Doesn't it always take a minimum of 3 years to accomplish something "overnight"??!!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:42 pmIf so, it has taken me only 50 years to be an overnight genius. Better late than never!
Vinny
Moderator: Global Moderator
Doesn't it always take a minimum of 3 years to accomplish something "overnight"??!!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:42 pmIf so, it has taken me only 50 years to be an overnight genius. Better late than never!
Yes, generally that's the minimum time.vnatale wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:39 pmDoesn't it always take a minimum of 3 years to accomplish something "overnight"??!!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:42 pmIf so, it has taken me only 50 years to be an overnight genius. Better late than never!
Vinny
Fed reserve notes be dammed.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:53 amIt has occurred to me that my portfolio has a hidden "risk" component.
Namely, the only situation I'm aware of where someone of modest means can become very wealthy without taking inordinate risks is when there is a currency reset and they have a significant gold holding.
(I put "risk" in quotes because this is only an upside risk.)
Yes, my theory is that in normal prosperity I can make good money in my profession, so my portfolio performance isn't as important. When things are crazy is when I care more about my portfolio performance.WhiteElephant wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:20 amInteresting, I like the simplicity!
What is the reason you didn't include a small stock allocation at all? Can a portfolio like this act as a sort of counterweight/inverse correlation to your career?
I can imagine that for a disaster portfolio you'd want to own some stocks as it's very likely to be worth at least something. A bit like gold I guess
There used to be a portfolio called the armadillo ..it was 90% treasuries and 10% gold..it was a book I think by Richard bandLibertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:45 amI didn't aim my portfolio at the current financial climate. If I'd known what was going to happen, I'd have my own private jet by now.
But for a disaster portfolio, it seems to be pretty successful so far.
And it's about as simple as you can get:
2/3rd actual physical gold (geographically diverse)
1/3rd US T-Bills
Comments?
I'm not interested in getting into the stock market. I also hope the whole economy doesn't collapse but I'm not reducing my hedge against that until and unless I see the light at the end of the tunnel.dualstow wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:13 pmtech, a few months ago I believe you were considering getting back into an HBPP.
I guess this is a weird time for people to make portfolio changes. Still, if I had cheaply-bought gold that I could sell at 1645 an ounce and buy stocks, I’d probably do some of that.
{I think what I’m really trying to say is that I hope the whole economy doesn’t collapse}
Is this how you picture Libertarian666 ?
And some long bonds.WhiteElephant wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:45 amOh man, my hands are itching to 'optimize' that chart by adding some stocks and/or bonds
Not doing it!
i agree .... far to risky and certainly in our case would never have given us the growth we needed to retire .fireplan wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:40 amNo doubt there are periods when this portfolio will do quite well, and the next 10-20 years could very well be one of them, but...Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:45 am2/3rd actual physical gold (geographically diverse)
1/3rd US T-Bills
Comments?
If you plug this into portfoliocharts.com, this portfolio is impressive in the fact that it comes out dead last or second to last in every metric! Gold makes a great diversifier to balance the gyroscope, but gold can also have decades of negative performance, so a portfolio with 2/3rds gold and no equities or LTTs is highly unbalanced and thus very risky on a long term basis.
For me, as an early retiree, I find the perpetual withdrawal rate (PWR) of a portfolio to be the best measure of the risk vs reward of that portfolio, as it encapsulates the long term CAGR, volatility, length and depth of drawdowns, all into a single metric that directly corresponds to expected lifetime income from the investment.
A portfolio of 2/3rds gold and 1/3rd US T-Bills has a historical PWR (out to 40 years) of only 0.3%, meaning you would need a $10 million portfolio just to harvest $30k a year from it. In comparison, a total stock market portfolio, which sounds very risky in comparison, has a 3.6% PWR at 40 years, which makes it 12x less risky by this metric.
If you could increase your assets 100% by what corresponding percentage would you increase your spending?mathjak107 wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 1:46 pmPersonally I didn’t work a lifetime and scrimp ,Save and invest just so I can draw peanuts out of it in the last down of our lives ...quite frankly any draw less than 3.50% or so would be inefficient use of money I could be enjoying . As it is a 4% swr left you with more than you started 90% of the 120 30 year cycles we had to date.
We are retired but if we could double our assets I would simply enjoy spending that much more
vnatale wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 7:47 pmIf you could increase your assets 100% by what corresponding percentage would you increase your spending?mathjak107 wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 1:46 pmPersonally I didn’t work a lifetime and scrimp ,Save and invest just so I can draw peanuts out of it in the last down of our lives ...quite frankly any draw less than 3.50% or so would be inefficient use of money I could be enjoying . As it is a 4% swr left you with more than you started 90% of the 120 30 year cycles we had to date.
We are retired but if we could double our assets I would simply enjoy spending that much more
For me I'd say zero % because I got to the amount of assets I have by being extremely frugal. It's my DNA. To buy a lot of things I never have (while easily affording to) goes against all my ways.
Vinny
I am the ultimate security seeking personality so there is never too much. Plus, how would deal with this one?mathjak107 wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 4:04 amvnatale wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 7:47 pmIf you could increase your assets 100% by what corresponding percentage would you increase your spending?mathjak107 wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 1:46 pmPersonally I didn’t work a lifetime and scrimp ,Save and invest just so I can draw peanuts out of it in the last down of our lives ...quite frankly any draw less than 3.50% or so would be inefficient use of money I could be enjoying . As it is a 4% swr left you with more than you started 90% of the 120 30 year cycles we had to date.
We are retired but if we could double our assets I would simply enjoy spending that much more
For me I'd say zero % because I got to the amount of assets I have by being extremely frugal. It's my DNA. To buy a lot of things I never have (while easily affording to) goes against all my ways.
Vinny
i sure would increase spending likely proportionately ... our want to do list is longer than our funds are ... if we couldnt find things to spend it on for ourselves , well we have 6 grand kids .
i have no desire to die with the biggest pile nor did i work , save and do without many times trying to get the retirement pile as big as we could , just to look at it