Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Same old story wrote:
As usual, Igy resorts to perceived insults when he has no logical counter argument.
No that is the description of you. You provide nothing as usual to support your views other than lies and distortions.
Why? God only knows what motivates your problem.
Igy
Actually I gave very good support for my point. Meanwhile you continue to do exactly as I described.
OK, let’s see you view right now, otherwise as you say we should consider it B.S.
Same old story wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No that is the description of you. You provide nothing as usual to support your views other than lies and distortions.
Why? God only knows what motivates your problem.
Igy
Actually I gave very good support for my point. Meanwhile you continue to do exactly as I described.
I am pretty certain you can’t make a cogent statement about what you believe.
I don't know how much more of this i can take.
Try this on for size. Igy is about 65 years old. As such, he's resigned to strive for an asset allocation that is a bit heavy on fixed assets, bonds, real estate, treasuries, etc., and light on stocks. That's where he is and it is conventional wisdom to boot. So, as he transitions to this a few years ago, he says why not, but in so doing, he sees equities go considerably higher (and higher, and higher...). Misery loves company so he justifies his misfortune by discrediting everyone else who he is secretly envious of.
Short version: Igy is light on stocks because that's the recommended asset allocation of an investor of his age. He taunts others who are making a killing just because he's on the sidelines and can't play, though he could if wanted to risk his assets with a long investment horizon no longer available to earn it back if it were to dip.
If he had any balls he'd short the hell out of the market. But that doesn't fit the profile.
seattle prattle wrote:
I don't know how much more of this i can take.
Try this on for size. Igy is about 65 years old. As such, he's resigned to strive for an asset allocation that is a bit heavy on fixed assets, bonds, real estate, treasuries, etc., and light on stocks. That's where he is and it is conventional wisdom to boot. So, as he transitions to this a few years ago, he says why not, but in so doing, he sees equities go considerably higher (and higher, and higher...). Misery loves company so he justifies his misfortune by discrediting everyone else who he is secretly envious of.
Short version: Igy is light on stocks because that's the recommended asset allocation of an investor of his age. He taunts others who are making a killing just because he's on the sidelines and can't play, though he could if wanted to risk his assets with a long investment horizon no longer available to earn it back if it were to dip.
If he had any balls he'd short the hell out of the market. But that doesn't fit the profile.
Interesting theory. What is your recommended allocation for a 65 year old? Do you understand sequence of return?
seattle prattle wrote:
I don't know how much more of this i can take.
Try this on for size. Igy is about 65 years old. As such, he's resigned to strive for an asset allocation that is a bit heavy on fixed assets, bonds, real estate, treasuries, etc., and light on stocks. That's where he is and it is conventional wisdom to boot. So, as he transitions to this a few years ago, he says why not, but in so doing, he sees equities go considerably higher (and higher, and higher...). Misery loves company so he justifies his misfortune by discrediting everyone else who he is secretly envious of.
Short version: Igy is light on stocks because that's the recommended asset allocation of an investor of his age. He taunts others who are making a killing just because he's on the sidelines and can't play, though he could if wanted to risk his assets with a long investment horizon no longer available to earn it back if it were to dip.
If he had any balls he'd short the hell out of the market. But that doesn't fit the profile.
I could have poked fun at you on the “older man” thread. Giving you the same treatment but flipping to your running. But felt better letting you continue play your silly game.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, let’s see you view right now, otherwise as you say we should consider it B.S.
I am viewing right now. Perhaps you should try it.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
I don't know how much more of this i can take.
Try this on for size. Igy is about 65 years old. As such, he's resigned to strive for an asset allocation that is a bit heavy on fixed assets, bonds, real estate, treasuries, etc., and light on stocks. That's where he is and it is conventional wisdom to boot. So, as he transitions to this a few years ago, he says why not, but in so doing, he sees equities go considerably higher (and higher, and higher...). Misery loves company so he justifies his misfortune by discrediting everyone else who he is secretly envious of.
Short version: Igy is light on stocks because that's the recommended asset allocation of an investor of his age. He taunts others who are making a killing just because he's on the sidelines and can't play, though he could if wanted to risk his assets with a long investment horizon no longer available to earn it back if it were to dip.
If he had any balls he'd short the hell out of the market. But that doesn't fit the profile.
Interesting theory. What is your recommended allocation for a 65 year old? Do you understand sequence of return?
No, neverheard of it. But as for a recommended allocation for a 65 year old, i would say it depends on your investment horizon. If you or I are going to need the money, better to be conservative and have a relatively small percentage in stocks. I have also read that if one has a sizable investment portfolio, they may choose to have a higher allocation of stocks since their more sizable assets will allow them to ride out a dip without getting dangerously low in so doing.
You and I both know that conventional wisdom for a 65 year old is something like 40% equities, though don't quote me.
seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Interesting theory. What is your recommended allocation for a 65 year old? Do you understand sequence of return?
No, neverheard of it. But as for a recommended allocation for a 65 year old, i would say it depends on your investment horizon. If you or I are going to need the money, better to be conservative and have a relatively small percentage in stocks. I have also read that if one has a sizable investment portfolio, they may choose to have a higher allocation of stocks since their more sizable assets will allow them to ride out a dip without getting dangerously low in so doing.
You and I both know that conventional wisdom for a 65 year old is something like 40% equities, though don't quote me.
Seattle,
Sequence of return simply explained is during the distribution phase financial plan survivability is impacted adversely by poor market performance. Suppose there is a 2000-2002 or 2007-2009 event at retirement. Essentially your plan can suffer failure by even moderate allocations to stocks. Think of it as reverse compounding, poor portfolio performance with mandatory life style withdrawals.
Interestingly many target date retirement funds have higher allocations to stocks than you would recommend for a similar cohort. I suppose it becomes a factor linked to portfolio management compensation. That is, performance attracts funds, out performance earns bonuses, and “to Hell with the Prudent Man Principle.”
Igy
That type of thinking is slowly being turned on its head. The reality is that someone retiring at 65 may have the need for 20+ years of investment survivability. Thus modern thinking is that stock allocations should remain higher than the traditional 40% at retirement.
Record highs on Friday for all of the major indices! Life is good!
mellon wrote:
We already read this same kind of commentary from you three, two, one year ago.
How did those predictions turn out as of TODAY?
I didn't ask for support of your viewpoint, I asked you to answer my question.
Obviously, you can't.
And don't say you don't make prediction. Your comments, and other commentary you've posted for the past 3 years have pointed to a major correction, or collapse that has never happened.
It will happen. Everyone knows that, so continuing to point out the obvious is just a waste of time and bandwidth.
Brett wrote:
It will happen. Everyone knows that, so continuing to point out the obvious is just a waste of time and bandwidth.
That was never the point and if you didn’t get the point it was a bandwidth issue.
Financial Advisor wrote:
That type of thinking is slowly being turned on its head. The reality is that someone retiring at 65 may have the need for 20+ years of investment survivability. Thus modern thinking is that stock allocations should remain higher than the traditional 40% at retirement.
You should test that assumption against facts. Research sequence of return and you will learn to be a better FA.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Earnie wrote:
Earnings Scorecard: For Q4 2017 (with 24% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for the quarter), 76% of S&P 500 companies have reported positive EPS surprises and 81% have reported positive sales surprises.
But As Reported (GAAP) Q4,'17 est declines 19.6% ($53.1B) .
I post actual numbers. You post guesses.
mellon wrote:
mellon wrote:
We already read this same kind of commentary from you three, two, one year ago.
How did those predictions turn out as of TODAY?
I didn't ask for support of your viewpoint, I asked you to answer my question.
Obviously, you can't.
And don't say you don't make prediction. Your comments, and other commentary you've posted for the past 3 years have pointed to a major correction, or collapse that has never happened.
No it has been a valuation question but you can’t handle facts. For you the only justification for your view is the direction of the market, which has been one way since the election and not a day before.
Earnie wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
But As Reported (GAAP) Q4,'17 est declines 19.6% ($53.1B) .
I post actual numbers. You post guesses.
No you only post non-GAAP.
They are actual numbers and arguably a better measure than GAAP.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Financial Advisor wrote:
That type of thinking is slowly being turned on its head. The reality is that someone retiring at 65 may have the need for 20+ years of investment survivability. Thus modern thinking is that stock allocations should remain higher than the traditional 40% at retirement.
You should test that assumption against facts. Research sequence of return and you will learn to be a better FA.
There is always the strategy to move to safer stock picks rather than moving out of stocks. Something like Berkshire Hathaway as opposed to Tesla or the FANG group, Similarly, moving towards dividend-paying stocks and out of the high growth ones. Of course, this is assuming one has the assets to outlast a market downturn.
I believe this would be more in line with what Financial Advisor is referring to.