Just before Christmas Whatsherface's excuse to drink wine at lunch/investment club created a fantasy buy of 100 shares each of Johnson&J, P&G, 3M, WalMart, Verizon, Mickey Ds {excuse- I never go there but I had to pee and bought a salad) and EX/Mob .
The list was generated by the most recent thing they each bought!!
They now think investing is easy .
[quote]K5 detector wrote:
Hi, K5!
Changing allocations could mean increasing or decreasing exposure to equities. Usually as one nears retirement,equity allocations are decreased but not completely eliminated. I'm surprised you didn't know this.
How does one reduce exposure to equities without getting money out of the market?
You sell some, but not all, of your equities. This isn't rocket science.
Rocket scientist wrote:
You sell some, but not all, of your equities. This isn't rocket science.
No kidding.
Which is the point.
Let's return to my original point which you all seem to be ignoring:
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:
Igy, as you near retirement you change the allocations in your portfolio. Most are not in that position and should be open to more risk. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fount of the common wisdom. That makes no sense.
If you are nearing retirement and are say, age 62, you have a life expectancy approaching 25 years.
The common wisdom tells us that you should be in the market over the long run. It also tells us 25 years is the long run.
But then it contradicts itself by saying get more conservative as you near retirement.
And guys like POOV repeat it like it makes perfect sense.
Who is POOV?
Where Else wrote:
Let's return to my original point which you all seem to be ignoring:
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:
Igy, as you near retirement you change the allocations in your portfolio. Most are not in that position and should be open to more risk. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fount of the common wisdom. That makes no sense.
If you are nearing retirement and are say, age 62, you have a life expectancy approaching 25 years.
The common wisdom tells us that you should be in the market over the long run. It also tells us 25 years is the long run.
But then it contradicts itself by saying get more conservative as you near retirement.
And guys like POOV repeat it like it makes perfect sense.
Please see my earlier reply to the other poster. You can get more conservative and still be in the market. This isn't rocket science.
Rocket scientist wrote:
Please see my earlier reply to the other poster. You can get more conservative and still be in the market. This isn't rocket science.
So you honestly don't see the contradiction between the sales pitch that you are better off being in the market over the long run and the alternate pitch that you get more conservative as you near retirement -- even though your life expectancy is 25 years? Or is it that 25 years is not the long run?
I await your usual on point answer (that's sarcasm as I understand you are not the brightest of bulbs).
There is no contradiction. This isn't rocket science.
Rocket scientist wrote:
There is no contradiction. This isn't rocket science.
No contradiction between the statements you should always be in the market over the long haul and begin to pull back from the market as your life expectancy nears 25 years?
I say there clearly is as 25 years is surely long term.
Can you actually defend what you are proclaiming? Or do you feel that just constantly making the same assertion makes it true?
Unless you completely liquidate your equity position, you are still in the market. Reallocating assets is not equivalent to completely liquidating one's equity positions. This isn't rocket science.
Rocket scientist wrote:
Unless you completely liquidate your equity position, you are still in the market. Reallocating assets is not equivalent to completely liquidating one's equity positions. This isn't rocket science.
But why reallocate to a more conservative position if you have 25 years to invest given that we are told to be aggressive over the long haul.
I am going to make you provide an actual answer instead of your usual "this isn't rocket science" nonsense.
You are conversing with the troll K5. He uses many different handles pretending to be different posters.
He is not very bright. As evidence consider the very first post in this thread. Yes, that was him.
You are best to just ignore him. He doesn't understand that he is wrong, or he is trolling you.
Where Else wrote:
Rocket scientist wrote:Unless you completely liquidate your equity position, you are still in the market. Reallocating assets is not equivalent to completely liquidating one's equity positions. This isn't rocket science.
But why reallocate to a more conservative position if you have 25 years to invest given that we are told to be aggressive over the long haul.
I am going to make you provide an actual answer instead of your usual "this isn't rocket science" nonsense.
If one is retired, one might reallocate to a more conservative position in order to protect assets. In retirement, it is a greater challenge to withstand severe drops in the market. This isn't rocket science.
K5 detector wrote:
You are conversing with the troll K5. He uses many different handles pretending to be different posters.
He is not very bright. As evidence consider the very first post in this thread. Yes, that was him.
You are best to just ignore him. He doesn't understand that he is wrong, or he is trolling you.
Got it.
1. We are told that it is best to be more aggressive over the long haul;
2. 25 years is the long haul it would seem (although, like most expert financial advice, this term is not oft rigorously defined).
3. Yet we are told to get more conservative as we near retirement -- even though we have a life expectancy of 25 years.
There is a clear contradiction in this "expert" advice.
Unless you can show how there is not.
[quote]Rocket scientist wrote:
"In retirement, it is a greater challenge to withstand severe drops in the market."
Why? What does that even mean?
I am going to get an actual thought out of you one of these days instead of the usual buzz words and phrases.
Reader of the thread wrote:
Who is POOV?
Bump
Reader of the thread wrote:
Reader of the thread wrote:Who is POOV?
Bump
Clearly it refers to Pointing Out the Obvious. As far as how that ended u[ as POOV, you need to ask the originator of that label.
Make,
Your assumptions about expert advices take a simplistic view, perhaps this represents a certain prejudice. Any advisor or internet blogger for that matter, that would advise an aggressive stock allocation prior to or at retirement is just wrong, period. In this regard to a pre-retirement asset allocation there is the concept of sequence of risk. In a nutshell, entering retirement in a down market dramatically alters both the withdrawal amount and increases the likelyhood that one will outlive their funds. So to assume you get back to where you were simply by the factor of time is just false. It is all in the math, the retiree is withdrawing money well beyond the negative rate of return. That is why high allocations to stock for a soon to be retiree is so foolish. Mose Milesky has done some work in this area:
http://www.ifid.ca/pdf_newslet...encing.pdf
Igy