Recently I read Jonathan Clements’ piece Enough Already. The basic idea was to encourage older investors who have made gains in the risk assets, typically stocks, though it would apply to high yield bonds and other non-guaranteed investments that are highly correlated with stocks. His pithy way of phrasing it is:
If I have already won the game, why would I keep playing?
His inspiration for the piece stems from a another piece by William Bernstein [at the WSJ] How to Tell if Your Retirement Nest Egg Is Big Enough. He asked a question like this (these are my words) back in early 2015, “Why keep taking risk if your performance has been good enough to let you reduce risk and live on the assets, rather than run the possibility of a fall in the market spoiling your ability to retire comfortably?”
Should you invest in cryptocurrencies? As with all investments, it depends on many factors. At the Morningstar Investment Conference on Thursday, Matthew Hougan of Bitwise, Tyrone Ross, Jr. of Onramp Invest and Annemarie Tierney of Liquid Advisors joined Morningstar's Ben Johnson to talk about portfolio allocations to cryptocurrencies. Q2 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and Read More
Decent question. If you are young enough, your time horizon is long enough that you can ignore it. But if you are older, you might want to consider it.
Here’s the problem, though. What do you reinvest in? My article How to Invest Carefully for Mom took up some of the problem — if I were reducing exposure to stocks, I would invest in high quality short and long bonds, probably weighted 50/50 to 70/30 in that range. Examples of tickers that I might consider be MINT and TLT. Trouble is, you only get a yield of 2% on the mix. The short bonds help if there is inflation, the long bonds help if there is deflation. Both remove the risk of the stock market.
I’m also happier in running with my mix of international stocks and quality US value investments versus holding the S&P 500, because foreign and value have underperformed for so long, almost feels like 1999, minus the crazed atmosphere.
Now, Clements at the end of the exercise doesn’t want to make any big changes. He still wants to play on at the ripe old age of 54. He is concerned that his nest egg isn’t big enough. Also, he thinks stocks will return 5-6%/year over the long haul (undefined), versus my model that says 2-6%/year over the next ten years.
What would I say? I would say “do half.” Whatever the amount you would cut from stocks to move to bonds if you were certain of it, do half of it. If disaster strikes, you will pat yourself on the back for doing something. If the market rallies further, you will be glad you didn’t do the whole thing.
What’s that, you say? What am I doing? At age 56, I am playing on, but 10-12% higher in the S&P 500, and I will hedge. At levels like that future market outcomes are poor under almost every historical scenario, and even if the market doesn’t seem nuts in terms of qualitative signals, the amount you leave on the table is piddly over a 10-year horizon. If I see more genuine nuttiness beyond certain logic-free zones in the market, I could act sooner, but for now, like Jonathan, I play on.
Full disclosure: long MINT and TLT for me and my fixed income clients
Article by David J. Merkel, CFA, FSA - The Aleph Blog