4 ms·
That is an overly conservative approach that sacrifices a lot of growth for not much more safety. It also exposes you to inflation risk, which is a significant
by jandrewrogers 3mo ago
That is an overly conservative approach that sacrifices a lot of growth for not much more safety. It also exposes you to inflation risk, which is a significant concern these days.
Most people in actual retirement I know do something like keep ~2 years of cash in short-term treasuries and everything else in equities. That gives you a lot of buffer to time-shift equity drawdown, which is the main risk with equities, while retaining almost all of the benefit of equities. Simple and relatively robust.
- anthonypasq 3mo agoi dont think you want to ever be in a position where you arent making money and your net worth could drop 50% in a year. but hey, if you want the risk go for it i guess.
- jandrewrogers 3mo agoIt literally doesn't matter if drops 50% in a year. That is a paper loss and you have years worth of cash you can spend while waiting for it to recover. If you panic-sell at the bottom of that market then that's on you. It isn't necessary in order to pay the bills. What you propose takes on a huge amount of inflation risk. How are you hedging that risk? A guaranteed yield doesn't mean you aren't getting poorer. Obsessing over one type of risk and ignoring another isn't rational. Reducing variance of net worth has a very high cost. Over-indexing on that singular property, particularly when most people can afford some variability, is a recipe for relative impoverishment.
- anthonypasq 3mo ago> That is a paper loss and you have years worth of cash you can spend while waiting for it to recover. not if you're 80 dude...
- reverius42 3mo agoRetiring at 80 requires very different financial planning than retiring at 65.