More stocks for the rich
Moderator: Global Moderator
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
More stocks for the rich
This has come up a couple of times before and I thought it might be worth exploring. The general idea is that once you are financially independent and your investments get large enough relative to your annual spending (i.e. you could survive on a 1% or 2% withdrawal rate), volatility becomes so unimportant to your financial affairs that you are better off investing in things with a higher average CAGR rather than the best alpha.
Imagine you are a person who spends $40,000 a year, and this spending level is sustained by a portfolio of $2 million, all in stocks. This represents a 2% withdrawal rate. Now imagine that the stock market tanks, so your portfolio falls to only, say, $1 million. Even with this disastrous decline, you are still able to withdraw the same amount safely, this time at "only" a 4% rate! You still have enough money to sustain your lifestyle with no changes, and as a result, you can wait out the decline and reinvest your dividends in now-super-cheap shares, priming you for an even higher sum of money after a few years when the market recovers.
Of course this requires an ironclad psychological state. Losing $1 million of paper wealth would sure hurt. So you can't be the kind of person who will panic sell. And this won't work during a protracted, multi-decade long stock stagnation unless your withdrawal rate was even lower to start out with (like 1%), and it will suffer in the event of a currency collapse or hyperinflation. But the point is that having more money insulates you from the effects of volatility and lets lets you ride these events out in a similar manner as hedging a smaller sum, and also allows you the benefits of a simpler portfolio with a higher expected return.
But of course, if you have $2 million and live on $40,000, you surely don't need any more, so what point is there in keeping it in stocks for the growth? Well, perhaps giving it away to charity, or starting a foundation or a capital-intensive business you believe will benefit humanity and want to keep from having to please outside investors. I can think of lots of non-greed-related reasons. Once you become truly rich, you start to think this way.
Thoughts?
Imagine you are a person who spends $40,000 a year, and this spending level is sustained by a portfolio of $2 million, all in stocks. This represents a 2% withdrawal rate. Now imagine that the stock market tanks, so your portfolio falls to only, say, $1 million. Even with this disastrous decline, you are still able to withdraw the same amount safely, this time at "only" a 4% rate! You still have enough money to sustain your lifestyle with no changes, and as a result, you can wait out the decline and reinvest your dividends in now-super-cheap shares, priming you for an even higher sum of money after a few years when the market recovers.
Of course this requires an ironclad psychological state. Losing $1 million of paper wealth would sure hurt. So you can't be the kind of person who will panic sell. And this won't work during a protracted, multi-decade long stock stagnation unless your withdrawal rate was even lower to start out with (like 1%), and it will suffer in the event of a currency collapse or hyperinflation. But the point is that having more money insulates you from the effects of volatility and lets lets you ride these events out in a similar manner as hedging a smaller sum, and also allows you the benefits of a simpler portfolio with a higher expected return.
But of course, if you have $2 million and live on $40,000, you surely don't need any more, so what point is there in keeping it in stocks for the growth? Well, perhaps giving it away to charity, or starting a foundation or a capital-intensive business you believe will benefit humanity and want to keep from having to please outside investors. I can think of lots of non-greed-related reasons. Once you become truly rich, you start to think this way.
Thoughts?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: More stocks for the rich
Well, the most obvious one that comes to mind is that you are "all in stocks" so you don't really have any dry powder to buy up loads of shares when they are cheap. You'd maybe have a few thousand in dividends that have been spit off but, for a portfolio of that size, you would really want a lot of cash & to be able to act fast! As CraigR loves to point out, rebounds in the stock market can often happen really quickly.Pointedstick wrote: Thoughts?
Without a cash cushion you basically look like me in 2008. And believe me, you don't want that to happen!
Again, to me this is another vote for the heavy PP cash allocation. If I had held 25% in T-Bills during the last crash, I could have vastly increased the number of shares of stock I owned. As it was, all I could do was sit, wait & hope. NOT a good investment strategy.
Re: More stocks for the rich
You assume the max decline of stock in the future is 50%. What if it declines 90%?
What if it declines 50% in one year. Then 50% again in the next year and 50% again in year 3? Now you're down to 12.5% of the original.
A smarter strategy would be to have enough money in a HBPP to survive comfortably off 2% SWR. Any additional money beyond this, do whatever you want with. Put it all in stocks.
For example, suppose you need $100k/year to live comfortably as a wealthy person. Put $5M in the HBPP so you can always safely withdraw 2% a year forever. Then put the rest of your money in stocks.
Side note: $2M is not wealthy by any means.
What if it declines 50% in one year. Then 50% again in the next year and 50% again in year 3? Now you're down to 12.5% of the original.
A smarter strategy would be to have enough money in a HBPP to survive comfortably off 2% SWR. Any additional money beyond this, do whatever you want with. Put it all in stocks.
For example, suppose you need $100k/year to live comfortably as a wealthy person. Put $5M in the HBPP so you can always safely withdraw 2% a year forever. Then put the rest of your money in stocks.
Side note: $2M is not wealthy by any means.
Re: More stocks for the rich
TripleB's point is not theoretical. From its high in 1929 the stock market actually did tank 90% to the subsequent low in 1932.
Re: More stocks for the rich
I think it's all relative. Pointedstick is a master of living way within his means. He once survived off of shoe leather for three years during a weak market.TripleB wrote: Side note: $2M is not wealthy by any means.
Re: More stocks for the rich
"Once you become truly rich, you start to think this way."
No, you really don't.
Back in 2007, my wife and I had a combined wealth well into the seven figures. We both came from lower-middle class families but were fortunate to finish college, earn graduate degrees and have good jobs. But clearly remembering our background, we did not in any way consider ourselves rich.
Then 2008 came along and our portfolio went down 31%. Although we were still working, that decline hurt - a lot. However, we kept our heads together, reduced our spending, and rebalanced our portfolios. Today we are retired and are wealthier than we were in 2007. However, we still do not feel rich.
Why? Because my wife and I both know that something like 2008 can happen again, and maybe even worse.
Wealth is nice, but fleeting. It is easier to lose than to create. And with our country being $18 trillion in debt and growing, the Federal government is always looking for opportunities to take more.
No, you really don't.
Back in 2007, my wife and I had a combined wealth well into the seven figures. We both came from lower-middle class families but were fortunate to finish college, earn graduate degrees and have good jobs. But clearly remembering our background, we did not in any way consider ourselves rich.
Then 2008 came along and our portfolio went down 31%. Although we were still working, that decline hurt - a lot. However, we kept our heads together, reduced our spending, and rebalanced our portfolios. Today we are retired and are wealthier than we were in 2007. However, we still do not feel rich.
Why? Because my wife and I both know that something like 2008 can happen again, and maybe even worse.
Wealth is nice, but fleeting. It is easier to lose than to create. And with our country being $18 trillion in debt and growing, the Federal government is always looking for opportunities to take more.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: More stocks for the rich
I'd have to have a little more of a buffer than that. That 2% withdrawal rate is often equal to the S&P dividend these days. If stocks were cut in half, and the dividend along with it, I'd have to actually sell stocks to get my 40K, and that would hurt.
If I could pay my expenses from the interest on a bunch of short-to-mid-term treasuries, then I would happily invest the rest in things like stocks.
This probably shouldn't make a difference, but it's likely that I could not help investing differently if that $2 million fell into my lap abruptly, say from a lottery jackpot. If I keep making money from savings and the growth of the HBPP, I am more likely to keep growing that pp organically to $2 mil and changing nothing as I pass that and other milestones.
If, on the other hand I suddenly receive a big blob of wealth, I guess I might do something risky with part of that windfall while keeping my theretofore holdings the same.
If I could pay my expenses from the interest on a bunch of short-to-mid-term treasuries, then I would happily invest the rest in things like stocks.
This probably shouldn't make a difference, but it's likely that I could not help investing differently if that $2 million fell into my lap abruptly, say from a lottery jackpot. If I keep making money from savings and the growth of the HBPP, I am more likely to keep growing that pp organically to $2 mil and changing nothing as I pass that and other milestones.
If, on the other hand I suddenly receive a big blob of wealth, I guess I might do something risky with part of that windfall while keeping my theretofore holdings the same.
Last edited by dualstow on Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Kriegsspiel
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm
Re: More stocks for the rich
Personally, I would rather have a core of investments that could handle basic living expenses (food, housing, health insurance), like the PP and some real estate. Then afterwards yea, invest the surplus in stocks. At least that way, you have some optionality. Like if stocks have a good year like we just had, you could
a) convert a chunk of your stocks into your core investments, to raise your basic standard of living a bit.
b) sell some stocks and buy something you've had your eye on.
c) sell some stocks and travel with the proceeds + your usual expenses.
d) let the stocks ride some more.
e) get a dog....
Etc etc... At least that way you don't need to be worried about a huge drop in your only asset. It's almost like you haven't 'really' won the game yet.
a) convert a chunk of your stocks into your core investments, to raise your basic standard of living a bit.
b) sell some stocks and buy something you've had your eye on.
c) sell some stocks and travel with the proceeds + your usual expenses.
d) let the stocks ride some more.
e) get a dog....
Etc etc... At least that way you don't need to be worried about a huge drop in your only asset. It's almost like you haven't 'really' won the game yet.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
Re: More stocks for the rich
Fleeting for sure. I have no idea how long it would take a typical working family earning various amounts of money to amass a $2 million portfolio. Too many variables. But I'm fairly certain that it would take a working couple earning a combined $200k/yr a substantial number of years. And given that a typical stock market correction, not crash, just a run of the mill correction, is considered 10% from peak to trough, that's an entire year's worth of pre-tax earnings...poof.EdwardjK wrote: "Once you become truly rich, you start to think this way."
No, you really don't.
Back in 2007, my wife and I had a combined wealth well into the seven figures. We both came from lower-middle class families but were fortunate to finish college, earn graduate degrees and have good jobs. But clearly remembering our background, we did not in any way consider ourselves rich.
Then 2008 came along and our portfolio went down 31%. Although we were still working, that decline hurt - a lot. However, we kept our heads together, reduced our spending, and rebalanced our portfolios. Today we are retired and are wealthier than we were in 2007. However, we still do not feel rich.
Why? Because my wife and I both know that something like 2008 can happen again, and maybe even worse.
Wealth is nice, but fleeting. It is easier to lose than to create. And with our country being $18 trillion in debt and growing, the Federal government is always looking for opportunities to take more.
It's hard to consider oneself "rich" because the word "rich" doesn't have a definitive definition. All that happens as one's wealth increases is that you get closer to being able to afford that next tier of purchasable goods. Not sure what the highest tier is, but I imagine it requires billions in wealth before you can afford it.
Re: More stocks for the rich
But what is the PP's SWR? The portfolio's only been investable since the 70s. And the first few years came right after we came off the gold standard. And then the last 35 years have been a runaway bond bull market. I still don't think the PP has been tested in all market conditions.TripleB wrote: A smarter strategy would be to have enough money in a HBPP to survive comfortably off 2% SWR. Any additional money beyond this, do whatever you want with. Put it all in stocks.
Doesn't this depend entirely on your required yearly spending?Side note: $2M is not wealthy by any means.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: More stocks for the rich
Wonderful comments, everyone. It seems to be a topic that provokes strong reactions!
For the record, I agree that a core PP that provides your living expenses with a VP of 100% stocks makes a lot more sense than a portfolio of pure 100% stocks, no matter the size. If ever have a humongous amount of money, I would never abandon the PP; at the minimum, I would keep it as my "core" safe and stable investment.
For the record, I agree that a core PP that provides your living expenses with a VP of 100% stocks makes a lot more sense than a portfolio of pure 100% stocks, no matter the size. If ever have a humongous amount of money, I would never abandon the PP; at the minimum, I would keep it as my "core" safe and stable investment.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: More stocks for the rich
Gosh, I sure hope that is not the case for me and my family. I am hoping that we will reach a point of "enough is enough" and not give a rat's ass what other stuff there is to buy. But I guess time will tell. I just can't imagine a big bump up in happiness beyond a certain point.iwealth wrote: All that happens as one's wealth increases is that you get closer to being able to afford that next tier of purchasable goods.
Re: More stocks for the rich
History shows that the PP supports a 4% SWR in a much more stable manner than a typical stock/bond portfolio that the SWR study was based on. Check out the last chart in the first post here: http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/pe ... -pictures/iwealth wrote: But what is the PP's SWR? The portfolio's only been investable since the 70s. And the first few years came right after we came off the gold standard. And then the last 35 years have been a runaway bond bull market. I still don't think the PP has been tested in all market conditions.
Last edited by Tyler on Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: More stocks for the rich
To answer PS's original question, I agree with the premise of "extra money" you can afford to take risks with. I don't think I would throw it all in a stock index, though. The PP is my passive investment strategy of choice, and I feel no need to juice returns once financially independent. For my VP above and beyond the money that supports my everyday life, I think I'd be more inclined to take a more active role in how the money is used and angel invest, play with Lending Club, start a new business, etc. Stuff where even when I lose money I feel good for trying.
Last edited by Tyler on Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: More stocks for the rich
I wonder, is there really much opportunity to boost returns by investing in stocks once you've amassed great wealth? Why take the risk of that 50% haircut? The CAGR of the PP (35/15) since 1/1/1972 has been 9.28%, while for the S&P500 it has been 9.58% (dividends reinvested, numbers from peak2trough). I think if I had $2 million, or $2 billion, I would just maintain the PP and take the 5% average real return and sleep soundly. I would agree with Pointedstick if stocks were significantly better an investment than the PP, but that's just not the case. My apologies to PS, but I think this sounds a lot better:
"Imagine you are a person who spends $40,000 a year, and this spending level is sustained by a permanent portfolio of $2 million, all in stocks. This represents a 2% withdrawal rate. Now imagine that the stock market tanks, so your portfolio falls grows to only, say, $1 million $2.1 million. Even with this disastrous decline, you are still able to withdraw the same amount safely, this time at "only" a 4% rate 1.9% rate! You still have enough plenty of money to sustain your lifestyle with no changes, and as a result, you can wait out the decline and reinvest your dividends and coupons and interest in now-super-cheap shares, then rebalance, priming you for an even higher sum of money after a few years when the market recovers regardless of what happens in the stock market."
That was fun!
"Imagine you are a person who spends $40,000 a year, and this spending level is sustained by a permanent portfolio of $2 million, all in stocks. This represents a 2% withdrawal rate. Now imagine that the stock market tanks, so your portfolio falls grows to only, say, $1 million $2.1 million. Even with this disastrous decline, you are still able to withdraw the same amount safely, this time at "only" a 4% rate 1.9% rate! You still have enough plenty of money to sustain your lifestyle with no changes, and as a result, you can wait out the decline and reinvest your dividends and coupons and interest in now-super-cheap shares, then rebalance, priming you for an even higher sum of money after a few years when the market recovers regardless of what happens in the stock market."
That was fun!
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: More stocks for the rich
Pet Hog wrote: "Imagine you are a person who spends $40,000 a year, and this spending level is sustained by a permanent portfolio of $2 million, all in stocks. This represents a 2% withdrawal rate. Now imagine that the stock market tanks, so your portfolio falls grows to only, say, $1 million $2.1 million. Even with this disastrous decline, you are still able to withdraw the same amount safely, this time at "only" a 4% rate 1.9% rate! You still have enough plenty of money to sustain your lifestyle with no changes, and as a result, you can wait out the decline and reinvest your dividends and coupons and interest in now-super-cheap shares, then rebalance, priming you for an even higher sum of money after a few years when the market recovers regardless of what happens in the stock market."
That was fun!
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: More stocks for the rich
This is what the wealthy do (from NT's 2008 Wealth in America report):Pointedstick wrote: Thoughts?
Last edited by MachineGhost on Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- I Shrugged
- Executive Member
- Posts: 2064
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm
Re: More stocks for the rich
I feel like I should have coherent thoughts on this, because I do in fact have the situation PS describes. Retired, large PP, and able to live off 1.0-1.5% easily. We could live on half that without trying too hard. So our PP grows most years, even after funding our lifestyle. I don't know how to view it. I'll babble a little, let's see if anything makes sense. Wm. Bernstein wrote that a guy like Bill Gates could be 100% stocks without much concern. I've mentioned how I don't want to rebalance and pay the taxes. As a result I'm something like 35% stocks right now. I have decided to listen to Bernstein on that, and not worry about stocks getting to more than their share. Sure, I will feel terrible if they go down 90%. But whether I have 25% or 45% at that time, it won't materially affect my lifestyle. Geez, it's hard to write that and believe it. But it's true.
The opposite view of course is that I should be laying off risk. I should be more cash-like, more gold, etc. Well, I want the money to grow, to keep pace with and hopefully beat inflation. I need stocks in the mix.
Why do I want the money to grow? Because! The people who are planning to 4% SWR their way down to zero are doing that because they have to, more or less. I don't. I want to make a bigger pile and do something good with it.
Well, as I thought, just some babbling and no real answer to the question. Maybe the real answer is, if you have a decent plan, given enough money the AA doesn't matter a helluva lot.
The opposite view of course is that I should be laying off risk. I should be more cash-like, more gold, etc. Well, I want the money to grow, to keep pace with and hopefully beat inflation. I need stocks in the mix.
Why do I want the money to grow? Because! The people who are planning to 4% SWR their way down to zero are doing that because they have to, more or less. I don't. I want to make a bigger pile and do something good with it.
Well, as I thought, just some babbling and no real answer to the question. Maybe the real answer is, if you have a decent plan, given enough money the AA doesn't matter a helluva lot.
Stay free, my friends.
Re: More stocks for the rich
You are to be congratulated!!! I only hope to do half as well. I also like PS's PP/VP model. A combination of municipal bonds and dividend stocks in the VP would provide some income while minimizing the tax bill - but I'm not sure I'd bother with munis unless my PP was giving me too much of a tax headache.I Shrugged wrote: I feel like I should have coherent thoughts on this, because I do in fact have the situation PS describes. Retired, large PP, and able to live off 1.0-1.5% easily.
I think if I were in your situation, I'd "rebalance" by taking the excess stocks and counting them as a VP. And consider converting from stock index funds to individually held dividend stocks, if qualified dividends provided a useful advantage over the ordinary kind and the capital gains wouldn't result in too much of a tax bite.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: More stocks for the rich
Nice work! I pretty much agree with your last statement, but I think you give yourself too little credit for your accumulation skills. Your financial instincts have an admirable track record, and I'm sure you'll make similarly wise choices moving forward.I Shrugged wrote: I feel like I should have coherent thoughts on this, because I do in fact have the situation PS describes. Retired, large PP, and able to live off 1.0-1.5% easily. ... Maybe the real answer is, if you have a decent plan, given enough money the AA doesn't matter a helluva lot.