S&P500 at record highs - time to stay in or pull out?

[TownIdiot]

Sheepshanks said:

bmwmike said:

Thanks. I should probably start anothe thread to ask questions. I've just seen 5.5 acres for 120k, with a tenant already in place for pasture and grazing etc. It is a massive flat field and looks like it could be good for solar too. I'm sure i'm stretching here but I'd rather that as a passive income than a BTL or anything involving human tenants. 15 year 50% clawback for planning, its just outside a town, etc.

Plant trees on it.

Or rent to horse people.

[Car bon]

okgo said:

I’d be interested to know at what point folk tend to introduce a bond element if they’re 100% equities now. I was thinking to do so a handful of years out from retirement.

Exactly the same as during actual retirement in my case.

2-3 years worth of spending in cash type assets
Another 2-3 years in 'low risk' type funds
The rest in equities

You can tweak the numbers for your own case, but the principle is to have 'enough' to see you through any downturn until the equities have recovered. The 'cost' of doing that is the lower return of those assets during the boom years. So you can adjust as you see fit, from 100% equity forever, through 60/40, to it all being cash in the bank. There's no universally right answer.....

I've gone for 2-6 years being the recovery time for equities - it's sometimes been longer, but usually sorter. You have to pick a number you're comfortable with.

In the old days, you'd de-risk with a view to buying an annuity with the lump sum as you had no alternative, but these days most people stay invested throughout retirement, but you don't want to de-risk too much too soon IMHO.

[Panamax]

Car bon said:

2-3 years worth of spending in cash type assets
Another 2-3 years in 'low risk' type funds
The rest in equities

The 'cost' of doing that is the lower return of those assets during the boom years.

IMO you've been talking a lot of sense in this thread. Maintain a "risk on" position but with sufficient insurance to see you through any short to medium term downturn. As ever, insurance costs money but it's worth paying the premium for peace of mind. After the big gains on S&P over recent years the current downturn doesn't look like much to get excited about.

[Sheepshanks]

Car bon said:

okgo said:

I’d be interested to know at what point folk tend to introduce a bond element if they’re 100% equities now. I was thinking to do so a handful of years out from retirement.

Exactly the same as during actual retirement in my case.

2-3 years worth of spending in cash type assets
Another 2-3 years in 'low risk' type funds
The rest in equities

You can tweak the numbers for your own case, but the principle is to have 'enough' to see you through any downturn until the equities have recovered. The 'cost' of doing that is the lower return of those assets during the boom years. So you can adjust as you see fit, from 100% equity forever, through 60/40, to it all being cash in the bank. There's no universally right answer.....

I've gone for 2-6 years being the recovery time for equities - it's sometimes been longer, but usually sorter. You have to pick a number you're comfortable with.

In the old days, you'd de-risk with a view to buying an annuity with the lump sum as you had no alternative, but these days most people stay invested throughout retirement, but you don't want to de-risk too much too soon IMHO.

Depends on how much capacity there is the plan, surely?

[Derek Chevalier]

Sheepshanks said:

Car bon said:

okgo said:

I’d be interested to know at what point folk tend to introduce a bond element if they’re 100% equities now. I was thinking to do so a handful of years out from retirement.

Exactly the same as during actual retirement in my case.

2-3 years worth of spending in cash type assets
Another 2-3 years in 'low risk' type funds
The rest in equities

You can tweak the numbers for your own case, but the principle is to have 'enough' to see you through any downturn until the equities have recovered. The 'cost' of doing that is the lower return of those assets during the boom years. So you can adjust as you see fit, from 100% equity forever, through 60/40, to it all being cash in the bank. There's no universally right answer.....

I've gone for 2-6 years being the recovery time for equities - it's sometimes been longer, but usually sorter. You have to pick a number you're comfortable with.

In the old days, you'd de-risk with a view to buying an annuity with the lump sum as you had no alternative, but these days most people stay invested throughout retirement, but you don't want to de-risk too much too soon IMHO.

Depends on how much capacity there is the plan, surely?

Yep, driven by:

1. How much risk you need to take to give your retirement plan an acceptable chance of success.
2. How much risk are you happy taking

[Panamax]

Sheepshanks said:

Depends on how much capacity there is the plan, surely?

IMO one of the curiosities is that if you can afford to fully de-risk you might as well stay risk-on in the hope of more jam tomorrow.
Similarly, if you can't afford to fully de-risk you might as well stay risk-on in the hope of jam tomorrow.

This is presumably why so few people buy annuities these days. If you can afford one, you don't need one.

[Scootersp]

Panamax said:

IMO one of the curiosities is that if you can afford to fully de-risk you might as well stay risk-on in the hope of more jam tomorrow.
Similarly, if you can't afford to fully de-risk you might as well stay risk-on in the hope of jam tomorrow.

This is presumably why so few people buy annuities these days. If you can afford one, you don't need one.

Doesn't this, seemingly not untrue statement, indicate in itself an overall under appreciation of risk, or that it can, or should I say is generally ignored at this time.

The risk of being 'out' far exceeds the risk of being in? - is the overiding sentiment

Edited by Scootersp on Tuesday 11th March 15:25

[Sheepshanks]

Panamax said:

Similarly, if you can't afford to fully de-risk you might as well stay risk-on in the hope of jam tomorrow.

That’d be pretty risky.

[Phooey]

I don't follow people on youtube vids but a friend sent me this and said some of the stuff he has said has been spot on. Watch and make your own mind up but don't act on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9ebBNXyMmk

FWIW I think its all bks how anyone can know but i'm watching with popcorn

Edited by Phooey on Tuesday 11th March 15:53

[Harry Flashman]

Car bon said:

Exactly the same as during actual retirement in my case.

2-3 years worth of spending in cash type assets
Another 2-3 years in 'low risk' type funds
The rest in equities

You can tweak the numbers for your own case, but the principle is to have 'enough' to see you through any downturn until the equities have recovered. The 'cost' of doing that is the lower return of those assets during the boom years. So you can adjust as you see fit, from 100% equity forever, through 60/40, to it all being cash in the bank. There's no universally right answer.....

I've gone for 2-6 years being the recovery time for equities - it's sometimes been longer, but usually sorter. You have to pick a number you're comfortable with.

In the old days, you'd de-risk with a view to buying an annuity with the lump sum as you had no alternative, but these days most people stay invested throughout retirement, but you don't want to de-risk too much too soon IMHO.

Agreed, again.

[Mr Whippy]

bmwmike said:

1.52 acres of pasture land for £90k, good access. Could be bought inside a SIPP.. not sure of returns, but it has an outbuilding on it, could be useful.

Could be for horsey people if allowed by planning. Also some land might have covenants around other uses. Equestrian isn’t agri use.

1.52 acres for agri should be about £15,000-£20,000 tops with £200 a year rent under standard farm business tenancy.


Unless that land has development potential it could be worth £450k or more, but usually it’d be sold with a 50pc overage in that case…

Either way I think S&P500 is a better bet.

[Peterpetrole]

Phooey said:

I don't follow people on youtube vids but a friend sent me this and said some of the stuff he has said has been spot on. Watch and make your own mind up but don't act on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9ebBNXyMmk

FWIW I think its all bks how anyone can know but i'm watching with popcorn

Edited by Phooey on Tuesday 11th March 15:53

If he was that good he'd be on a yacht with Halle Berry rather than posting yt vids from his mums basement.

[OtherBusiness]

Chart says 5600, text says 5400-5500, so nice and vague too

[Phooey]

Peterpetrole said:

Phooey said:

I don't follow people on youtube vids but a friend sent me this and said some of the stuff he has said has been spot on. Watch and make your own mind up but don't act on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9ebBNXyMmk

FWIW I think its all bks how anyone can know but i'm watching with popcorn

Edited by Phooey on Tuesday 11th March 15:53

If he was that good he'd be on a yacht with Halle Berry rather than posting yt vids from his mums basement.

I 100% agree. I only watched the first 5 minutes of the vid and switched off - can't be arsed to watch the rest. Its all guessing, absolutely noone knows where and when the markets are going

[g4ry13]

CPI today. Could be an interesting indicator.

[macron]

Interesting time for the Chancellor to be suggesting people shouldn't have cash ISA's, and pump dough into stocks....

[scot_aln]

Phooey said:

I 100% agree. I only watched the first 5 minutes of the vid and switched off - can't be arsed to watch the rest. Its all guessing, absolutely noone knows where and when the markets are going

Think they had been watching Dumb Money and decided to have a go

[Mr Whippy]

Peterpetrole said:

If he was that good he'd be on a yacht with Halle Berry rather than posting yt vids from his mums basement.

Anyone with the perfect system can’t game it to become super rich.

Unless they can compensate for their alteration of future outcomes by their intervention, but that’s just a bit too far fetched

[Armitage.Shanks]

macron said:

Interesting time for the Chancellor to be suggesting people shouldn't have cash ISA's, and pump dough into stocks....

Interesting. A pal has just decided to pull 50% out of his S&S ISA and put it into a Cash ISA 3yr fix at 4.3%. If the 'ideal' draw down is 4% he'd rather bank on a sure thing than uncertainty. Although in his case pension draw down is a misnomer given he has a FS index linked pension.

[asfault]

Armitage.Shanks said:

macron said:

Interesting time for the Chancellor to be suggesting people shouldn't have cash ISA's, and pump dough into stocks....

Interesting. A pal has just decided to pull 50% out of his S&S ISA and put it into a Cash ISA 3yr fix at 4.3%. If the 'ideal' draw down is 4% he'd rather bank on a sure thing than uncertainty. Although in his case pension draw down is a misnomer given he has a FS index linked pension.

I mean what if yesterday was the low point of a correction? He'll have literally picked the bottom to pull out.