I am keen to hear from readers, but my thinking on this subject has changed recently. (Hint: I think owning a 100% stock portfolio makes a lot of sense.)
It all depends. What are your goals, what do you need/want the money for, what is your timeframe.
30+ years to retirement, 100% retirement portfolio in stock is not particularly risky.
You have $100million dollars and can easily live off of the 1.3% dividend, sure 100% invested in the S&P 500 probably not an issue.
A few million dollars, you’re 55 and retired early and are waiting untill 65-70 for SS and a pension to kick in. 100% in stock – you’re asking for trouble.
A few million dollars, your SS and pension cover all of your expenses, and you plan on leaving your investments to your grandkids – 100% in stock – probably ok…
Warren Buffet has set up a portfolio for his wife, upon his death. It is 90% in Vanguard total stock index and 10% in bond index. To me, that is the most aggressive one should be. 100% in stocks is not a good idea IMHO.
Close…actually he said, “I would put 10% of her inheritance to short-term government bonds and 90% to a low-cost S&P 500 index fund.”
But considering the amount she will be inheriting, she would have ZERO reason to accept risk in her portfolio…not a position 99.9999″ will find themselves.
Buffett’s wife could take zero risk and she’d be just fine. But she could also go 100% stocks and be just fine. That’s the irony of being super-wealthy: You have no need to take investment risk, but — if you do — that risk is unlikely to come back to haunt you.
It depends on your personal circumstances. We own index funds as well as a portfolio of stocks that pay growing dividends. We also have 20% in I-bonds and Short-term Treasuries. the dividends and interest cover 80% of our expenses. When we retire and start taking SS, we will switch to a 100% stock portfolio.
It all depends. What are your goals, what do you need/want the money for, what is your timeframe.
30+ years to retirement, 100% retirement portfolio in stock is not particularly risky.
You have $100million dollars and can easily live off of the 1.3% dividend, sure 100% invested in the S&P 500 probably not an issue.
A few million dollars, you’re 55 and retired early and are waiting untill 65-70 for SS and a pension to kick in. 100% in stock – you’re asking for trouble.
A few million dollars, your SS and pension cover all of your expenses, and you plan on leaving your investments to your grandkids – 100% in stock – probably ok…
Warren Buffet has set up a portfolio for his wife, upon his death. It is 90% in Vanguard total stock index and 10% in bond index. To me, that is the most aggressive one should be. 100% in stocks is not a good idea IMHO.
Close…actually he said, “I would put 10% of her inheritance to short-term government bonds and 90% to a low-cost S&P 500 index fund.”
But considering the amount she will be inheriting, she would have ZERO reason to accept risk in her portfolio…not a position 99.9999″ will find themselves.
Buffett’s wife could take zero risk and she’d be just fine. But she could also go 100% stocks and be just fine. That’s the irony of being super-wealthy: You have no need to take investment risk, but — if you do — that risk is unlikely to come back to haunt you.
It depends on your personal circumstances. We own index funds as well as a portfolio of stocks that pay growing dividends. We also have 20% in I-bonds and Short-term Treasuries. the dividends and interest cover 80% of our expenses. When we retire and start taking SS, we will switch to a 100% stock portfolio.