Anyone 100% in stocks?

[DarkandStormy]

From reading the replies here, it seems most of the posters are more heavily weighted in stocks and bonds/bond funds don't seem to be endorsed.

At my age (pushing 50) should I stay at 75% stocks or go closer to 100% stocks in my IRA?  I likely won't retire at 65.

https://www.thebalance.com/rolling-index-returns-1973-mid-2009-4061795

If you are talking 20 years, in the past an all stock allocation would have provided you your best ROI as well as your best "worst case" option as well.

Bonds – Over 10-year rolling periods bonds ranged from roughly negative 5% to positive 10% real return, with a 73-year average of positive 2%. Over 30-year rolling periods, bonds averaged a 1.4% real yield, with what looks like a low of less than negative 2% and a high of about 5%.

Stocks – Over 10-year rolling periods, stocks averaged 7.4% real returns, with a range of about negative 5% to positive 20%. Over 30-year rolling periods, stocks also averaged 7.4% real returns, with a range of about positive 5% to positive 12%.

[Interest Compound]

I'm 100% stocks for the long haul, even in retirement.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/revisiting-the-asset-allocation-question-the-case-for-100-stocks/150/

[economist]

I am 26 and at least 5-10 years from FIRE. I am 100% in stocks, with all my investments in tax advantaged accounts, except for the equity in the house I just bought.

I suspect there will be at least one major correction or bear market before I FIRE (not predicting a crash, just saying it's a 5-10 year period so *something* is likely to happen). My plan is to see how I react to emotionally to seeing red in my accounts. If I just ignore them for a while and don't feel any stress over it, I will probably stay 100% stocks. If I can't stop checking the market and feel a lot of stress, I may decide to move to 10-25% bonds over a few years leading up to FIRE.

[Villanelle]

I would be (or would be moving in that direction) if DH was on board.  Much of our FIRE plan revolves around an inflation-adjusted pension, which in my mind takes the place of bonds.  Husband is a bit more conservative, so we'll probably always keep about 10%

[GenXbiker]

https://www.thebalance.com/rolling-index-returns-1973-mid-2009-4061795

If you are talking 20 years, in the past an all stock allocation would have provided you your best ROI as well as your best "worst case" option as well.

Bonds – Over 10-year rolling periods bonds ranged from roughly negative 5% to positive 10% real return, with a 73-year average of positive 2%. Over 30-year rolling periods, bonds averaged a 1.4% real yield, with what looks like a low of less than negative 2% and a high of about 5%.

Stocks – Over 10-year rolling periods, stocks averaged 7.4% real returns, with a range of about negative 5% to positive 20%. Over 30-year rolling periods, stocks also averaged 7.4% real returns, with a range of about positive 5% to positive 12%.

The webpage linked to and that comparison looks like bonds vs. stocks investing which doesn't include any rebalancing.  But what about a stock/bond mix with regular rebalancing?  A mixed investment with rebalancing can provide a better "worst case" outcome.

[GuitarStv]

My investments are 60-40 stocks-bonds, rebalanced twice a year.  We're also sitting on a paid off home worth about as much as we've got invested.  Not as risk tolerant as many of the people here.

[kendallf]

Jeremy at Go Curry Cracker posted an interesting analysis and justification for 100% stock allocation.  The big difference between the 60-100% stock allocations is volatility and terminal value.  If you're confident in your ability to stay invested, and have a reasonable success rate probability, higher stock allocations result in much higher median terminal values, based on cFiresim's analyses of years past.

http://www.gocurrycracker.com/path-100-equities/

[Cache_Stash]

What he said.

:)

[boarder42]

My investments are 60-40 stocks-bonds, rebalanced twice a year.  We're also sitting on a paid off home worth about as much as we've got invested.  Not as risk tolerant as many of the people here.

This is just money intolerance. The risk you speak of fucks you the same way it fucks the person heavily invested in stocks. Total failure of capitalism is all that kills both and time value of money erodes your asset allocation faster than 90+ stocks with a mortgage

[TheAnonOne]

27 here,

Basically, 100% VTSAX with $315,000.

Building up an international portion soon though. I will just buy INT funds until I get 10-20 % international.

[bigchrisb]

35 and about to trial FIRE here.  I own my own home, but my investments are 100% stocks (well, stocks, REITS and commercial property).

Depending on how you count it, I'm possibly over 100% stocks ($2.3m stocks, 1.05m house, $500k debt).   

My spouse is still working (separate finances) for at least the next 4 years (we are committed to an overseas deployment for her).  I'm OK carrying 100% stocks and little leverage while there is still an income in the family.  I would want to see the debt gone before we go down to no employment income. 

[DavidAnnArbor]

35 and about to trial FIRE here.  I own my own home, but my investments are 100% stocks (well, stocks, REITS and commercial property).

Depending on how you count it, I'm possibly over 100% stocks ($2.3m stocks, 1.05m house, $500k debt).   

My spouse is still working (separate finances) for at least the next 4 years (we are committed to an overseas deployment for her).  I'm OK carrying 100% stocks and little leverage while there is still an income in the family.  I would want to see the debt gone before we go down to no employment income.

I would say that at 2.3 million in stocks you are definitely a candidate to retire yesterday.

[spud1987]

This is essentially my portfolio:

http://www.marketwatch.com/lazyportfolio/portfolio/yale-u-portfolio

Only instead of TIPS I invest in a 50/50 split of Vanguard's Total Bond Fund and Long term Bond Fund. Also my int'l equities are split 50/50 between developed/emerging.

You can see that I've performed worse than the S&P500 over 10 years, but I'm about 1 year from FIRE so capital preservation is important to me in these first years of FIRE. Once my portfolio grows to a comfortable size (around 2.5% withdrawal rate), I will consider gliding into more equities (per a Kitces article).