401k in safe funds...time to move????

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
There is a lot I don't like about Warren Buffet. His politics, mostly. With that said, though, he is astute with an incredible track record.

Buffet, in his 80'S, holds 90% in an S&P index fund, and holds 10% cash. Wrap your mind around that. "In his 80's"...


Isn't Buffet worth Billions (billions with a capital B), thus 10% of his value in cash would be... way more than needed to sustain him in his last few years?

No offense intended towards the man. Once one has enough put into bonds & stuff that is safe and secure to live on for the rest of their lives--might as well let the rest run high risk, and reap the rewards.


He repeats over and over "cash is a terrible asset" to invest in.

 

[wtd]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
yeah, it's TSP. I'm 52 looking at retirement less than 10 years. We can only change our funds twice a month. Basically, you can dump into the S&P 500, Dow completion total stock market index, morgan Stanley capital international EAFE index, Barclays capital US aggregate bond index or nonmarketable US treasure securities that will not lose money....last year it was at 2.04%.

I'm also in the TSP as I have a Federal Law Enforcement job. I can retire this September at age 49 with 25 years of service and have to retire at age 57.

I rode out 2007-2008 still mostly in the stock market and while my balance dropped like a rock, it shot up like a rocket when it recovered.

I'm mostly in the L2030 fund now with a small amount just in C to play with. I'm still invested a little more risky than I probably should but I lost 65% of my TSP in 2004 to a divorce so I'm trying to invest a little more in stocks than I originally was going to at this point in my career.

I will probably stay until I'm 57 to hopefully grow my pension and TSP some more.

Wayne

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: JerryBob
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit

When you are planning for your future, there should never be a "set it and forget it" option-that's simply foolish. Your investments are something that need to be managed on an ongoing basis, and when a buying opportunity arises (such as 2008-2010) then you should be prepared to invest heavily to take advantage of the market when it returns. The smart investors took advantage of investments when they were on sale at huge discounts, now those investors are reaping the rewards.


The problem with this "managed" approach is that you're engaging in market-timing. Bogleheads will tell you that timing the market is impossible, and a fool's game. You only know in hindsight that 2008-2010 was a buying opportunity. Did you know it then? If you did, you're the only one in the world.



Nonsense. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature saw the housing bubble ready to burst. Not only did I see it, but the investment firm that handles most of my assets saw it, and in 2007 started shifting funds into safer investments. Then in 2009-2010 we started buying when the market was at its lowest. It's not market timing, it's common sense.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: JerryBob
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit

When you are planning for your future, there should never be a "set it and forget it" option-that's simply foolish. Your investments are something that need to be managed on an ongoing basis, and when a buying opportunity arises (such as 2008-2010) then you should be prepared to invest heavily to take advantage of the market when it returns. The smart investors took advantage of investments when they were on sale at huge discounts, now those investors are reaping the rewards.


The problem with this "managed" approach is that you're engaging in market-timing. Bogleheads will tell you that timing the market is impossible, and a fool's game. You only know in hindsight that 2008-2010 was a buying opportunity. Did you know it then? If you did, you're the only one in the world.



Nonsense. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature saw the housing bubble ready to burst. Not only did I see it, but the investment firm that handles most of my assets saw it, and in 2007 started shifting funds into safer investments. Then in 2009-2010 we started buying when the market was at its lowest. It's not market timing, it's common sense.


+1

There's a difference between "chasing highs", "catching a falling knife" and the rest of the fun little sayings, and smartly biasing your actions to the basic economic sentiment at the time.

If you believe that the market will continually increase over time, then a major pullback like 2008 was obviously a buying opportunity.

There IS a difference between timing the market and smartly planning and biasing moves and purchases based upon what is going on.

 

[surfstar]

B S

No one knows when or by how much the market will go up or down. If they did, they would be filthy rich and not have to 'manage' your money, or sell you books/newsletters to make money.

Pop, if that's what happened, thank your lucky stars that they got it right for once. It does happen sometimes, but no one can do it consistently, and that's the crux. "Past performance..."

In hindsight, "everyone" saw the bubble. It was sooo obvious, right? Same with the tech bubble, too, right? I mean how did you guys not see it? It was sooo obvious.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

+2

Sometimes the advice on here comes close to constituting the notion that anything but index investing is market timing. I like Jack Bogle but I don't look at him as the ultimate guru who's the grand arbiter of everyone's financial situation.

If someone was to say that indexing provides that you never earn less than the market, and another says that it also provides that you'll never make more than the market, I don't think there's a definitive answer within that for everyone's circumstance...independent of lower expense ratios, time horizons, or if it's a stock picker's or index-friendly market.

Strategic moves and/or rebalancing are not usually what can be considered market timing. I would consider market timing to be people who left the market totally in 2008 and got back into it in 2011, and thus losing a lot of their potential gains versus someone reacting to a rotation in the market...whether that be dropping their percentage in health care or changing their fixed income components, etc.

 

[Mr Nice]

surfstar,

I watch Nightly Business Report and there are so called 'wealth managers' that are asked to pick 3 stocks, then 3 months later they are back on the show to discuss their picks. A good 70% of the time they had lost money with the dogs they recommended. When asked if they still like what they recommended, they always say YES.

Sometimes you can do good if something gets beat up like energy, buy a little VDE.... not a lot, just some spare cash you have collecting dust.


Vuflanovsky,

30 years at the some company, I rebalanced out of company stock into something else.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

What's the golden rule percentage these days?? No more than 20% of the portfolio in company stock?? I'm sure it depends on the circumstance but that sounds about right to me.

In my opinion, NBR was a better show with Paul Kangas and Susie Gharib versus these CNBC droids they have on there now. It seems to me the guests were also a bit better...now they just have the typical CNBC cattle call or 'Point A meet Point B'...now argue.

There was a study done about Louis Rukeyser's old Wall Street Week show where they inputted all the suggestions over a 20 or 30 year period and the end result had these suggestions compared against the equivalent of a random number generator doing the picks...and collectively having a higher return than the show's suggested stocks/funds. I wouldn't equate appearing on that show or NBR with active management though.

You rarely see Will Danoff or David Giroux or other notably good fund managers on that show. If you believe there is a verifiable subset of active managers ( say in the 10% range ) who are consistently better stock pickers and decision makers than others, you can feel safe that they probably won't be appearing with Tyler Matheson and Sue Herrera very often.

 

[Gasbuggy]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
B S

No one knows when or by how much the market will go up or down. If they did, they would be filthy rich and not have to 'manage' your money, or sell you books/newsletters to make money.

Pop, if that's what happened, thank your lucky stars that they got it right for once. It does happen sometimes, but no one can do it consistently, and that's the crux. "Past performance..."



I know one person that did/does. Was important on Wall Street in the 80's/90's. He jumped out of tech right before the bubble burst. Dodged the housing market collapse and bought in heavy toward the bottom. He cleared out all his positions (with two exceptions) when the Dow was around 18200 in 2015. Most of which were big pharmas, that have all fallen 50% or more since. Now he is mostly in cash and his sentiment is fairly negative.

He retired in his 40's 20 years ago and has virtually no connections to make him privy to helpful knowledge. He reads, reads, and reads some more. He has a talent for picking up on useful information and indicators.

 

[JerryBob]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: JerryBob
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit

When you are planning for your future, there should never be a "set it and forget it" option-that's simply foolish. Your investments are something that need to be managed on an ongoing basis, and when a buying opportunity arises (such as 2008-2010) then you should be prepared to invest heavily to take advantage of the market when it returns. The smart investors took advantage of investments when they were on sale at huge discounts, now those investors are reaping the rewards.


The problem with this "managed" approach is that you're engaging in market-timing. Bogleheads will tell you that timing the market is impossible, and a fool's game. You only know in hindsight that 2008-2010 was a buying opportunity. Did you know it then? If you did, you're the only one in the world.



Nonsense. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature saw the housing bubble ready to burst. Not only did I see it, but the investment firm that handles most of my assets saw it, and in 2007 started shifting funds into safer investments. Then in 2009-2010 we started buying when the market was at its lowest. It's not market timing, it's common sense.



Well, good luck to you. There's a wealth of academic research, some of which has won the Nobel Prize (Fama, Shiller), and I won't try to convince you.

 

[Schmoe]

I'm also in the TSP as I have a Federal Law Enforcement job. I can retire this September at age 49 with 25 years of service and have to retire at age 57.

I rode out 2007-2008 still mostly in the stock market and while my balance dropped like a rock, it shot up like a rocket when it recovered.

I'm mostly in the L2030 fund now with a small amount just in C to play with. I'm still invested a little more risky than I probably should but I lost 65% of my TSP in 2004 to a divorce so I'm trying to invest a little more in stocks than I originally was going to at this point in my career.

I will probably stay until I'm 57 to hopefully grow my pension and TSP some more.

Wayne [/quote]

Wayne, we are just about in the same boat. The thing about the L funds, they are all down year to date. That's whats holding me back from jumping in.

 

[Mr Nice]

Why lose 65% of your TSP to divorce ?
That seems unfair and too much...

OT:
The #1 reason why people can retire is because they planned it many years ahead of time. No reason why a young person can't take advantage of a 401K retirement plan at work, a profit sharing plan, employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), an IRA, etc....

Decades pass by and then at 60 years old.... they realize there is not enough saved to retire.

 

[Noey]

Again, unless you're only talking about a few thousand dollars, the amount you pay a financial adviser more than compensates for the added growth you see. That's why most Americans have, on average, only about $4000 in retirement savings by age 50. And lots of credit card debt, too. If it was as easy as it sounds you;d all be a lot richer.

Anyone who takes any personal advice on finance and has more than a grand to invest..total.....boggleheads, LMAO!..is just stupid.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Noey
Again, unless you're only talking about a few thousand dollars, the amount you pay a financial adviser more than compensates for the added growth you see. That's why most Americans have, on average, only about $4000 in retirement savings by age 50. And lots of credit card debt, too. If it was as easy as it sounds you;d all be a lot richer.

Anyone who takes any personal advice on finance and has more than a grand to invest..total.....boggleheads, LMAO!..is just stupid.


So, indexing and dollar cost averaging is for the stupid? And paying someone tens of thousands (on a reasonable portfolio) to underperform those simple investments is, what, smart?

You would be surprised to find out just how much a prudent investor can accumulate by investing regularly and watching costs, including investment "advisory" fees of 1.5% per year, which is what most of them charge.

Your attitude suggests that either, your a financial advisor, or you've bought the sales pitch, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: Noey
Again, unless you're only talking about a few thousand dollars, the amount you pay a financial adviser more than compensates for the added growth you see. That's why most Americans have, on average, only about $4000 in retirement savings by age 50. And lots of credit card debt, too. If it was as easy as it sounds you;d all be a lot richer.

Anyone who takes any personal advice on finance and has more than a grand to invest..total.....boggleheads, LMAO!..is just stupid.


BUUUULLLLL SSSHHHH......

FA's don't make money out of thin air. They charge you for their "service". Doesn't matter that they under-perform, they still get paid.
So "Where Are the Customers' Yachts"?

Added growth my arse. Show me some real, unbiased, studies to prove an FA can outperform the same AA in index funds. They don't exist.
You have bought in, hook, line, & sinker. Dad in the business? Family have enough money to lose on an FA and you've bought their lines?

 

[cjcride]

Astro and Surfstar beat me to it.

 

[Astro14]

I'll wager that Surfstar, or Mr. Nice, or cjcride, has a far larger net worth than Noey...

 

[Mr Nice]

Invest what you can afford: 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%....
35 years is a very long time to plan for retirement.

The worst thing is to retire and have to go back to work because you miscalculated your nest egg and bills.

I had a few financial advisors from TDameritrade cold call me asking if i need some advice or 'management ideas', I understand they are like car salesmen and have to cold call 50 people per day.

 

[Cutehumor]

anyone try robo-advising? wealthfront or betterment?
Wealthfront site is interesting, they put your money in ETFs mostly vanguard ETFs for lower expense ratios. The first $10k is managed for free. they will give you $15k managed free if you find a "friend" or "website" referral. They do tax loss harvesting and optimizing for 100k accounts. It's all done by software. check their site out. I'm thinking of opening the minimum $500 account to see what happens. It's free under 15k with referral link with google. It's 0.25% management fee after 15k bucks invested.

 

[Cutehumor]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Congratulations. You've managed to do just about the wrong thing at every turn with your investment funds.

First off, get yourself a real financial manager, not a discussion forum. Once who can assess your situation, your needs, your goals, and then determine which buckets your money needs to go into and how it should be allocated. For example, if you are retired (or close) you may want 3 buckets: one for immediate access, an intermediate bucket, and a long term bucket. Then you and your financial manager can determine what goes into each bucket-for example, even at retirement your long term bucket can contain higher risk investments. Even if the market does turn down for a bit, you're protected by your immediate and intermediate term buckets, and when the market recovers you'll still have your long term bucket available.

When you are planning for your future, there should never be a "set it and forget it" option-that's simply foolish. Your investments are something that need to be managed on an ongoing basis, and when a buying opportunity arises (such as 2008-2010) then you should be prepared to invest heavily to take advantage of the market when it returns. The smart investors took advantage of investments when they were on sale at huge discounts, now those investors are reaping the rewards.

Originally Posted By: heyu
401 k ,,,safe funds ? --- Nothing is safe , With our country in 19 trillion in debt and counting , someday they will take it all away from everyone and there will be nothing you can do about it , not for me , i have zero debt and know how to save my own coins


Nonsense. I've been hearing that same tripe from the tin foil hat club for decades.


pop rivit, I agree. I love when the stock market drops, the stocks are cheaper for me to buy. If I can buy more stock at a cheaper price, I get more dividends because I own more shares. I have actually made some money this year from the drop in stocks with dividends. I am only 38.5. I got 28.5 years to retirement. I do diversify with US mutual funds mostly vanguard, ishare international ETF funds, and ishares ETF bonds. mostly in us stock mutual funds due to my age.