Anonymous
10/27/2025 21:42
Subject: For those who are not 100% equities
Anonymous wrote:You should never be 100% equities, no matter how old you are. It’s not hard to do your own portfolio. There is a lot of guidance on the internet and it’s not that complicated for people that aren’t high net worth.
You should have a mix of stocks, bonds, cash, and metals (though gold is so expensive most people missed the boat there). For cash put in CDs to make a little money.
Wow, that's bad advice
Anonymous
10/27/2025 18:29
Subject: For those who are not 100% equities
You should never be 100% equities, no matter how old you are. It’s not hard to do your own portfolio. There is a lot of guidance on the internet and it’s not that complicated for people that aren’t high net worth.
You should have a mix of stocks, bonds, cash, and metals (though gold is so expensive most people missed the boat there). For cash put in CDs to make a little money.
You should have a mix of stocks, bonds, cash, and metals (though gold is so expensive most people missed the boat there). For cash put in CDs to make a little money.
Anonymous
10/27/2025 18:07
Subject: Re:For those who are not 100% equities
We are likely 65% equities, 10% bonds, 5% cash and 20% in alternative investments like private equity. We are recently retired so we are going to build up our cash cushion because our cash flow situation has changed. Our HH operating costs are high as are our taxes just on investments.
Anonymous
10/27/2025 17:26
Subject: For those who are not 100% equities
Anonymous wrote: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.
Real Estate was a good way way to get rich up to maybe 2014. The prices have just risen too much. No more buy a house for 300k or condo 100K and rent it out and watch it shoot up in value.
Anonymous
10/27/2025 17:11
Subject: For those who are not 100% equities
NW $13m
Invested assets: $7.5m
Real estate equity $4.5m
Cash: $1m
Invested assets: $7.5m
Real estate equity $4.5m
Cash: $1m
Anonymous
10/27/2025 16:19
Subject: Re:For those who are not 100% equities
Anonymous wrote: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.
Over 30 years, the difference will be positive.