably closer to 30% now. Too bad it was that high. Oh well. That’ll learn me.

Needless to say I’m looking at the recent market moves kind of like a hungry dog let loose in a butcher shop. Some international stuff is looking downright delicious! Probably even more so in coming weeks.

Can I ask what your other assets are and why?

Sure thing. For the most part cash. Or more accurately short term treasuries and the like. Much as I’ve not been a fan of equities of late, I‘ve liked long term bonds even less. For the past several months I’ve been increasing my equities exposure gradually. Mostly international.

Why: with CAPE and PE rates as high as they’ve been, the volatility and risk for owning equities just hasn’t merited the return. A quick rule of thumb in gauging future expected returns is to divide 1 by the CAPE rate for the market as a whole. When that CAPE is at 30, as it has been for the SP 500, your expected return is 3.33%. That’s not enough for me. I’d rather have the flexibility of cash, albeit at a lousy rate of return than 3 to 4% or thereabouts for risk-on assets.

Thank you!

[vand]

You poor sods.

A 20% discount from record valuations does not a bargain make. Stocks are merely horribly overpriced now instead to hideously overpriced.

The time to be 100% stocks is when you see generational lows after stocks lose at least half their value, not just when the market falls back to where it was last summer.

[bacchi]

You poor sods.

A 20% discount from record valuations does not a bargain make. Stocks are merely horribly overpriced now instead to hideously overpriced.

The time to be 100% stocks is when you see generational lows after stocks lose at least half their value, not just when the market falls back to where it was last summer.

Start a "Bottom is in" thread. You can display your market timing skills there.

[Buffaloski Boris]

You poor sods.

A 20% discount from record valuations does not a bargain make. Stocks are merely horribly overpriced now instead to hideously overpriced.

The time to be 100% stocks is when you see generational lows after stocks lose at least half their value, not just when the market falls back to where it was last summer.

At a 27.9 CAPE, 10-20% off is still too pricey. At a CAPE of 14.4, 10-20% off isn’t looking too shabby.

https://www.starcapital.de/en/research/stock-market-valuation/

[Telecaster]

I'm a Millennial.

This market volatility is expected. It wasn't a matter of if but when it would happen. With that background, yes, 100% stocks. To be honest, I check my portfolio maybe 3 times a year, and just auto-dump cash into it every month. I don't watch the daily news, so my only clue that there was even a drop is from co-workers' remarks and forums.

I don't speak for all millennials, but a 100% stocks strategy is long term investment. It could be down for the next 10 years. Doesn't really matter, that was understood before I got into the game.  One of my very favorite parts of this investment strategy is that I don't need to know or care about daily, weekly, or even yearly swings. So I will continue doing what I have been since the beginning of this plan: nothing! No "buying extra stocks on sale" because that's timing the market too. Just monthly contributions until I retire (ideally early).

If I were to time the market... this is the time to be in 100% stocks anyway. Market correction during my prime earning years? Yes please (assuming I don't get laid off).

You are going to retire rich. 

[DadJokes]

You poor sods.

A 20% discount from record valuations does not a bargain make. Stocks are merely horribly overpriced now instead to hideously overpriced.

The time to be 100% stocks is when you see generational lows after stocks lose at least half their value, not just when the market falls back to where it was last summer.

Unless the S&P will never reach its recent high of 3,393 again, anything below that is a sale for the long-term investor.