Cash out? Enough is enough

Cus

Bobziz said:

Ah of course. If you could let the rest of us know that happens it would be most helpful.

As per my post above and my duty, I'll let you know.  If I'm right I'm a financial genius, but when it (more likely) turns out I was wrong I will accept it np

MeteredOut

Investing is easy: Buy low, sell high. 

HedgehogRulez

Bobziz said:

Ah of course. If you could let the rest of us know that happens it would be most helpful.

You’ll know it when the markets plunge into the abyss in a few months time.

artyboy

HedgehogRulez said:

Bobziz said:

Ah of course. If you could let the rest of us know that happens it would be most helpful.

You’ll know it when the markets plunge into the abyss in a few months time.

Or not.

Isn't this fun? Who needs Walthamstow Dogs?

MarlowMallard

Getting back to the original topic, as I see it you have 3 forms of risk: if you're heavy in equities you have market-crash risk, if you're heavy in bonds/cash you have high-inflation risk, and for both of those you have living-to-100 "risk". 
 So, it seems to me that if you are lucky enough that your pot is "too large" for your projected spending plans, spending the surplus on an index-linked annuity is a reasonable way to defend against all three.  

ComicGeek

MarlowMallard said:

Getting back to the original topic, as I see it you have 3 forms of risk: if you're heavy in equities you have market-crash risk, if you're heavy in bonds/cash you have high-inflation risk, and for both of those you have living-to-100 "risk". 
 So, it seems to me that if you are lucky enough that your pot is "too large" for your projected spending plans, spending the surplus on an index-linked annuity is a reasonable way to defend against all three.  

I don't think you can make any investment decision without having an understanding of risk. When I started managing my own pension, I spent more time reading about risk than about investment types themselves - that certainly was the biggest influence on how I set up funds in the end.

Too few people understand probabilities as well. My wife is absolutely convinced that "1-in-2 people get cancer" means that either her or me will definitely get cancer - but couldn't possibly be both, or neither....

artyboy

ComicGeek said:

MarlowMallard said:

Getting back to the original topic, as I see it you have 3 forms of risk: if you're heavy in equities you have market-crash risk, if you're heavy in bonds/cash you have high-inflation risk, and for both of those you have living-to-100 "risk". 
 So, it seems to me that if you are lucky enough that your pot is "too large" for your projected spending plans, spending the surplus on an index-linked annuity is a reasonable way to defend against all three.  

I don't think you can make any investment decision without having an understanding of risk. When I started managing my own pension, I spent more time reading about risk than about investment types themselves - that certainly was the biggest influence on how I set up funds in the end.

Too few people understand probabilities as well. My wife is absolutely convinced that "1-in-2 people get cancer" means that either her or me will definitely get cancer - but couldn't possibly be both, or neither....

And too few people understand marital dynamics. If there's a 1 in 2 chance that something bad will happen, then it's happening to me, and not to Mrs Arty...

SpeedSouth

You've not said when you are hoping to/planning on retiring.  I'm a couple of years behind you in age and few 100k in value across our combined pensions. The Missus will have a small NHS pot as well.

We have £140k outside of pensions in ISAs/Bonds/Cash, and less than £30k mortgage and I'm already thinking the pension pot is bigger than necessary at this age.  My concern is I'll get to a point where my pension is sufficient in value, but I won't have enough outside of pensions to take early retirement.

Whilst my pension is much larger than hers given my earnings I've reduced my pension contributions to the HRT bracket and we are not adding to her SIPP at present.
Then pushing more to the pre-pensions pot.

Equity wise at present I'm prepared to leave the pensions at 100% given its 14 years at least till I will be able to access mine, but only running at 60% equities in the ISA.

Veloflyer

I am 61 and still working. I am all in equites in 2 SIPPs - albeit low cost global or US based trackers. Like the OP, I too am interested in preserving it especially as I am closer to drawing on it. I guess transferring funds to low cost equity/bond ETF may be one solution - the Vanguard offerings for example -  but must admit the growth of my 2 equity portfolios has been very acceptable over the past 15/20 years or so.

My way of mitigating any crash is to hold 2 years cash - spending that instead of cashing in the equities. The thinking being 2 years "should" be enough for markets to recover to where they were previously. 

Do folk think this emergency cash fund is adequate to preserve wealth and the present equity driven philosophy?  





      

SouthCoastBoy

Veloflyer said:

I am 61 and still working. I am all in equites in 2 SIPPs - albeit low cost global or US based trackers. Like the OP, I too am interested in preserving it especially as I am closer to drawing on it. I guess transferring funds to low cost equity/bond ETF may be one solution - the Vanguard offerings for example -  but must admit the growth of my 2 equity portfolios has been very acceptable over the past 15/20 years or so.

My way of mitigating any crash is to hold 2 years cash - spending that instead of cashing in the equities. The thinking being 2 years "should" be enough for markets to recover to where they were previously. 

Do folk think this emergency cash fund is adequate to preserve wealth and the present equity driven philosophy?  





      

Personally I would like 5 years cash as a minimum. Dot com crash took longer than 2 years to recover