If a specific retirement age isn't a set goal, you can probably stay 100% in equities with the understanding that your volatility dampner is more work, but that option may disappear with a big recession.
Quote from: Abe on January 31, 2016, 01:56:53 PMIf a specific retirement age isn't a set goal, you can probably stay 100% in equities with the understanding that your volatility dampner is more work, but that option may disappear with a big recession. Yes, this. If you're planning to ER at 35, and 2009 repeats, than you suck it up and retire at 37 instead. You can even go to PT work if working full time for another year or two is too disturbing to think about.That's the beauty of ER. We can be flexible.
Quote from: bacchi on February 13, 2016, 01:38:22 PMQuote from: Abe on January 31, 2016, 01:56:53 PMIf a specific retirement age isn't a set goal, you can probably stay 100% in equities with the understanding that your volatility dampner is more work, but that option may disappear with a big recession. Yes, this. If you're planning to ER at 35, and 2009 repeats, than you suck it up and retire at 37 instead. You can even go to PT work if working full time for another year or two is too disturbing to think about.That's the beauty of ER. We can be flexible.You have to be very flexible though. That 2 years could turn into 5 or 10 years, depending on how long it takes your portfolio to bounce back.
Interesting WSJ article on stocks vs. bonds performance so far this century. In short, bonds have outperformed thus far. But Prof Siegel who has argued that stocks are actually less risky than bonds responds:“As you said, the starting point is very important. In 2000, the U.S. stock market was the most overvalued in its entire history, with the S&P 500 selling for 30 times earnings, almost twice the valuation today. We have also had a record decline in interest rates, so long-term governments have done well. Do you think bonds are going to do well over the next 10 years? Are U.S. interest rates going to minus 1% or lower? And if so, wouldn’t holding stocks with a positive 2.3% dividend yield and a long history of increasing dividends more than inflation make infinitely more sense?”I agree with him; I'm about 85% equities at the moment and moving up to 90.http://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-for-the-long-run-not-so-far-this-century-1455282180?mod=WSJ_article_EditorsPicks_0