For those who are not 100% equities

[Anonymous]

What percent do you have in other asset classes? And what is your strategy with those investments? Is it just to weather a market downturn so you don’t sell depressed stock? Is it to be opportunistic and have cash to buy when the bubble bursts? Is it you just don’t like being 100 percent all in on equities?

[Anonymous]

30% at age 50 going to 40% at age 60. Goal is to meet my income goals without a crazy amount of risk. Losing money is a risk, but so is inflation. I don't see a need to rebalance into stock, but will rebalance into bonds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What percent do you have in other asset classes? And what is your strategy with those investments? Is it just to weather a market downturn so you don’t sell depressed stock? Is it to be opportunistic and have cash to buy when the bubble bursts? Is it you just don’t like being 100 percent all in on equities?

I am roughly half and half.

That is because I am already retired, and need the option of having investments that I can cash out to live on. I don’t want to have to do that with stocks, , when they dip.

[Anonymous]

We’re 80/20 and plan to continue that all through retirement. The 20 is in HYSA, Bond ETFs, MMF and cash. In the future we’ll add CDs and TBills.

[Anonymous]

I just turned 60 and my family history indicates that I'll likely live into my 90s. To make sure that I have enough money to support myself, I'm about 80% in equities, with the remainder divided roughly equally between bonds and cash (CDs and HYSA). My main cushion comes from a pension -- my chosen position trades a higher salary for stability.

[Anonymous]

60/40. Plenty of room for growth, but more stability and income than with a higher percentage of equities, along with less risk. My portfolio is large, and I have no need to reach for every last possible bit of growth through a more risky higher percentage of equity allocation - taking some "off the table" is a form of insurance.

Studies have shown that while higher percentage of equities result, over a very long time period, in higher returns, the differential isn't actually so high as to justify for many people the associated risks and volatility of such a portfolio. In the chart on the page below, the 60/40 portfolio returned 8.8% compared to 10.5% for the 100% equity portfolio, a real but not massive difference when you also look at the relative volatilities of the two.

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

[Anonymous]

We are 56 and about 2 years away from retirement. We are about 80% in equities. About 10% of that is in an international fund. The rest is in T bills, bond fund, CDs and I bonds. We have about $6.5 million invested/saved. We will likely reduce the amount in equities a bit in the upcoming years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:60/40. Plenty of room for growth, but more stability and income than with a higher percentage of equities, along with less risk. My portfolio is large, and I have no need to reach for every last possible bit of growth through a more risky higher percentage of equity allocation - taking some "off the table" is a form of insurance.

Studies have shown that while higher percentage of equities result, over a very long time period, in higher returns, the differential isn't actually so high as to justify for many people the associated risks and volatility of such a portfolio. In the chart on the page below, the 60/40 portfolio returned 8.8% compared to 10.5% for the 100% equity portfolio, a real but not massive difference when you also look at the relative volatilities of the two.

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

It could make a massive difference over, say, 30 years. Not that I'm all equities due to that

[Anonymous]

2/3 equity and 1/3 real estate.

[Anonymous]

65% stocks, 15% CDs, 20% real estate (not including our house). The CDs and 60% of the real estate are DH's idea of investing. If it were me, they would all be in stocks. (The remaining 40% is in a trust I inherited and can't be changed.) DH is retired and has an excellent pension. Mine will be even better.

[Anonymous]

I’m more than 100% equities. I have my investments in leveraged etfs.

[Anonymous]

I mean, I think 90% of people have at least some portion of their net worth in real estate, right?

By net worth we are:
~73% equities
~15% real estate (primary)
~3% real estate (investment)
~6% cash
~3% treasuries

We have also invested a chunk in two pre-IPO businesses, but don't know how that will turn out so no way to value it.

Of course if you just looked at our investment accounts you'd see equities and some cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:60/40. Plenty of room for growth, but more stability and income than with a higher percentage of equities, along with less risk. My portfolio is large, and I have no need to reach for every last possible bit of growth through a more risky higher percentage of equity allocation - taking some "off the table" is a form of insurance.

Studies have shown that while higher percentage of equities result, over a very long time period, in higher returns, the differential isn't actually so high as to justify for many people the associated risks and volatility of such a portfolio. In the chart on the page below, the 60/40 portfolio returned 8.8% compared to 10.5% for the 100% equity portfolio, a real but not massive difference when you also look at the relative volatilities of the two.

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Over a 20-25 year period, a 100% equity portfolio will be worth roughly twice as much as a 60/40 portfolio. Just another angle to look at when making asset allocation decisions.

[Anonymous]

All in stocks and crypto only, which allowed me to retire at 47. What I have learned about investing, no CD or real estate could teach me.
May add real estate at 62, but not excited about it at all.
I have so many backup plans. They should be backups plans, but they are all working out just fine even without being needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:60/40. Plenty of room for growth, but more stability and income than with a higher percentage of equities, along with less risk. My portfolio is large, and I have no need to reach for every last possible bit of growth through a more risky higher percentage of equity allocation - taking some "off the table" is a form of insurance.

Studies have shown that while higher percentage of equities result, over a very long time period, in higher returns, the differential isn't actually so high as to justify for many people the associated risks and volatility of such a portfolio. In the chart on the page below, the 60/40 portfolio returned 8.8% compared to 10.5% for the 100% equity portfolio, a real but not massive difference when you also look at the relative volatilities of the two.

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

It could make a massive difference over, say, 30 years. Not that I'm all equities due to that

Yes, but that difference could be either positive or negative, depending on the sequence of returns for different asset classes.