New Post Advanced Search

Portfolio split

18 replies 1.3K views
2»

Replies

  • cfw1994cfw1994 Forumite
    745 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭
    JohnWinder wrote: »
    'If you are looking to retire in 8 years and the markets seem to be coming to the end of a bull run , then 75% equities seems high ( in my opinion)'
    If 'retire' means buy an annuity then 8 years might be a bit short to be 75% equities (unless that 75% represents a king's ransom). But if 'retire' means start living of your investments for the next (you'll be 55 yrs old) let's say 30 years, then you'd be well served with a high equity mix (unless you've got oodles of money and don't need better returns).
    ' I will certainly have a look at absolute return funds.'
    When you do, be sure to compare their costs with a passive index tracker, and maybe read about them in Tim Hale's Smarter Investing (make sure it's the first edition). He's not a fan.

    Must admit I feel that a hopefully lengthy retirement does need a decent chunk of equity in there.
    The "sequence of return" risk is, I feel, very real for those of us considering retirement in the next 2 years. I have been tempted to drop a chunk into cash, yet whilst the markets are rising, it also feels wrong: oh for a crystal ball!

    Curious at how Moe knows his date of death to measure that investment horizon :eek:
    Plan for tomorrow, enjoy today!
  • OldMusicGuyOldMusicGuy Forumite
    1.3K posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭
    There is no right answer IMO. You need to do some long term financial planning to see how you will fund at least a 30 year retirement. If you have plenty of money to meet your goals, you can afford to sit in lower risk investments (ie cash and bonds rather than equities). If you still need some growth to meet your goals then you need to stay in at least some more equity-focused investments.
    cfw1994 wrote: »
    The "sequence of return" risk is, I feel, very real for those of us considering retirement in the next 2 years. I have been tempted to drop a chunk into cash, yet whilst the markets are rising, it also feels wrong: oh for a crystal ball!
    I retired 18 months ago and sequence of returns risk is my big fear. So I am holding a lot of cash/fixed term savings bonds for the next five years at least. Inflation is irrelevant to me, unless it reaches silly levels which I feel is very unlikely right now. Pound cost ravaging is a much higher risk for me, so my strategy lets me sleep at night. But that's because of the amount I have in my DC pot and our personal financial objectives. YMMV, which is why you need to do some long-term financial planning instead of seeking the "best" portfolio allocation. You need to find the portfolio split that is right for you and lets you sleep at night.
  • There is no right answer IMO. You need to do some long term financial planning to see how you will fund at least a 30 year retirement. If you have plenty of money to meet your goals, you can afford to sit in lower risk investments (ie cash and bonds rather than equities). If you still need some growth to meet your goals then you need to stay in at least some more equity-focused investments.

    Thank you everyone for your comments, certainly a number of options to consider.

    We are in a good position and our pension provision, when state pension starts does not leave any shortfall. The amount in SIPP and ISA's is also just enough to cover spending from 55 to 67. However, if any thing happens to either one of use we lose part of the pension provision and this is the reason I am still looking from some moderate growth as the one left would need to top up the pension income. It would also be good to have a bit larger cushion from 55 - 67.

    However, if we have a significant drop in stock markets and it does not recover it could mean delaying my planned early retirement.
  • MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.1K posts
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    I retired nine years ago at 61. My IFA pointed out that as there was no longer any requirement to purchase an annuity at 75, my investment horizon was the date of my death and advised to invest 100% in equities. I'm very happy that I took his advice as I have lived comfortably and grown my pension pot at the same time. I have now taken a more defensive stance as I no longer need growth.

    While the “investment horizon” point is accurate, the advisor who recommends retirees to allocate 100% to equities should be sued.
  • edited 22 September 2019 at 8:44PM
    MordkoMordko Forumite
    1.1K posts
    1,000 Posts First Anniversary
    ✭✭✭
    edited 22 September 2019 at 8:44PM
    sebo0607 wrote: »
    Hi all,

    I know this is all down to personal preference and attitude to risk but given the current climate I think I may have to much invested in equities. I am looking to retire early at 55, which is 7 years away. My current portfolio is roughly split as follows:

    Deposit savings - 25%
    Equity ISAs - 25%
    Sipp Equity funds - 50%

    This gives me 75% exposed to stock market fluctuations i.e. falls. I am thinking of moving some of the equity isa to a cash fund to reduce my exposure.

    I would be interested in thoughts.

    Thanks

    As others have said, we don’t have enough information to answer the question. We need to know how much you spend per year, how much you already saved, percent of your annual expenses covered by defined benefit, state pension etc, your spouse’s income and a few other data points.

    It would be easier for you to do the calculation yourself. Bernstein provides a good method in Rational Expectations.

    If you are too lazy to do the analysis and assuming you don’t have DB funding sources, then the balanced 60/40 portfolio is usually a good bet.
  • cfw1994cfw1994 Forumite
    745 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭
    JohnWinder wrote: »
    <snip>
    When you do, be sure to compare their costs with a passive index tracker, and maybe read about them in Tim Hale's Smarter Investing (make sure it's the first edition). He's not a fan.

    This thread reminded me to check: not got his book (so many books!) - what are the key reasons he gives (or you feel?) for not liking passive trackers?

    I'm a moderate fan of the global low cost approach suggested by Lars Kroijer, who seems well qualified to me and kind of is a fan!
    Plan for tomorrow, enjoy today!
  • bowlhead99bowlhead99 Forumite
    11.2K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Post of the Month
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    cfw1994 wrote: »
    JohnWinder wrote: »
    ' I will certainly have a look at absolute return funds.'

    When you do, be sure to compare their costs with a passive index tracker, and maybe read about them in Tim Hale's Smarter Investing (make sure it's the first edition). He's not a fan.

    This thread reminded me to check: not got his book (so many books!) - what are the key reasons he gives (or you feel?) for not liking passive trackers?
    Maybe you misunderstand what JohnWinder was saying. He was saying that if you are 'having a look at absolute return funds', make sure you note that they are costly and go see what Tim Hale says about them (i.e. about the absolute return funds, of which Hale is not a fan)

    JW is not suggesting that Tim Hale is not a fan of index trackers; indeed Hale is an evangelist for trackers and a passive approach.

    As a side note I don't know why you should make sure you read Hale's first edition from 2006 versus the second edition published 2009 or the post-financial-crisis third edition of 2013. I have the second edition somewhere. To me if you were getting it, it would make sense to capture his most recent thoughts in the most recent edition (noting that it's still over five years ago so sample products mentioned may no longer be 'best buys' or whatever).

    Perhaps JW means that Hale was more scathing of absolute return funds in the earlier editions though I don't know why that would be the case. Or it was just a caveat on JW's part because he knew that Hale definitely mentioned AR funds in the first edition and didn't know if he did in the later ones.

    But long story short, Hale likes passive investing and makes sure to 'reinforce' that sentiment (ram it down your throat) from time to time throughout the book. It is not a bad book at all, to get you thinking about things to consider when building a portfolio. But as it has a somewhat polarised view (pro the passive approach) it shouldn't be the only book in your library.
  • cfw1994cfw1994 Forumite
    745 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭
    Good catch, t'was indeed a misunderstanding:o
    Plan for tomorrow, enjoy today!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support