What % of your portfolio is in cash currently?

Mothman

First year of retirement and currently holding 14% in cash.

quirkydeptless

I currently have about 10%, however I think more about it as an amount, i.e. what I need for 2-3 years spending requirements and the % works back from that.

If I had as much in my portfolio as Warren Buffet, I expect I could do with a fraction of 1% as cash

newatc

Over 50%. Retired 70+, plenty to live on. No need to take anything other than low risk strategy.

badger09

newatc said:

Over 50%. Retired 70+, plenty to live on. No need to take anything other than low risk strategy.

20%. Also retired, 70 (just ), plenty to live on. No need to take any risk at all, but its given me something to do and my son will either thank me profusely, or curse me for it. However, as I won't be around ..........

enthusiasticsaver

We are early 60s.  On year 3 of retirement  with DB pensions covering our  outgoings.  We have 85% of our portfolio in a low risk portfolio and 15% in cash.  Some (5%) is earmarked for holidays for next year if they go ahead. I would be uncomfortable going below 10% cash. 

[Deleted User]

Cash is 0.3% of my portfolio.

AnotherJoe

bowlhead99 said:

Cus said:

Thrugelmir said:

Cus said:

I always have a difficulty holding cash in my SIPP because it's like an investment where I am guaranteed to lose money versus inflation. 

Never had the misfortune to select what turns out to be a bad investment? 

Oh yes, plenty.  But none that advertised what I will lose before I invest. 😁

Losing a couple of percent against inflation may be preferable to losing tens of percent on an investment AND losing the couple of percent against inflation   though we can't know what direction markets will move next. 

Generally I wouldn't be too ashamed of holding some cash in a pension; it represents an option to participate in opportunities that present themselves from time to time:

- If you're only ever going to invest by following an index of prices up and down, and you rationally assume the prices will go up more than they go down in the long term, then yes it makes sense to always hold investments and never hold cash and not worry about trying to 'time the market' which can just result in frustration. So it's rational to be fully invested and you should do just fine.

- Whereas If you're someone who wants to dedicate their portfolio (or a portion of it) to self-selected / active choices in what to hold, it can be rational to have some money sitting on the sideline looking for a bargain. I would refer to it as money that has yet to be invested, rather than dead money. Waiting a year to make a decision and then investing for four years can do better than just throwing money in to whatever option has presented itself today and investing for five.

But presumably at that point you'd then be 100% in equities? Or if not and you always hold something back, that is dead money (unless it's a buffer for drawdown)

Albermarle

enthusiasticsaver said:

We are early 60s.  On year 3 of retirement  with DB pensions covering our  outgoings.  We have 85% of our portfolio in a low risk portfolio and 15% in cash.  Some (5%) is earmarked for holidays for next year if they go ahead. I would be uncomfortable going below 10% cash. 

Low risk portfolios typically contain a lot of bonds , usually a mixture of ultra safe but ultra low return government bonds and more medium risk corporate bonds. There are some commentators who think bonds may struggle in future to perform their usual role of a stable low growth alternative to equity investments .
An alternative is to hold more cash , less bonds and more equity . In theory should just as low risk but with a bit more potential for growth . 

MaxiRobriguez

33 y/o. Currently 10% cash / 90% equities, but varies between 0 and 15% cash - used as a pot to "buy the dips" in more volatile investments (single stocks (e.g boohoo yesterday) and emerging markets) whereas the remainder of the portfolio is invested in developed market indexes.

Only have a few hundred quid for emergencies and an unused credit card. Work covers critical illness up to a point, and redundancy would come with 5 figure payout, so don't feel like I need 3-6 months emergencies. 

newatc

badger09 said:

newatc said:

Over 50%. Retired 70+, plenty to live on. No need to take anything other than low risk strategy.

20%. Also retired, 70 (just ), plenty to live on. No need to take any risk at all, but its given me something to do and my son will either thank me profusely, or curse me for it. However, as I won't be around ..........

Different percentages but similar logic to mine. I believe the cash will last as out (short of some  exceptional event ) even allowing for several years in care and the investments (and probably house and  some cash) will go to the children. I suppose you could argue that I should be more adventurous but I'm comfortable with the level I have.