Once you've "won the game"

Audaxer

bostonerimus said:

That then argues that you have enough money and income sources that you don't have to worry about the stock market and rather than de-risking you can invest aggressively.

That's true, and some people will invest more aggressively in these circumstances, but I would ask what the point is unless the aim is to try to build a bigger and bigger pot to leave as inheritance? 

SMcGill

Personally I would rather worry about inflation than the stock market so I have a lot held in cash in comparison to most plans that I’ve seen posted here. Each to their own.

waveydavey48

Thanks for those replies. Food for thought as ever.

I did think maybe the answer was to dial down from VLS60 to VLS40 but it seems more bonds might not be such a good idea. 

bostonerimus

Audaxer said:

bostonerimus said:

That then argues that you have enough money and income sources that you don't have to worry about the stock market and rather than de-risking you can invest aggressively.

That's true, and some people will invest more aggressively in these circumstances, but I would ask what the point is unless the aim is to try to build a bigger and bigger pot to leave as inheritance? 

"What's the point"...that's an existential question that everyone needs to think about. For me it is to live a simple and enjoyable life and to leave money to my heirs and some charities. I've chosen to take more risk than most retirees in an effort to maximize the money I can either give away or leave to my heirs. In a way my heirs are taking the risk, not me.

Albermarle

waveydavey48 said:

Thanks for those replies. Food for thought as ever.

I did think maybe the answer was to dial down from VLS60 to VLS40 but it seems more bonds might not be such a good idea. 

Probably better to stick with VLS60 and maybe sell a % of it for cash . Or to buy some diversifier investments , like infrastructure etc 

Thrugelmir

bostonerimus said:

"Winning the game" can mean different things to different people. Is it having 1M in the stock market and needing 30k or 40k each year or retiring with a DB pension? If you can genuinely not worry about having enough income for your entire retirement then I think you have "won the game" on your terms. That then argues that you have enough money and income sources that you don't have to worry about the stock market and rather than de-risking you can invest aggressively.

Investors that are aggressive are more likely to gamblers by nature. Very easy to lose money on the markets. As it is elsewhere. 

LV_426

bostonerimus said:

"What's the point"...that's an existential question that everyone needs to think about. For me it is to live a simple and enjoyable life and to leave money to my heirs and some charities. I've chosen to take more risk than most retirees in an effort to maximize the money I can either give away or leave to my heirs. In a way my heirs are taking the risk, not me.

Same for me. I've lived my life simply, with no debt except my house. My only extravagance now is buying a new caravan. Why? Because I'm nearly at point of retirement and have the cash available. I'm planning to work another couple of years to preserve a lot of pension assets for my kids. I got lucky in terms of financial breaks with the house (bought in 1996), low mortgage. So I'll pass that benefit on to my kids in terms of giving them house deposits when they need it.

bostonerimus

Thrugelmir said:

bostonerimus said:

"Winning the game" can mean different things to different people. Is it having 1M in the stock market and needing 30k or 40k each year or retiring with a DB pension? If you can genuinely not worry about having enough income for your entire retirement then I think you have "won the game" on your terms. That then argues that you have enough money and income sources that you don't have to worry about the stock market and rather than de-risking you can invest aggressively.

Investors that are aggressive are more likely to gamblers by nature. Very easy to lose money on the markets. As it is elsewhere. 

I'm only comfortable being so aggressive with my DC funds and other investments because it's no risk to my retirement. I was conservative going into retirement, ie paying off the mortgage and making sure I had stable sources of income. If I did not have that in place I would be de-risking. It's really a matter of perspective and how you look at the sum of your finances, some might say I have been conservative.

bostonerimus

ajfielden said:

bostonerimus said:

"What's the point"...that's an existential question that everyone needs to think about. For me it is to live a simple and enjoyable life and to leave money to my heirs and some charities. I've chosen to take more risk than most retirees in an effort to maximize the money I can either give away or leave to my heirs. In a way my heirs are taking the risk, not me.

Same for me. I've lived my life simply, with no debt except my house. My only extravagance now is buying a new caravan. Why? Because I'm nearly at point of retirement and have the cash available. I'm planning to work another couple of years to preserve a lot of pension assets for my kids. I got lucky in terms of financial breaks with the house (bought in 1996), low mortgage. So I'll pass that benefit on to my kids in terms of giving them house deposits when they need it.

Defining success is a very individual thing. What is comfortable for one person might be very frugal for someone else. If you have a pot and/or income sources that easily cover your needs then you have "won the game". So if you are happy eating beans each day and can easily afford that, then you have won on your own terms, but someone with far more money, but who needs to eat steak every day to be happy, and can't really afford that hasn't, won.

Thrugelmir

bostonerimus said:

Thrugelmir said:

bostonerimus said:

"Winning the game" can mean different things to different people. Is it having 1M in the stock market and needing 30k or 40k each year or retiring with a DB pension? If you can genuinely not worry about having enough income for your entire retirement then I think you have "won the game" on your terms. That then argues that you have enough money and income sources that you don't have to worry about the stock market and rather than de-risking you can invest aggressively.

Investors that are aggressive are more likely to gamblers by nature. Very easy to lose money on the markets. As it is elsewhere. 

I'm only comfortable being so aggressive with my DC funds and other investments because it's no risk to my retirement. I was conservative going into retirement, ie paying off the mortgage and making sure I had stable sources of income. If I did not have that in place I would be de-risking.

Be interesting to see which strategies best ride the choppy waters that lie ahead.