Quantcast
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2254

Investing - Theory, News & General • Re: Why "traditional" asset allocation may be very WRONG

The other reality is that you’re also likely to have a higher starting balance. If you prefix both with 10 years of accumulation before draw down, I wonder what the impact looks like.
Then the comparison wasn't even close. You ended up with 3-4x the money.
I’d argue the more you’re over 25x the less you have to worry about a bad outcome and the more risk you can take. I wouldn’t have much to worry about at 50x. A 50% drawdown basically gets me back to 25x until it rebounds. At 100x you can basically live off of dividends and rarely sell anything.

But to make that happen you have to avoid lifestyle creep.
Absolutely. Gives you room to make adjustments. As your assets grow your capacity to take risk increases as well.

Pensions can also create this scenario if you can live without any draw from the portfolio. My planned draw rate is 2% or 50x as you referenced.
You can have bad decades too. Model from 2000 forward, where equities returned nothing nominally.
Thankfully, if you're at 100x and living off dividends, they still paid and your lifestyle can continue! That's the benefit (see username) of dividends. Equity returns overall mean, functionally, very little. It's just a nice pat on the back to see your nest egg grow, but the important part is dividend growth and CAGR.

https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/SPY/div ... end-growth

Statistics: Posted by Div-Farmer — Fri Sep 13, 2024 10:37 am



Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2254

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>