War games - 2% vs 4% today

Research on Safe Withdrawal Rates

Moderator: hocus2004

Mike
*** Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:00 am

Post by Mike »

Ma Bell, a local bank, local utility stock
That was before deregulation. When Ma Bell and local utilities were regulated monopolies, a stable profit was virtually guaranteed by their regulators. Now some of them make a lot of money, and others lose money. They are no longer an automatic safe bet for widows and orphans.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

A retiree's comfort level is important. Factors such as part time work may cross the gap between a solution that is only written on paper and a person's course of action.

It's not just one's comfort with one's investments that is at issue. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the very idea of early retirement when it is defined to mean "no work whatsoever." That is why we are always hearing that question--Well, what do you do all day then?

People work. Until they are not able to work anymore. That's the way it has always been. The way in which I define early retirement seems to strike some people at these boards as a little odd. In the outside world, which is a much bigger world, I think that it is the idea of hanging it up at age 40 and then never earning another penny for the rest of your life that is considered an exceedingly odd notion.

I don't have a problem with the idea of people hanging it up at age 40 and then never earning another penny. It's one way to go. But I object to the idea that this is the only way to go. The complaint I get is "Well, that's not the conventional way to think about retirement." That just makes me laugh. Since when was convention the guiding light of these boards? If it is sticking with convention that is our goal, we should all be making plans to stay at the corporate job until we turn 65. Who are we kidding?

We do things different at these boards. That's the whole kick. We save different, and that is why we save more effectively. Well, we need to invest differently too. That doesn't mean that we should throw out everything we learned about investing from other sources, any more than we should throw out everything we learned about saving from other sourses. It means that we need to overcome any fears that we have about blazing new trails if new trails appear to be needed.

The old definition of "retirement" is broken. It just doesn't work anymore, it doesn't make sense in today's world. So we need to ditch it. The real goal is financial freedom, spending your days doing what you want to do with them rather than what you must do to earn money. Some want to spend their days doing things that happen to bring in some cash and some do not. Those who long to spend their days doing things that happen to bring in a little cash are lucky because they can afford to "retire" a little sooner. Some are lucky in stocks, some are lucky in real estate, some are lucky as to the TIPS rates they are able to tap into, some are lucky in wanting to work post-retirement. As UncleMick said in a thread over on the Early Retirement Forum, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

We should all want to know about as many ways as we possibly can because one of the ways that doesn't seem to apply to our personal circumstances today might come in pretty darn handy a few years down the road. Circumstances change. There is really no effective way to plan at age 40 for what is going to happen to you for the remainder of your life. Stay open to new ideas and you might be able to put some tools in your trick bag that you will be able to pull out at just the right moment when some unexpected development conks you over the head at some future date. I might end up living overseas, Ben, and you might end up working part-time at some sort of work you love. Things change, and we need to change with them.

It's one of the big differences between our approach to retirement and the conventional approach. Under the conventional approach, "retirement" meant getting ready to die. Under this new-fangled approach, "retirement" means getting ready to live life to the fullest. Life is change. So this new approach to retirement is a be-prepared-for-change approach to retirement. Old definitions of key terms just don't make sense in this new world we have discovered.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

A lot of people totally miss that fact that Benjamin Franklin was one of the earliest ER's - who did a lot of cool stuff after 'retiring'.
User avatar
ben
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:00 am
Location: The world is not enough

Post by ben »

Good points here! :D
first of all I agree that TIPs main function is to preserve the money - I also think they are a great bench mark to compare other SWR calculations against for the same reason.

I am actually open for part time work should I retire from my current job. Like Hocus it would have to be something I love - financial advise (he,he) or fitness/sports related stuff comes to mind.

Now for unclemick's retiree he can also retire from his current job and start a 80 hour a week CEO job elsewhere he loves... still retired? Not in my terminology. 40 hours? Still not... 20 hours...? nope but maybe the 10 hours being mentioned...maybe not :D .

We are just discussing the meaning of the word "retire" but we all agree that an early retirement certainly does not HAVE to be a couch potato retirement - and that money CAN come from some part time work.
Even Hocus see it as his high risk investment which I think is a good way to look at it - I presume it means that Hocus could then also manage without the income from it (otherwise it should be in TIPs! :D ).
Cheers! Ben
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

we all agree that an early retirement certainly does not HAVE to be a couch potato retirement - and that money CAN come from some part time work.

All of us here agree, Ben. Or, to the extent we do not agree, we at least agree that it is a good idea that we not be disagreeable in our dealings with those with different viewpoints. There is one of "us" posting elsewhere who does NOT go along with this "live and let live" concept, however. You know the name of that one without me needing to spell it out for you.

I don't intend to bring that individual's name up in every coversation we have. There are lots of other important questions that as a community we need to be talking about, and it would be disruptive if I were to insist that the community deal with this one at this time. So I can't do that.

The reality remains, however, that the intercst problem is a big problem. It's not just the discussion of SWRs that is problemmatic. The intercst factor turns up in all sorts of circumstances. There was a guy who put up a post saying something not too different from what you are saying here, and the result was a Smear Campaign against him led by our old buddy with the eight-letter screen-name beginning with the letter "I." That guy doesn't post at the Motley Fool board anymore. That board community is weaker as a result. It was real, real weak before he came along, so it wasn't a board community in much of a position to be smearing newcomers.

You are all free to ignore the points I make re the intercst problem for as long as you want. I am one community members and I only get one vote, so I can't decide when we take action on this matter. But you can't make the problem go away by ignoring it. You make the problem go away by making the problem go away. I didn't cause the intercst problem, and if I were to get hit by a truck today (no funny ideas, intercst!), the problem would still be with us. The Smear Campaign against Wanderer came up before May 13, 2002, and the Smear Campaign against Wanderer was not the first Smear Campaign put forward in that board community. Not by a long shot.

A lot of the people who were smeared at that board were my friends. A lot of them helped me learn important stuff. A lot of them helped make my book a better book than it would otherwise be. I haven't forgotten them. Wanderer hasn't forgotten them either. So he is going to turn. FoolMeOnce hasn't forgotten them. So he is going to turn. PeteyPerson hasn't forgotten them. So he is going to turn. Dory36 hasn't forgotten them. So he is going to turn.

Lots of people are going to turn down the road. When they do, the entire Empire State Building of Deception comes toppling to the ground. You get to decide the timing, that is all. You should be asking yourself whether there really is such an advantage in stretching it out as along as possible. I see no advantage. None whatsoever. The guy is not one of "us." That is what it comes down to. We are about one thing and he is about something else. You cannot change what a person is. He does not fit. He does not belong. He cannot be tolerated. I gave voice to what everyone knew for a long, long time, that is all. That is my only "crime" against this community.

For the rest of us, the question of "What does the word "retire" mean" is something fun to talk about. For one of "us" (not for too much longer, I hope) it is a pretext on which to build a Smear Campaign against a fellow community member. That's a problem. I try to be cautious in the claims that I put forward, but I think I can afford to put that one forward with "100 percent certainty" of not being contradicted by any reaonable person who has been watching events play out for at least a little bit of time.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Even Hocus see it as his high risk investment which I think is a good way to look at it - I presume it means that Hocus could then also manage without the income from it (otherwise it should be in TIPs!

It depends on what you mean by the word "manage." I feel like I am turning into Bill Clinton bit by bit, post by post.

My house is paid for. So I don't need the writing income to provide for shelter. We all have clothing, and if we needed more, clothing can be obtained at yard sales for pretty much the cost of carrying it away. So we are covered on that one. My wife knows how to cook economically and human beings survived on this planet for a long time without making use of restaaurants and fast-food places and convenience foods. So that one is covered too. I suppose that we could stay alive without the writing income. It would not be a lifestyle that I would choose for myself and it's not a lifestyle that my wife would choose for herself. Is that "managing" or is it not? you decide.

If I were saying that I expect to earn $60,000 a year from my freelance writing work, I would agree with the point you are making. That would indeed be a high risk proposition. There is some risk inherent in expecting even $10,000 a year from work, but I don't think it is really a financial risk. If we needed the money to stay alive, I could bring in that $10,000 by flipping burgers. $10,000 is minimum wage. So I think that my financial risk in this thing is low.

The real "risk" is that I will not earn enough at the writing stuff to continue doing it for the rest of my life. I don't want to bring in just $10,000. I want to bring in more than that. If I bring in $30,000, I will keep doing this until my late 60s. If I bring in exactly $10,000 for ten years straight, I don't know. If I can only bring in $10,000 working full time at this, I am inclined to think that I should explore different options (I have a binder where I have research I have done on scores of possibilities).

What I expect is that I am going to earn very little for a few years while I get things off the ground. Then I expect to earn a good bit more than $10,000 per year. I see this as something akin to paying the money it would take to gain rights to drill a bunch of oil wells. There's high risk in expecting any one of them to pay off. But if you buy rights to enough of them, you have a prety good chance of hitting with one and that will more than pay for the cost of obtaining rights to all the others. I am not going to write just one book. I am going to write a second and a third and a fourth. And I am not going to offer just books for sales. I aim to do speeches, and write Research Reports, and put together some audio tapes, and maybe start a newsletter, and do some other stuff like that. My belief is that one of these things will sooner or later make a little bit of money. And that's all I need to have happen for the thing to work.

I gave serious consideration to doing all this before I saved any money. I lost a job in 1991, and I considered becoming a freelance writer at the time. But I spoke to a number of people who did it and they told me to think again. So I came to the conclusion that to do it in a way that would work for me both from an editorial control standpoint and from a financial standpoint, I would need to have to get some capital behind me. I saved enough money so that I didn't need to panic in the event that money didn't start coming in for awhile.

Look at this Great SWR Debate thing. I expect to get a book out of this. I think that some of JWR1945's findings are astounding, important news, and I am going to write them up (along with lots of other stuff that I have researched) into a book and then promote the book.. If I didn't have two years to spend posting junk on discussion boards, I couldn't have pulled that off, could I? If I were just a regular freelance writer, none of this would have happened. I would have given up on the community back in June 2002, and that would have been the end of the story.

The story is not over because I saved enough money in the 90s to be able to pursue something like this to a conclusion that pays off for me (and for the community too, I hope). That's what financial freedom means in a real-world sense, being able to do stuff that people who do not possess financial freedom are simply not able to do. Those who follow the saving strategies advocated at these boards possess a competitive advantage over those who do not.

There's risk in my writing thing. The risk is that I will only earn $10,000, and not a lot more than that. I don't see too much risk in the $10,000 number, however. I see that as pretty much a sure thing. Because if the writing thing does not work, I can get the $10,000 in some other way. What I did was "buy" myself the right to follow my dream of spending the hours of my days enagaged in the writing of non-fiction books. That's always been the point of it all for me. So I obviously have never had any interest in the idea of giving all that up so that I could sit in front of the television set 80 hours per week and thereby win intercst's approval for my plan.

I am getting to do what I want to do with my life. Intercst can go get himself lost in the woods for all that I care about winning his approval. I never asked for his approval, and I don't need his approval to do what I do. I would like to see the rest of the community grow up a bit and realize that it doesn't need the Grand Poobah Intercst's approval either. We are a smart and caring and creative people. We can do just fine without him. I've been watching it all for a long time now, and I know what I am talking about. Trust me on this one.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

I agree that TIPs main function is to preserve the money - I also think they are a great bench mark to compare other SWR calculations against for the same reason.

Yes and no.

There are circumstances in which TIPS are great income-earners all on their own, where you don't own them just to preserve the capital at stake. When I was putting together my plan, I did some research into what sort of real return can be expected from a given amount of capital. The highest reasonable number that I saw was 5 percent. That came from a book called "How to Retire Young."The lowest number that I saw for a risk-free real annual return on capital estimate was from a Congressional Budget Office report. The CBO report put the number at 3 percent. In putting together my plan, I decided that there would be moderate risk in taking the mid-point of those two figures--that's 4 percent (that's not an SWR, but a real return figure). You can count on stocks to provide a higher real return at some valuation levels, but not at all valuation levels and certainly not when you are in the distribution stage rather than the accumulation stage.

So 4 percent is the real return I seek from my investments. TIPS were offering 4.1 percent real not too long ago. So you could have used TIPS for your entire portfolio and obtained a not-bad return on your money with a government guarantee of safety. In those circumstances, I would be looking at TIPS not just as a holding place, but as a permanent capital-allocation investment class. In fact, I intend to keep most of the money that I have in TIPS in TIPS until they expire. (I may move some of the money that is in ibonds, however.)

TIPS can be a permanent investment choice or they can be just a holding place. How you use them depends on the real rate of return being paid, that part I agree with. What I take issue with is the idea that TIPS are just not good enough at today's rates because they now only paying 1.9 percent real or whatever. Whether that is "good enough" or not depends on what the alternative are. If valuation levels had zero effect on long-term returns, as is assumed in the REHP study, then stocks would obviously be a better choice for most of your money. But that is of course a nonsense assumption. There has never been a time in the history of the stock market when that was so. So let's assume you don't want to go with that unfortunately sometimes accepted idea.

If you adjust for valuation, you see that the return on stocks is not nearly so great. Let's use the Bernstein number of 3.5 percent real. That's better than the 1.9 percent real available with TIPS, to be sure. So I see a good case for most investors putting a healthy portion of their assets in stocks even at today's valuation levels. But 74 percent? That I don't see (except in extremely unusual circumstances). If you take the 1.9 percent available from TIPS, you can then move the money into stocks when stocks are likely to provide a real return of 5 percent or 7 percent or whatever. Isn't that a much more appealing value proposition? It is to my eyes.

The point you make about using TIPS for purposes of comparisons I agree with very much. That's what SWR analysis is, in a nutshell. It is a tool by which you take the expected return from stocks and translate it into language that makes it comparable to the expected return from TIPS. You don't need much analysis to figure out the expected return from TIPS. I have always viewed that 2.3 number that intercst uses for "fixed-income" investments as a nonsense gibberish number for just this reason. You don't need to do data runs to figure out your return on TIPS. You just look it up in the darn newspaper, for heaven's sake. So that 2.3 percent figure is pure silliness.

You need SWR analysis to get a number from stocks comparable to the number you have for TIPS because stocks are so darn volatile. Without an analysis of the historical data, you just have no place to start. You should expect the average real return to generally be higher because there is so much more risk from stocks. If the average real return from stocks dips lower than the average real return from TIPS (as it did at the top of ther bubble) then stocks just don't make much sense anymore. In those circumstances, you are not getting paid to take on risk, you are getting penalized for it! Smart? I say no.

Anyway, this is all about comparisons, in my view. That's the entire point of the project. You have x amount of capitla, and you need a place to put it, and you need to do effective comparisons to be able to make an informed decision. It doesn't work if you start with nonsense assumptions, like the one where for the first time in history changes in valuation levels will have zero effect on the result. When you do that, you are engaged in rationalization, not analysis of data. The REHP study tells stock investors what they would like the SWR for stocks to be, not what it actually is according to the data. That is why I do not view the REHP study as a data-based approach. The whole point of the data-based approach is to leave the spin out, and just report striaght what the historical data actually says re SWRs.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Fourth way - rental property. Early in ER still had the duplex(included in our 1992 net worth of 300k). Positive cash flow. Anyone posting here - enjoy being a landlord? - is this part time? - fun hobby?

Stocks/fixed income are easier to pontificate on and spreadsheet - BUT?

I actually know a few 'landlords' - both residental and commercial.

That fact that (location,location,location) does not lend itself to easy analysis - does not/or does it - mean for a 500k cat - a high high or low success chance for a successful retirement/or just FI?

Anyone got any numbers?
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

BTY - ballpark 40% of taxable income 1993 vs 2003 - dividends roughly 40% of taxable income. Dividends don't have stopped toilets or A/C failures - sometimes they get cut - but I know which problems I'd rather live with. Heh,heh.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

This begins to address using TIPS as placeholders for future stock purchases by looking at a stock selection alternative.

I have looked at the health care sector as a high yielding alternative to TIPS. Here is what I have found:

MRK has a 4.92% dividend yield and a single year P/E of 11.31.
JNJ has a 1.82% dividend yield and a single year P/E of 20.56.
BMY has a 4.58% dividend yield and a single year P/E of 17.58.
PFE has a 3.01% dividend yield and a single year P/E of 26.25.
AMGN offers no dividends and it has a single year P/E of 37.76.

MRK, BMY and PFE prices are all substantially below their peaks within the past 5 years. JNJ is close to its peak. AMGN is selling at 80% of its peak.

My own tendency would be to select MRK and BMY because both of their single year P/Es are below 20. This makes them reasonably priced when prices are at normal valuations. I might include JNJ as well.

I would reject PFE because of its P/E.

I would reject AMGN because of its high P/E and because it offers no dividends.

I found all five of these companies listed by Hulbert as being recommended by the most newsletters (in the December 2004 issue of the Hulbert Financial Digest). The number of newsletters recommending purchase of MRK was 7. For JNJ, 13. For BMY, 8. For PFE, 21. For AMGN, 10.

Both JNJ and PFE were listed as least favored (i.e., shorted or downgraded) by 3 newsletters.

Both JNJ and PFE were favored among the one-year market beaters. [This is an indicator of momentum. Hulbert has shown (to his surprise) that such stocks outperform the market for about one and a half years.]

PFE's popularity is based on its strong pipeline of new drugs.

In light of what the newsletter writers have to say, I would consider PFE. Its single year P/E is likely to fall.

Although my preference would be to stick with MRK and BMY because of their high dividend yields, others may be more comfortable with an index-like approach. If one were to buy equal dollar amounts of MRK, JNJ, BMY and PFE, his net dividend yield would be 3.58%.

This is favorable enough when compared to the 1.9% currently available with TIPS for one to allocate some of his money into these stocks. But one must be very careful. He cannot count on being able to redeploy his money without incurring capital losses. To the extent that he expects to buy other stocks when overall market valuations fall, he should keep those funds in TIPS.

Have fun.

John R.
Mike
*** Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:00 am

Post by Mike »

[This is an indicator of momentum. Hulbert has shown (to his surprise) that such stocks outperform the market for about one and a half years.]
Do you favor momentum with individual stocks or more diversified mutual funds?
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Mike wrote:Do you favor momentum with individual stocks or more diversified mutual funds?
Stocks. I have no idea of how to handle momentum and diversified mutual funds. I do know that, if I am depending upon a mutual fund to do my trading, it will be horribly expensive.

Have fun.

John R.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

I do not invest with the idea of taking advantage of momentum.

OTOH, I have learned to recognize when momentum is at work. I have learned to take my money off the table when momentum is getting out of hand.

Have fun.

John R.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Two thoughts (which I don't always follow - emotion being what it is).

For current background - read Bernstein's Winter 2005 Efficient Frontier - Jason Zwieg's discussion of Ben Graham.

ala 'Mr Market' - 1. by holding balanced index - I'm buying when the momentum takes the market down and selling into a rising market - to hold a fixed stock/bond ratio.

2. Much harder - in individual stocks - if the dividend is satisfactory(based on initial purchase and subsequent growth), Mr Market's high or low price is irrelavent - my holding period is forever as long as I own part of a good business.

Now - talks cheap. For example my Con Ed not too long ago fell 62% - so I found some spare cash and bought more. Now - if I was the 500k cat and I woke up one day with 190k - would I jump for joy now that my dividends were being reinvested at much better valuations - or would I mope. Ben Graham makes sense - but emotion control is tough.

Chickenheartedness keeps me 75% in balanced index - EVEN THOUGH a dividend strategy looks more attractive at todays valuations.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Here is a second group of holdings that may be considered because of their high dividend yields even in today's markets. This shows that individuals who wish to allocate a small portion of their portfolios to stocks can do so as part of a dividend-based strategy.

I have looked at electric utilities as a second high yielding stock group for purchasing today. First, I selected FPL and DTE because they are both in the top ten holdings of ishares DVY. Then, with great difficulty, I found the symbols for Consolidated Edison and The Southern Company.

unclemick has mentioned Consolidated Edison frequently and favorably. The Southern Company supplies my local power through a subsidiary.

Here is what I found:

FPL has a 3.71% dividend yield and a single year P/E of 15.04.
DTE has a 4.76% dividend yield and a single year P/E of 13.35.
ED has a 5.20% dividend yield and a single year P/E of 19.13.
SO has a 4.34% dividend yield and a single year P/E of 17.25.

All are near their highs within the past 5 years.

Although these single year P/E ratios are low compared with today's overall market, they are not low when compared to utility holdings typical of previous markets.

The Consolidated Edison payout ratio is almost equal to 100%. This would call for further review. The cause might be a temporary situation that will disappear in the near future.

I found none of these companies as being widely recommended or avoided by newsletter writers according to the December 2004 issue of the Hulbert Financial Digest.

My personal preference would be the DVY holdings of FPL and DTE because they have the lowest price to earnings ratios. If one were to buy equal dollar amount of FPL and DTE, his net dividend yield would be 4.24%.

If one were to buy equal dollar amounts of FPL, DTE, ED and SO, his net dividend yield would be 4.50%.

These results are favorable enough when compared to today's TIPS for one to allocate some of his money into these stocks. Once again, one must be very careful. He cannot count on being able to redeploy his money without incurring capital losses. He still needs to keep some of his funds in TIPS.

To put this in perspective:
1) if one were to receive a dividend amount equal to 4.0% of his initial investment and
2) if it were to increase it each year to match inflation and
3) if inflation were 3% for each of the next few years,
then
4) it would take 3.98 years for his dividend amount to grow to 4.50% of his initial investment (in nominal dollars).

Purchasing these four utility stocks, an index-like selection, would provide more money than 4.0% plus inflation for the first four years even if none of the dividend amounts were increased.

Have fun.

John R.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

For the widows and orphans out there - picked up in bits and pieces over 15 yrs - no particalur size and never rebalanced:

utilities: Dominion Resources, Empire District Electric, Consolidated Edison, Exelon, National Fuel Gas, Keyspan Energy.

oils: Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco

Telephone: Verizon, SBC

Food: J. M. Smucker

Drug: Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline

Banks: J. P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Suntrust Bank

REIT: New Plan Exel, Washington REIT

Also: Union Pacific, Dow Chemical, and AETNA as gambling picks.

Many were bought under different names and subsequently merged and more than one fallen off Mergent's List of dividend achievers.

At todays market - the list of course would be different. And I have more than a few low number of shares in DRIPs not listed waiting for a good price.
User avatar
ben
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:00 am
Location: The world is not enough

Post by ben »

Or maybe a simpler solution:
25% DVY, 25% REITs and then 50% TIPs? At todays yelds the DVY/REITs should be close to the 4%(real if increase with inflation as I believe would be a fair guess?) and the TIPS is about 2%(real) for a total 3%(real) per year.
DVY is a bit heavy in financials so maybe a utilities ETF might be used to balance that out but not a must if it was me.
Cheers, Ben
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Much earlier by hocus2004:
I would note that, even if a pure numbers analysis suggests going with very little in stocks at today's valuation levels, I view it as a not-bad idea for a $1.5 million portfolio investor to go with 30 percent stocks on the thinking that,

prices could go up in the short-term
and
the investor is more likely to stick with a Using TIPS to Wait It Out Until Stock Prices Return to Moderate Valuation Levels Strategy if he gets to participate in any temporary price run-ups.

I would suggest that a portion of the 30 percent in stocks be put in high-dividend stocks and the other portion in an index fund. I would be open to a number of reasonable alternatives...

I would recommend that this investor up his or her stock allocation gradually as valuations declined, with the goal of getting to a 50 percent stock allocation when PE10 is at an historical mid-point level and to a 70 percent allocation when PE10 is at an extreme low-point level. An exception would apply if the investor simply did not feel comfortable with high stock allocations in any circumstance....

I would suggest a lower stock allocation for the $500,000 portfolio investor on the thinking that this investor is not in a position to sustain large losses even on 30 percent of his portfolio. I would suggest a 15 percent stock allocation for this investor, but if the investor was personally inclined to go with something a bit higher or lower than that, I would not feel too much concern over a decision to use a somewhat higher or somewhat lower percentage.
IMHO, we have produced sufficient evidence to support stock allocations of 15% to 30% even at today's valuations.

This does not necessarily mean that such allocations are best. It does mean that such allocations can be reasonable when applied with care.

Have fun.

John R.
Mike
*** Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:00 am

Post by Mike »

I have no idea of how to handle momentum and diversified mutual funds.
Thanks John.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Ben

Does DVY have an overseas equivalent or something that might do a similar job?
Post Reply