Is It Time To Stop Investing In 100% Stocks?

Check Out My Recommendations (It helps support the channel):

Affiliate Disclaimer: Some of the above may be affiliate links. Support the channel by signing up or purchasing through those links at no additional cost to you. I appreciate you for helping me keep this channel running.

Disclaimer: This video is for entertainment purposes only. Everyone's situation is different so do your own research before making any decisions with your money.

[abr]

Great topic and very interesting. I’m 64 and have been aggressively invested 100% in mutual funds since 1996. This strategy has enabled me to build a $3 million portfolio. My investment strategy has always been you invest to win. Defensive strategies are investing not to lose. Bottom line, it’s a personal choice of each investor based on their risk tolerance.

[etrans]

You are so right. Academics rarely translates well to reality, but it is great to have these thought experiments.

[NickOloteo]

My uncle is in his mid 60s and still invests in aggressive stocks

[WhatzTyme]

Ahhh yes, sweet Molly. "Who's a good girl?"

[jimbarnes]

Thanks for another great video! And thanks for the segment on Molly! She's awesome buddy! Jim

[ducs]

This has been a topic on my mind for a couple of years now. I've done countless simulations in different retirement tools including Monte Carlo analysis, etc. I can never convince myself that bonds are the way to go as part of the my portfolio; in no case does a bond mix do better than all stocks. A key thing in my mind is to have enough cash on hand to get you through any bumps in the market. With a bit of planning, that's not that difficult to achieve.

[alanross]

Another way to think about this is that your allocation can change over time. Just like expenses change. So I’m really close to retirement but I’m going to be a bit more conservative the first few years prior to social security. I’ll set aside living expenses for a few years in something stable. Once SS starts I’ll get more aggressive because I won’t need as much from the portfolio. Instead I want it to grow for legacy. You just need to get thru the first few years until all your income streams are in place. Then get more equity.

[OnmywaytoFI]

Replace bonds with value / dividend driven etf’s. Dependable yield with less downside than aggressive stocks and bigger upsides than bonds.

[ExtraGuac]

If someone went through Dave Ramsey's FPU, there's no chance that they will go bankrupt. It's the same with anyone that has spent decades pursuing the FIRE movement. Both will have the discipline to follow the 100% stock allocation rule without breaking a sweat.

[brittneylamar]

Was that from the Sandlot? That "forever" took me back lol

[b]

Imagine the elderly turning nice visual Jarrad... great script. Excellent infor

[paulj]

Turning tricks is tax free retirement income. Doesn't go against IRMAA or increase your taxable social security income either.

[parkerbohnn]

The shoeshine boy in 1929 gave similar advice. That was back when the stock market was a lot less overvalued than today.

[MC-gjfg]

I would be 100% stocks up until I approached retirement. However, while in retirement, a 100% stock portfolio could be exposed to sequence of returns risk. If a retiree has sufficient income in retirement not connected to the market to cover their monthly liabilities during a bear market this may not be an issue, but if they don't market a downturn could be especially damaging.

[mjss]

100% stocks, not tapping principal. Only spending part of the dividends and reinvesting what I don't spend each month which makes the rising dividend income stream climb even faster.

Just start with a first year yield of 4% and then you never have to touch principal so price movements are a non-issue.

[TheFlyboySouth]

Jarred, Just want to say, you do an excellent job my friend. Thank you for your continued efforts.

[DB-xppx]

if not for sequence of return risk and being able to shield yourself emotionally from a big pullback in the market, i think most would remain 100% stocks. i would anyway but not being up 1/2 the night worrying is worth pulling 25% into something very conservative, rebalancing annually.

[johnurban]

Why use the 4% rule. Just take out what you need for the month. Been doing it for years and it’s been just fine. That way your money stays invested. I’m glad my advisor lives in my head

[shellys]

I love Molly❤ what a good girl. Interesting video. Thank you

[andrewkingdon]

I've heard a suggestion that states you should segregate the pension into investment money and spending money. The theory goes that if you have a section of the fund in safer assets and that covers you for about 5 years you simply draw that down and top it up if the stocks part does well. If not just wait for stocks to recover. 5 years is considered sensible as the markets nearly always recover within 5 years so you let one part ride the waves (and rise on average) while living off the other less volatile part. Just remember to top up the safe part when the stocks part rises.