This is a guest post from A.J. Clark, a long-time lurker at Get Rich Slowly. A.J. is a potential Staff Writer for GRS. He is a recent college graduate who writes software in the financial services industry, while trying to find his financial footing in the Real World. In his first post, A.J. explained that he’s hoping to finish ahead by starting behind.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I recently transitioned into my role as a salaried employee at my job.
Along with the increase in work responsibilities, I am now eligible to receive a variety of benefits from my employer, which include various forms of insurance, a 401(k) plan, and other fringe benefits such as flexible spending accounts for health-related purchases.
In August, I will make my first contribution to a 401(k) plan, which is quite a big step for me considering how much debt I have left to pay off. After all, every dollar that I put into my 401(k) plan I could be using in other ways — to make a principal payment on my student loans, or to further build my emergency fund.
On the surface, not making a principal payment on my student loans does not seem to carry a large opportunity cost. However, the majority of my student loan debt is tied up in two high-interest student loans from a private lender, with over $25,000 currently carrying a 10% interest rate that will change whenever the Federal Reserve alters the federal funds rate.
Theoretically, student loan debt is supposed to be on the same level as mortgage debt, in that it should not be a burden on the borrower, and is regarded as a “good” debt to have. Due to their interest rates, my private student loans are on the same plane as my credit cards, and therefore should be paid off as soon as possible.
Losing My Appetite
Since I receive matching contributions from my employer to my 401(k) up to a pre-determined dollar amount, the decision to contribute to my 401(k) was not difficult.
For instance, suppose my employer matched the first $1500 of contributions that I made to my 401(k). This means that if I put $1500 into my 401(k), I would receive $1500 dollars from my employer at the end of the year — an effective return of 100% on my investment!
When I initially thought about contributing to my 401(k), I thought that I would contribute only enough money to receive the full match from my employer. “Why be greedy?” I thought to myself; 100% interest is much better than what most others are receiving on their investments.
When I had this mentality, my appetite for risk completely disappeared. I wanted to grab ahold of the 100% return that I thought I would be receiving, and not let go of it. I wanted to invest my entire 401(k) portfolio in long-term treasury bonds, to ensure that the principal amount that I invested into the plan would be safeguarded from the current market turbulence. I did not want the market to cause me to lose money that I worked hard to earn, and wanted to see saved.
Thinking about a more diverse (and aggressive) portfolio was simply out of the question; I needed to safeguard my fictitious principal balance at all costs. The voice in the back of my mind frequently reminded me that the money in my 401(k) could be paying off high interest debt instead, and that I should be careful with it.
Getting Hungrier
What I failed to realize is that putting money into a 401(k) is a long-term, life-altering decision, especially at my age. As far as I know, my parents have little to no money saved for retirement, and they are much closer to retirement age than I am. Yet, I am twenty-one years old, and despite the ridiculous amount of debt I am in, I am still able to make a meaningful contribution to my future, one that will hopefully allow me to end up in a better place than my parents are.
With the help of a family member, I realized that the money that I am investing now I am not going to need to use for at least another forty years. He convinced me that I am in a position now where I can afford to take a moderate amount of risk, and be reasonably aggressive in my asset allocation, whereas thirty years from now this will not be the case.
Although I still shudder at the thought of my investments significantly decreasing in value, I realized this week that I should not concern myself with the day-to-day ups and downs of my portfolio. I also learned that I should try and focus on the fact that I am saving money to secure my financial future, and that short-term losses will eventually be trumped by long-term gains.
Unlike many other individuals, I did not lose a lot of money during the recession because I did not have any money invested in the markets to begin with. With a greater appetite for risk, I can be sure that I will not miss out on the inevitable upswing in the markets, and I will be able to further grow my investments, and secure my future.
Let me ask you: What is your appetite for risk? Does your age have an influence on it, or do other factors significantly affect it?
This article is about Ask the Readers, Choices, Investing, Planning Thursday, 13th August 2009 (by J.D. Roth)


RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter




August 13th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Just taking a stab in the dark I’m guessing that a lot of people probably have less appetite for risk now than they did 2-3 years ago.
Some are probably looking back and thinking “I wish I had less appetite for it two years ago than I did”.
Unfortunately, most people have a greater appetite for risk at market tops tnan at market bottoms.
Who ever finds a way to reverse that psychology will no doubt end up wealthy!
August 13th, 2009 at 5:28 am
At my age (24), I’m comfortable with an asset allocation of 85% stocks (US+international) and 15% fixed-income. I plan on gradually shifting to more fixed-income as I age and along the way rebalance whenever my portfolio wavers from it’s allocation by 5%. This is a similar system to the one advocated by Benjamin Graham in The Intelligent Investor.
Also, as a side note I’d stay far away from long-term treasuries at this moment if I were you. Interest rates are at historic lows and when The Fed starts to tighten policy in a few months the value of treasuries will fall. You’d be much better served by having a diverse portfolio of fixed-income investments with varying maturities along with a healthy portion of stocks. Just my opinion though
-Gen Y Investor
August 13th, 2009 at 5:30 am
My risk tolerance is quite high, but I’m still young (23). I’m putting 15% of my income into my TSP (gov’t employee equivalent of a 401k) which is matched for the first 5%.
August 13th, 2009 at 5:35 am
When I started out I looked at the company match as free money that I wouldn’t have gotten and didn’t earn directly anyway. As such, I stuck it all in the higher risk parts of my plan because of the time horizon I was looking at and my feeling that this was money I could “afford” to lose a chunk of (so I go from a 100% return to 65%, I’m still ahead 65%! Find another investment that does that for you.) As time has moved along, I’ve adjusted that attitude somewhat and grown more conservative in my allocations. But it certainly helped me look longer term and took some of the emotion out of the “loses” I suffered in my investments over the current times. Sure I saw the “value” of my investments drop significantly, but compared to what I’d actually put in, in real inflation adjusted cash out of my pocket, I was still way ahead. Face it, no matter when you’re investing, there will be times that the “value” of your investments will go negative given the market fluctuations. If you’re married to the dollar value like it’s a bank account statement, you’ll panic. Buying low and selling high is one of the hardest things to do when investing, and likely always will be.
August 13th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Your risk should have increased when the market crashed… from 7500 to 9500, if you made the smart choices, you would be good to go…
I moved my 401K into the highest risk funds. I’m about 20%+ YTD in my funds…
When i was 18-22 i worked at a bank that matched our contributions… I had it all in the most risky items and i rebalanced once a month… Once i was vested, i walked out with more than triple what i invested… Withdrew it all and bought a house… (smartest idea? still not sure lol)
But right now, im 29 and still in high risk funds since the market had no where else to go but up… As long as the dollar doesn’t die or the US doesn’t start up some new currency system, i’ll stay there for a little longer and rebalance my funds every couple months…
Along with that, i have ladder CDs (no risk lol) with a little bit of money in each… nothing too crazy… But its better than .05% interest in a savings account…
August 13th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Pretty good article!
I’m 28, and my age definitely my appetite for risk. I’m still in the “learning how” stage of all this, but I have years and years ahead of me before retirement (even early retirement) so I have a different outlook than the one I’m sure to have with less than 5 years to retirement.
Oops, little proofreading slip.
“or does other factors”?
August 13th, 2009 at 6:32 am
“Once i was vested, i walked out with more than triple what i invested… Withdrew it all and bought a house… ”
Didn’t the federal government take you to the cleaners?
August 13th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Thanks for catching the proofreading error, Caitlin. I thought I’d fixed that, but I guess not…
As for myself, my own appetite for risk has diminished over the past year. While I understand intellectually that most of us need to take risks in order to obtain greater financial rewards, I’m just not as interested in doing so as I once was. As a result, I’ve been focusing on “safe” investments: prepaying the mortgage, building the emergency fund, investing some in bonds.
At the same time, I’m no fool. (Well, I hope I’m not, anyhow.) I understand the history of the stock market. When it’s very very low (as it was earlier this year), I do what I can to move money into it. That’s a very scary thing to do when the financial world seems to be crumbling all around us. I recognize that it’s the “right” thing to do from a theoretical standpoint, but that doesn’t make it any easier to do.
My own asset allocation used to be 100% stocks and 0% other stuff. Now it’s more like 50% stocks and 50% other stuff.
August 13th, 2009 at 6:38 am
The entire basis of this article is weird. A recent grad shouldn’t consider utilizing a 401k a risk, at the very minimum you should at least max out your companies matching contribution.
Also, with the tax incentives on both the 401k and even just paying off your student loans there is no reason to think you can’t start saving for retirement, pay off your student loans, and have at least a small emergency fund.
I’m 2 years out of college (20k+ in student loans) and I don’t even know how much money I’d make if I didn’t contribute to my 401k (I do 8%) you learn to live on what you are actually earning and if you can’t you’re going to have much bigger problems than deciding on whether to contribute to your 401k or not.
August 13th, 2009 at 6:41 am
I’m 22 years old and my fiance and I seem to agree on our day to day financial decisions. Where we disagree is in long-term investments. I’m not a risk-taker at all. In fact, I don’t even like spending money, even on the necessities! I’d rather just save it all up in a big pot in the bank and feel warm and cozy knowing it’s there waiting for me 40 years from now. My fiance, on the other hand, is a risk-taker and has tried to convince me of the value of high-risk investments now that we can shift to low-risk as we age. It makes sense, but I don’t know–high risk anything just isn’t appealing to me.
August 13th, 2009 at 6:43 am
I know that because of my age (mid 20s) I should have a high tolerance, but I don’t. I’m not willing to put my hard earned cash anywhere where I might lose the principal.
August 13th, 2009 at 6:51 am
I’m curious to know more about how the current economy has affected the investing outlook of people in my age range (I’m 24) who never knew anything but the current reality. I started investing (410k & IRA) at the exact same time the market started to plummet back in September.
The way I’ve looked at it is I’m accumulating more cheap shares in the early days which will be all the better for me in the long run. But I’m young and certainly no expert and no one knows what the future holds. For all I know, that mindset could be nothing more than a helpful coping mechanism!
I see some commenters in my age range say they’ve begun investing with a similar outlook. Are there any GRS readers in this age bracket that are simply staying away from the markets?
What’s your perspective and do you have an alternate plan for retirement savings?
August 13th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Risk is what you make of it. I am very comfortable with it for two reasons: 1) I work for the federal government and no matter what some small pension awaits on the horizon upon retirement. 2) and more importantly, I did not get ahead of the financial curve until I was much older than you are now (28-ish). Those seven years lost (ok, not lost, spent having a great time in graduate school) represent quite a tidy sum of money I could have put by for retirement. So, I’ve probably made riskier choices than most people my age (37) because I need to catch up - and I’ll be damned if I wind up like my parents, getting by on Social Security and some savings…
That said, I was unsophisticated in my thinking - a fund that tracks the S&P 500 and I’ll be all right… NOT! I’ve now faced two drops in my retirement savings, after the tech bubble popped and more recently this recession. But I’ve kept socking away money, after all, what goes down must come up eventually (retirement is long term investing after all!) Not to mention, fund shares bought cheap now can always apprecite in future.
I’ve also married recently, to a lovely guy who had zippo for retirement savings despite a 10+ year career in the military.
So, for now, while we have no kids and no real material needs, we are saving as much as we can and paying off my $80K in student loans - at double digit interest rates - ($5K to go!). Other than a stash of ‘emergency funds’ we are building slowly (mine is considerably smaller than most because I can count on a paycheck coming in every 2 weeks) we have diversified past the S&P 500, but are still in ‘risky’ investments like international funds, growth funds, etc.. I’ve even chosen to invest in a targeted retirement fund that is targeted to 10 year AFTER I retire to just up my risk by a little bit.
Once the loans are paid off and we have a few little ones running around the house I’ll rejigger the equation to a more conservative allocation of funds, but in the meanwhile I figure what has come down must come up and I want to be along for the ride!
This type of attitude works for me, but risk tolerance is a very personal thing…
August 13th, 2009 at 6:57 am
When I was in my 20’s my father told me that the price of a stock only matters on one day - the day you sell it. Other than that, the goal is to increase the number of shares in your portfolio. I don’t change my strategy in an up market or down market - I’m certainly not smart enought to time the market. I maximize my 401k contribution no matter what. By doing this, I’m ensuring dollar cost averaging. When the market is down, I’m excited that I’m getting more shares. When the market is up, I’m excited that the value of my portfolio has grown (but do grumble that I’m not getting as good a value on my purchases).
In your 20s, you’re not going to start selling your 401k for at least 30 years. Unless you feel confident that you can predict the state of the market in 2040 and beyond, your worries are misplaced. Invest wisely, readjust the strategy as you age and focus your worries onto those 10% student loans.
While I think it’s interesting to hear about AJs financial journey, and I would continue to follow it elsewhere, I’m not sure it’s the right material for GRS. AJ has more questions about finances than suggestions.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:02 am
@Cat #9: I completely agree with your points. There is no reason why I shouldn’t be able to invest in a 401(k), have an emergency fund, and hopefully pay down some extra principle on my loans. However, I did not want to invest some amount — say $4,000 for argument’s sake — have the market crash again, and have all the money I invested go down the tubes. I understand now that this an inherent risk with any investment, and that contributing anyway will only help me in the future.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:04 am
I agree that the traditional mindset is the younger you are the more risk you can afford to take on. Generally, people agree that the older you are the less time you’ll have to make up for a any losses and therefore should be more conservative. I recently read an opposing view which I found interesting. That because of your young age, you don’t need to take on any additional risk. You have many many years of investing and compound interest ahead of you, so there is no reason to over expose yourself to downturns in the market. Conversly, older investors don’t have time on their side and therefore should be more aggressive. Can’t remember where I read that, but I found it interesting.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:04 am
It is VERY important that you younger guys keep a very HIGH risk tolerance. When I was about 23, I had about $20,000 saved up in cash after my first mini bonus. Instead of dumping it all into one stock during the height of the internet bubble, I invested only $3,000 in this one particular stock called VCSY. Well, in 4 months it went to $180,000 and I sold at $150,000. It’s not bad at 23, but I was KICKING MYSELF b/c I could easily have put in $10-20,000, and that position would have been $500,-750,000!
Ever since then, I have always pushed myself to take as much calculated risk as possible, but still, I fail. Thanks to the proceeds from this stock, and saving every bonus for the first several years of work, I had saved up a 20% downpayment on a $550,000-$1,000,000 on a place. I first had to overcome my risk aversion of going into debt, which I was happy about… and did end up spending $580,000 after putting 25% down. The property is a nice 2/2 in a prime location. HOWEVER, in retrospect, I should have got that even nicer 3 bedroom closer to my limit b/c the markets are still up about 35% since then (was up as much as 55%). Meanwhile, fast forward 7 years later, I am making more money and have more savings.
Again, it is very important younger folks research things out well, and invest aggressively now. As you age, you naturally become risk adverse b/c you have more absolute money and it gets scary. For example, let’s say you are 25 and have $30,000 to invest. 90% asset allocation in stocks is $27,000…. doable. Let’s say you are in your early 30’s like me, and after 10 years of saving and investing, you have $400,000 to invest. Putting 90%, or $360,000 starts getting dicey, b/c if you lose 20%, that’s $52,000 which is painful vs. losing $5,200.
Meanwhile, if you have $400,000, you start thinking, a nice 5% CD sounds good, b/c that would be $20,000/yr in risk free interest income. The absolute dollars start tempting you, meanwhile what you should be doing is splicing up that NUT especially when things are down.
Get aggressive guys. This downturn is a blessing for younger folks. Just do your research! You can “afford” to lose it all when you’re young b/c you have your entire life to make money. I have made an oath to myself to buy another piece of property within the next 12 months. I do not want to kick myself in my 40’s!
Best,
RB
RB30RB40
August 13th, 2009 at 7:10 am
After a lot of education from my husband, my tolerance for risk had gone from low to medium-high. It is based mostly on my age. I am 35, but still consider that very young in terms of investments. I have a portfolio allocation more often used by people in their twenties - 15% bonds, 85% stocks.
The ups and downs in the market don’t really bother me that much. Yes, I lost some of the value in my portfolio when the markets went down. But I was still employed and continued to aggresively buy stocks during the down time. I figure most of what I bought was very undervalued during those months, so I am pretty happy about that.
The best way to fight the psychology that makes us want to withdraw from the markets during downtimes and buy more during uptimes is to put yourself on a automatic buying plan, and stick to it no matter what the markets are doing. My plan automatically re-balances for me every month, so I am essentially buying low and selling high all the time.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Everyone’s different on this one. I’d suggest taking some of the free risk tolerance quizzes online. Be honest. Easy to be risky when everything’s rosie. But when you see your hard work evaporate at 3 or 5 or 8 percentage points a day then you’re going to have a real gut check. BTW, RichBy30’s first paragraph made clear that I need not pursue his advice further. The great thing about investing while young is that compounding interest gets to kick in for that much longer - not that you can invest in single stocks and potentially lose everything. VCSY’s last trade? 2 cents. For what it’s worth.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:37 am
I have a large appetite for risk. I am 27, so I keep 100% of my retirement in stocks. At the same time I have short term goals that I do not want to risk losing the money for, so I accept no risk for those. In addition I am firming up the emergency fund, which is in a no risk account as well.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:38 am
25 options for a 401(k) isn’t particularly limited, I’ve worked in 2 places, and both had only abot 10 options.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:53 am
For those risk-adverse 20-somethings - you are forgetting the biggest risk of all INFLATION.
Your money is not “safe and sound” for 40+ years - it is constantly loosing value. If I promissed to take your $10k and give you back $3k in 40 years would you think that was safe???
Stop watching your investments so closely. To paraphrase a Warren Buffett quote I once heard “You are a buyer of hamburgers. If the price of hamburgers goes down you should be happy!”
I personally think everyone in their 20s should be 100% in stocks. Just pick a reasonable method (target date fund, mix of index funds, etc.) and stop following the ups and downs.
I am not against “safe” investments for older people with a shorter time-line but for 20-somethings all you are doing with “safe” treasuries in guarenting the loss of purchasing value down the line.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:55 am
@JD - I’m in a similar situation as you - somewhat unsure of the market and one of my goals being to payoff our 30 year mortgage in 15 years, which will coincide with our first son just about the age to enter college.
My question is: are you actually going to start paying it down by increasing the payment or just save that money somewhere to have available to pay it off? Originally I was thinking the first option, but now I’m thinking #2 might be better from a liquidity standpoint. I can’t remember what your interest rate is, but mine is 5.375%.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Great post! I’ve really enjoyed A.J.’s writing. He really speaks to where I am on the financial planning timeline.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I think risk tolerance does decrease as you age and as you have larger sums at play, however like most other traits is still highly dependent on the individual…the most important thing is to know yourself and your ’sleep factor.’ I’ll bet a lot of people who thought they had a high risk tolerance actually found themselves panicking over the course of last fall’s market gyrations.
For ourselves, we threw all our available cash at the market in November, and then borrowed against our house to invest when interest rates(and the markets) tanked again in March. (We have since skimmed profits to pay back about 1/2 of the HELOC.) So does that make us highly risk-tolerant? I guess that depends on your point of view….I think ‘following the crowd’ (in this case, cashing out) is the riskier move…but maybe that’s just me!
August 13th, 2009 at 8:25 am
First, don’t forget the effect of taxes. That $1500 you are putting in your 401(k) isn’t really $1500 because the money is being taken out of your check before taxes. Ergo, the $1500 is really only $1200 out of your check. When I think of it that way, I’m a bit more aggressive with my retirement funds. Since I’ve put $1200 into the account, I’m willing to lose everything but my base investment in order to receive the possible gains that could come with that risk. The total going into the account is $2700 so I have a lot of room for risk.
I’m 29 years old and I have my IRA invested very aggressively. I also have a very small plan with the state because I’m an adjunct professor at a college. The money that goes into that plan is actually invested in cash right now until the market figures out what it’s going to do. That’s only a few hundred dollars though.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Stating as a fact that there will be long term gains that eventually trump short term losses is an ignorant, if not damaging, thing to say on a site like this. I’m sure many will disagree because everyone is a self proclaimed stock market expert, but if you ask most any successful technical analyst (a real, cash trading one) they will all tell you that this is a load of garbage. Suggesting to anyone that investing, in any time frame, is risk free is simply not true. Performance in the past is only an indication of probability, not a guarantee, of future performance. Long term investing could go down singifinicantly in the next 20 years for all we know.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Some people need to reassess how they think about personal investment risk. For perspective, here are some risky things: Joining the army. Buying a motorcycle. The penalty for a mistake here is being maimed or killed.
The risk of a poor choice of 401k investment (especially at 21) is nil. It has no impact on your life at all until you’re 60. That gives you almost *40* years to recover from your mistake before you even notice its effects. Even if you lose *everything* in the account 5 years from now, you’ll be 26 and have 33 years available in which to try a different strategy.
I was reading about a film producer who died at 59 last week. I don’t know if he had a 401k, but if he did, that was instant 100% losses. If you don’t plan on living past 59 and a half, a 401k is a really poor investment choice. Your likelihood of dying before retirement age and thus losing your entire investment is probably higher than the likelihood of bonds outperforming stocks for the next 40 years, anyway.
My entire 401k is invested in a stock index fund. It doesn’t worry me in the least. If it starts losing lots of money, I’ve got lots of time to think of alternatives (I’m 28).
August 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am
As an English major, this typo is killing me: “principle” is not the same as “principal”. The piece of your loans that is not interest is the PRINCIPAL, the PRINCIPLE is generally used to mean a fundamental law or concept, such as in the phrase “the principles of investing” or “a highly principled person” for someone who abides by a strict moral code.
I think overall this writing is less sophisticated than some of the other writers, not just because of the mistake on “principle”. But the topic is a good one because people post on this issue to the forums all the time. I think more discussion on comparing potential return on investment between putting money towards retirement and putting money towards your loans is probably a good idea to clarify the concept (or shall we say the principle) to readers.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I am 35 and my 401k is invested entirely in growth and agressive growth funds.
I began investing at 22 and my funds have taken a severe beating twice now. Do I care? NO! I don’t care what my stocks are worth NOW. I care what they’re worth in 30 years! Maybe in another 10 I’ll start dialing down the risk but for now I’ll take everything I can get. It’s a fire sale right now.
I don’t believe those end-of-the-world scenarios, but even if I did it wouldn’t change anything. If the world ends, the money in your mattress will be worth just as much as the money in your 401k, and if it doesn’t the 401k will be worth way more!
August 13th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Tyler @27 - wow. I couldn’t have said that better myself. I just absolutely loved that insight.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I am pretty close to 50. A friend of mine who used to work as a buy side analyst on Wall Street once told me that index funds are the only way to go. Seems that fund managers are more interested in their portfolios that the portfolios of their clients. My allocation is 50% stocks/50%bonds with 70% new money going into stocks. Okay so here’s the thing. AJ correctly points out that his minimum investment horizon is 30 years. The investment returns of the stock market over that period of time is generally, although not always, positive. “needing to use the money” introduces an element of risk. It is an element of risk that Warren Buffet who famously wrote in the NY Times last November that he is “buying American” does not have. He is not planning to live on the proceeds of his 401K, his investment horizon is infinite. Quite honestly it is not wrong for anyone to reconsider the 401K. The 401K was originally set up to help high income earners save and shield non-salaried income (bonuses& commissions) from taxes. It is a savings plan. Once that money is in the stock market it is no longer saved but invested and therein lies the risk. For people who are eligible for the Roth, contributing there first may be the most appropriate strategy because distributions (as long as certain conditions are met) are tax free. 401K distributions are generally taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Taxes will erode returns and erode the value of a company match.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
AJ, the correct word is “principal” not principle. Sorry I could not resist correcting this important detail…
Now that’s out of the way, good post. If there was a poll, I will be voting for you as one of my choices.
I am in the same boat, just slightly more advanced since I’ve had my 401(K) for a few years. I am in my 30s. Recently, I rolled it to an IRA when I left the company. Now I have a lot more options on investments. I’m slowly learning but I’m afraid I will make the wrong choice. So far I have: 12% in index bonds, 12% in small cap index and another 12% in mutual funds. The rest are still in cash. I need to keep moving but I don’t know how much risk I want to take. I am leaning towards something like 70% stocks, 20% bonds, 10% cash or something like that. It looks like I will invest in mostly index funds which JD has written a few posts about.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Thank you quinsy. I was hearing chalk on the blackboard all the way through the post.
For those who can’t remember:
“A key PRINCIPLE is to invest your PRINCIPAL.”
August 13th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I’m horribly immune to risk… In fact, my favorite fund is my Vanguard Emerging Markets ETF, something that seems to be rather sensitive. (Naturally, as it’s developing foreign markets, some make it, some don’t.) Seeing my portfolio drop in value doesn’t bother me in the least, I guess I’m so removed from seeing it as money anymore that it doesn’t click. Just numbers on a computer screen, it’s all one big numbers game to me!
That being said, I realize that I have to be careful to not load up on too many risky funds. My IRA has the Emerging Markets, but also a tiny bit diverted to a Bond Fund and a Large Cap Fund. My 401(k) is settled into an international fund, tiny bit of company stock (for the fun of it) and a target date retirement fund. Should do me good, I hope. My IRA has slowly been going up, finally.
I got into the market right before it dropped again, which just made me laugh and want to invest more! Funds on sale is all I could think of!!
August 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I’m 29 and have been paying into a 401k since I was 23 I initially started with most of my retirement in a pretty safe retirement mutual fund. I decided it was still too cautious and moved most of my retirement over to stock heavy “high risk” funds.
Obviously when the bottom fell out last winter I took a big hit; luckily about 40% of my money was pulled out in a loan against the 401k. I paid off the loan in spring when the market was at the bottom and the last few months of recovery have been excellent for my account. As of now my 401k has basically recovered it’s loss from the financial crisis and it’s all icing on the cake from here on.
Being risky when you’re young can really help your long term investments. When the market is low and stocks are cheap you’re still buying in 15% of your income. But that 15% is buying more stock than when was when the market was up. Once the market recovers your account will come back stronger than before. It’s odd seeing it like that but the market roller coaster is actually a benefit for us young investors. The lows are just opportunities for bigger gains (just make sure you get out on a high in 40 years).
August 13th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Well, I hate to break it to you, but you’ve already missed on much of the “inevitable upswing in the markets” with the S&P rising 48% since March. Being in your 20s (as I am) means you can certainly take on more risk then just index funds. As for myself, I ended up purchasing LEAPS earlier this year and I am now up 130% YTD. I’ve moved much of that out now into ’safer’ investments, but I’ve basically made my downpayment for a house from the market upswing. Buy low, sell high.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Thanks, folks, for catching the “principle” thing. I know I fixed that in an edit.
Based on the fact this slipped through, along with the error Caitlin caught and I thought I had corrected, I owe an apology to A.J. It seems that my final edit of his post didn’t make it up. I must have been sidetracked before I could move it from my text editor to the blog.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I learned the hard way. When I was younger I was suckered by all the investing hype. During my twenties, I lost a great deal of money investing in stocks and mutual funds. From that, I learned I have no risk tolerance. I’m much happier seeing the money I earn sit in my taxable, low interest savings account and not going towards those bonuses and salaries of corporate executives who sell their ponzi scheme on the stock market. I stick to the basics now, spend less than I earn, never carry a balance on credit cards, and pay off any loans as fast as possible. This is why I love this blog because I’m getting rich slowly and surely. If you want to get rich quickly go to Las Vegas, at least you might get a comp if you lose, unlike the stock market.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:50 am
One rule of thumb is to invest a percentage in stocks that is 100 - your age. So I’m 24 and should have roughly 76% of my investments in stocks. The rest is in bonds, cash, etc.
I think the principle is sound, that when you’re young you should be taking greater risk, especially if you have no dependents yet. I know my appetite for risk will change drastically when I have kids.
I also like the age targeted mutual funds (like Fidelity’s FFFHX) that allocate assets based on your proximity to retirement, gradually getting more conservative.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am
@Brynn (#27)
Which is more damaging? To suggest that the market will inevitably recover, or to suggest that it will not? Obviously none of us can know. But history and probability favor those of us who believe that the market will, indeed, be higher in thirty or forty years than it is today.
If I had written this article, I would not have used terms like “will” and “inevitable”. I would have written “will probably” and “odds are strongly in favor”. All the same, I’d still be encouraging people to invest for the long term. Why? Because I think it’s irresponsible to do otherwise.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:54 am
If you straight up run the numbers you will to some degree make more money by investing in a 401k because it is pretax so you reduce your taxes. A great risk especially if a portion is maxed.
I turn 35 this year and have had money going into 401k’s whenever I could. I always maxed company match because it is “free money”. I am 100% stock and I look at it when the statements come in. I probably should rebalance but I have found by being diversified where I am that I have almost completely recouped what I lost. I look at it as money I don’t have and thus it is a lot easier to be risky. When I hit 40 I may start a little in bonds. I have been advised by my dad to keep a higher percentage in stocks. He even has a higher percentage and he is retired. He and my mom are thrifty enough that when they were unemployed they didn’t need to dip much into savings. I figured that makes him pretty knowledgeable in my book.
35 yrs old, working and risk level high.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Sorry, this writer is just too green for me, both in writing skills (the “principle” error was like nails on a chalkboard for me) and content. For me, at least, this post is not compelling, and it did not teach me anything. I’m in my 30s and feel fairly well versed on 401k balancing at this point; it’s easy to find this information on msn, yahoo, google…
I don’t appreciate posts whose point seems to be, “have a conversation about this in the comments!” I want the writer to educate me, enlighten me, or challenge my current way of thinking. J.D. does all that and more, and I want the same from the staff writer or writers he brings on board.
I don’t mean to sound harsh — I wish this writer well in his new job and financial journey. I just feel really invested in this staff writer audition process, so I want to be up front with both positive and negative feedback.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
My employer matches my 401k contribution if I put in up to 10% of my income. Currently I am putting away 15% of my income into a “balanced” porfolio of funds. I am 42. My employer based 401k has a feature that allows me to specify percentage increases each year. I like this feature as it allows me to bump up my contribution each year around the same time I get a raise. That way I am almost forced to avoid spending extra earnings.
Right now fear of the bad economy may be keeping people out of the stock market but consider this. Would you prefer to buy stocks when they are cheap or when everyone elses greed has already pushed prices up? Do you homework, Most US companies will make it through this rough patch.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I’m 35 now and my appetite for risk is decreasing some. I have no tolerance for debt. I have a mortgage but part of me really wants to pay it down or off eventhough I have a ridiculously low interest rate. So low that I know I couldn’t borrow money at that rate if I needed it. Considering how low my mortgage interest rate is if I paid off my mortgage early I think it would be a very conservative move, maybe even foolish.
The other way I’ve become more conservative is I keep a large amount of cash in liquid reserves. I used to keep about $10k. If I only had $10k in reserves now I’d be jumpy and nervous. I keep much more than that. This is a direct result of the recent recession and credit crunch. Cash is king, and credit is hard to get, even for the most credit-worthy.
On the other hand I’m still a stock investor. I have a nice cash reserve, but I’m full-steam ahead in stocks. But cash is about 25% of my portfolio.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:24 am
at 25, I’ve only been socking serious money in my 401K in the last year as a consequence of jumping between jobs. But by the advice of many personal finance people and running the number myself have chosen that a simple 80% index fund, and 20% target growth would balance my risk properly. sure its nice to feel secure but between taxes and inflation you have to take that risk to accumulate enough. Also another way I have to look at the prospect of future downturns is that my fate is tied to everyone’s. Sure the market might make times tough for me, but just as tough as everyone.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I am simply not a fan of AJ’s writing. My critique of this post is the same as my critique of his last post - that it doesn’t add value to this great site. What is the takeaway here? That someone in their early 20s has a longer investment horizon and hence, larger capacity for short-term risk and market fluctuation than someone 10/20/30 years older? I’m not sure what the main demographic is that reads GRS.org but I have to think that 95% of them already know this. And to the (mostly young) readers who defended AJ against the criticism he received after his last post, in one case telling him to “ignore the haters”… RELAX.
I don’t “hate” AJ in the least. I welcome the POV of younger writers - as long as they have something meaningful or insightful to contribute. I’m 33 and far from a know-it-all on personal finance and that’s the whole point. There are endless sources of content on this topic and the average busy person has to choose a small handful of sites that offer the most valuable info and advice. GRS.org is 1 of only 3 sites I visit on a daily basis… please don’t water it down with posts that can’t hold their own with the rest of the great content here.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am
A.J. it’s great that you appreciate the importance of long term investing at your age- the extra years of compounding should make a huge difference.
Something to think about: If you just started investing and the market drops should you be happy or sad?
Happy- because you are a BUYER of stocks and won’t be selling for many years. Celebrate that the whole market just went on sale!
If I were in your position I would contribute just enough to get the full company match and invest that mostly in equities- index funds if you can as they have the lowest fees.
Next build up a small amount of reserves- you don’t want to get hit with overdraft fees on a bad month! Then pay off the debt as fast as possible, finally invest that money you’ve been using to pay off debt since you will be used to living without it.
You can look at paying off the debt as a fixed 10% return on your money- the math works out exactly the same. That is a good return for a stock investment and you get that rate guaranteed!
>When I had this mentality, my appetite for risk >completely disappeared. I wanted to grab ahold of >the 100% return that I thought I would be receiving, >and not let go of it.
An immediate 100% return is wonderful, but consider what happens to a $1000 over time:
Match 3% returns No match 10% returns
Today: $2,000 $1,000
in 10 years: $2,688 $2,590
in 20 years: $3,612 $6,727
in 40 years: $6,524 $45,259
Compounding with a higher rate wins in the long run by a large margin.
-Rick Francis
August 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Overall, take only the risk necessary to reach your goal. Start with a little extra risk early on so you have a chance to get ahead, then you can dial down the risk later on. If you can reach your goal with 80% bonds and 20% stocks, there is no reason to go with 20% bonds and 80% stocks.
The primary reason to have a goal is so you know how much risk you need to take.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I will also voice some concern about this post. I kept looking for him to tie up his student loan payment dilemma at the end. Instead, he just left it dangling out there with a general question about risk. It wasn’t cohesive enough compared to the caliber of posts I expect here.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
What this post doesn’t talk about, but should, is dollar-cost averaging. In this type of market especially, putting your 401k investments in moderately risky vehicles works out very well because of dollar-cost averaging. Making monthly investments of the same amount no matter what the market is doing allows you to average out the volatility that we are seeing now, thus lowering the risk factor that normal investors are dealing with.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I love the readers’ comments, but the discussion is better when the main article is stronger and more provocative. And JD might have missed a couple of edits, but if he has to edit every post from the standby person, he’s not getting a lot of value added.
It would be interesting to get quarterly or annual updates from AJ to see how he and his money are growing.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
My risk tolerance is what it should be for a 24 year old–very high. I have ALL my 401K in stocks (44% S&P index, 40% international fund, 8% mid-cap growth, 8% small cap growth). On my mid-cap stocks I am up 31% for the year. The others are all over 10%+ growth for the year. Now is the time to buy stock–they are essentially on sale! As long as you do it consistently, over-time, and remember to diversify with funds that have low cost ratios (indexes are great for this, as many of you know), you’ll be fine. If I had the patience I’d do some calculations that show that you CANNOT afford to not put your money in stocks. The average middle-class person will never save enough to retire on by investing in bonds, even if you start at 24. It’s just not possible.
Also, the cardinal rule of interest rates vs. bond prices is that when one goes down the other goes up. Therefore, it’s crazy talk to want to buy bonds with interest rates so low. I don’t even look into them. Wait until interest rates rise if you are set on buying bonds and don’t want to lose your money.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I think as long as you diversify, and follow an asset allocation that you are comfortable with and not out of line for your age, you are good.
I’m 24, 10% bonds, 15% international, and the rest S&P500. I had company stock which vested and threw my asset allocation out of line, and I was really anxious to just get out of that so I have my risk in line with what I am comfortable with.
I can handle risk up to the point that it doesn’t fluctuate my net worth that badly. I do recognize that my portfolio will fluctuate my net worth more as I grow older…and I’m not looking forward to that aspect of it.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
This article seemed to be targeted to a younger audience first starting out with retirement accounts - lacking a little is substance and a little too much bravado. Doesn’t seem like you can ignore the matching contributions = free money - but that doesn’t mean you should put more than that in, especially when you’re paying 10% on a student loan.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“I can be sure that I will not miss out on the inevitable upswing in the markets”
INEVITABLE??? Nothing is inevitable except change. I was recently at a meeting with a rep from a major mutual fund company, and he pointed out that of the (I think it was) 107 instances since they started counting where the stock market lost 10% or more, the market has come back from 107 of them…
It got me to thinking, as someone who’s studied statistics, that this may not be a big enough sample. Yes, we’ve come back from everything so far, rebounding nicely. So far. But some things to think about:
1. The US has been a world power since after World War II, say 60 years now.
2. There are quite a few signs that we’ll be one of the shorter-lived world powers. I mean Rome was IT for 500+ years, right?
3. Japan has languished for almost 20 years now.
4. Taiwan (the other country I lived in) has a very cheap stock market, because it doesn’t grow - it goes back and forth between a high and a low (support and resistance), and has for years.
Recovery isn’t inevitable.
That said, I do think it’s likely. Fear of the markets not recovering certainly isn’t keeping me away. But I do watch my money closely, and don’t assume that ‘it must go up’.
Oh, and my risk tolerance is probably higher than most, as I like to trade…
August 13th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I agree that the content of this post is a bit amateurish. You talk about risk, but you really mean market risk. You forget about the big invisible elephant that most people fail to think about, INFLATION risk (as Adrienne in comment #22 pointed out):
http://www.forecasts.org/inflation.htm
I consider myself to be pretty conservative and risk averse, but the thought of inflation eroding the value of my money scares the crap out of me. So, I’ve been contributing the maximum allowed to my retirement funds ever since I started my career 14 years ago, and am almost entirely invested in the stock market.
Given that I have nearly 30 years before I reach retirement age, I can handle the short term volatility of the stock market. I do plan to slowly shift my assets into more conservative investments as I get closer to retirement age, however.
Also, for those that choose to trade actively, you may want to check out this study:
http://www.qaib.com/showresource.aspx?URI=advisoreditionfreelook&Type=FreeLook
Over the past 20 years, the average active investor managed a paltry 1.87% return, while the S&P 500 provided 8.35%. The lesson? Passive investing is the route to go for most people.
August 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I am fully aware of inflation risk, and what it can do to one’s investments. However, inflation risk is negligible with the situation that I presented. Let me clarify:
With my employer match, I am effectively receiving a 100% return on my investment. I put in 1,500 dollars, and I get 1,500 dollars from my employer. If inflation erodes 3 or 4 percent of that away, it doesn’t matter too much to me in the short term, because I made 100% interest on the initial investment through the match. In this scenario, assuming I put my portfolio in risk free investments, I am able to safeguard my principal.
Allocating my portfolio more aggressively exposes me to market risk, which was what I discussed in the article. I was not fully convinced that exposing myself to a potentially significant amount of market risk was worth it, considering that I have so much student loan debt to pay off. The issue that I struggled with was whether or not I would pay off my loans faster with this money, or invest in my future — I chose the latter.
@The Community:
As far as my knowledge of personal finance is concerned, I am still learning, and am open about this point. Perhaps an “Ask the Readers” post was not appropriate for a second submission for a Staff Writer position, and if this is not what you would have liked to hear from me for a second go-around, I understand that.
As far as the vague-ness of the article is concerned, when I wrote it, I had not yet gone through my options of asset allocation to formally split my money up. I would like to share this process with you, and how I ultimately selected which vehicles I invested in, but it is really the topic for another post.
August 13th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I am extremely risk averse. Nevertheless, all my Roth IRA money is in stocks. I started contributing just the amount I thought I could lose without impacting my life. Then I moved up to contributing double the amount I could lose, because I decided that it would be unlikely for the market to completely melt down; worst-case scenario was more like losing half my money.
Now I know that there is no way to eliminate risk. Even with all your money in bonds, you still have the risk (actually, an extremely high risk) that inflation will outpace earnings. The only way I know of to reduce inflation risk is to put some money in stocks.
The best strategy I can think of is to diversify. I hate the way people who talk about diversification only talk about stocks and bonds. Surely there are other things to do. Currently, I have a really good pension (which is very bond-like), so my other retirement money is in stocks (and I will be moving some into REITs, too). I also bought a house, which will be paid off before I retire, so that reduces the amount of money I’ll need. (And if I’m wrong about that and my taxes and insurance costs skyrocket, that probably means my house would sell for a lot, so I could sell it and move someplace cheaper.) Other ways to diversify include keeping up job skills and learning to do more things yourself so you don’t have to hire people.
When I retire, I will move some of my investments into bonds or CDs or something else “safe”—20% if it looks like stocks are bubbling, very little if we’re in a horrible recession, but otherwise probably 10%. Then I’ll withdraw a certain percentage of my stocks each month—if it’s more than I need, I’ll buy more bonds or CDs or whatever. If it’s not enough because of all the plummeting, I can get some extra from the bonds/CDs.
I would say my age has had no effect on my appetite for risk—I’ve always been risk averse. But my experiences have shown me that—too bad for me—I have to deal with risk anyway. So now I look at how to balance various risks to maximize my chances for fun and happiness.
Age and experience have mostly just made me better at understanding my options, which kinds of risk are associated with each, and just knowing how many options I have. Actually having money invested certainly motivates one to start paying more attention! And by starting to invest early, you can experience some freak-out situations while you still have very little money to be screwing up with, so that by the time you have a significant amount invested, you’re not quite so ignorant.
P.S. I am 46 and plan to retire in 5.5 years.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@A.J. - thanks for your response. In your case, it’s not really about risk then. It’s more about which has the bigger payoff: contributing to your 401k (regardless of the investment fund choice) or paying down your student loans? That is really a different topic than your article title. It’s pretty simple to do the math and see what the rate of return for each option is.
Given that most student loan debt cannot be wiped out by bankruptcy, I think it makes sense to attack that after contributing to get the match on your 401k. However, some experts, such as Dave Ramsey, disagree, and promote debt elimination first. I think you’ll come out ahead either way. Anyway, good luck and thanks for contributing to GRS.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
@azphx1972 (#60)
The issue of contributing to a 401(k) or paying down student loans is not as clear cut an issue — you are right, is a different topic than what I wrote in the article. In the article, I chose to only write about investing in the 401(k); although I alluded to the opportunity cost of what I could do with my money (pay off my loans) I did not want to make that a focal point of my discussion.
Also - thank you for contributing as well. Without someone being critical of articles and raising tough questions, the content in the site would probably not get better. (I think, at least).
August 13th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
JD,
I know we don’t get a vote in picking the new staff writer, but there are a lot of duds so far. Candidates I think are worth a shot are April, Karawynn, and Baker.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
These past few days have been strange not having JD’s voice around. I actually can’t wait until these tryouts are over.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Looking forward to the end of the auditions…
August 13th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I’m not sure what appetite for risk means exactly. I have generally had allocation that would be considered somewhat non-aggressive for my age (although I guess I have essentially grown into an allocation of “age = percentage bonds” over time).
But I generally care little about the dips in the market, and in fact I looked at the ‘panic moments’ of the past year as a opportunities. As a result my timing was pretty darned good (not that I believe in market timing, but hey you simetimes get lucky).
So my allocation is moderate but my attitude is aggressive. What’s my appetite for risk then?
August 14th, 2009 at 1:02 am
About two years ago, right as the subprime mess was unfolding, I decided that I wanted to invest in mutual funds. At that point, the full effect of the crisis was yet to be seen and many thought it would be contained to the US. I jumped head first in and made an initial investment of 2000€. I actually saw the value increase the first few months. Then came the crash and what a crash it was. The value dropped roughly 40% and I cursed myself for being so eager to get into the market. However, I still continued buying shares each month, as planned, probably mostly because I didn’t know what else to do.
I have a hard time saying exactly what my current appetite for risk is and how it differs from my mindset of two years ago. It’s more that I’m looking at investing from a new perspective. In retrospect, I think the market tanking was a good thing for me personally. Prior to it, I sort of envisioned the market as an amazing vehicle for getting massive gains on my invested money. The crisis bitch slapped me into reality and made me think less about market movement, of which I have no control over, and made me focus on things that I CAN control, like asset allocation and minimizing costs. Because of this, I found a couple of low cost index funds that I’m now saving for retirement in. To quote Tico Torres, the drummer in Bon Jovi: “whatever was good was great, and whatever was bad was good because you learned something from it”.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:28 am
I’m 38, planning on retiring in 15-20 years, I have 100% allocation in stocks and I look at the down market as a chance to buy more. If anything, I’m looking at moving more into international stocks to increase my risk (and therefore my reward).
I plan on leaving my allocation completely in stocks until maybe 3 years before I start withdrawing it. At that point, I plan on continually pulling it out to a cash account at the rate that I will spend it in 3 years time - the rest stays in stocks. I think that this plan keeps you on the “efficient frontier” while smoothing out any bumps in the market.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Over the long term nothing beats equities and I intend to stay 80-100% invested in them for the rest of my days. The important thing I think is to invest in either index funds which both minimize costs and maximize diversification, or buy companies such as Johnson & Johnson, McDonalds, Coke, Wal-mart etc… that you know will still be selling goods to your grandkids.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:08 am
“student loan debt is…regarded as a ‘good’debt to have”
Wow. Quite an interesting statement I vehemently disagree with. It’s NOTHING like a mortgage because after you pay it off you don’t have a valuable asset–you have nothing. Please don’t tell yourself (or others) this lie. Instead, work as hard as possible to knock out this obligation as quickly as you can to free up your money to do greater things with your life.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Golfing Girl (69)–Having worked in credit for many years and being fully familiar with the mindset that produces and sustains it, I couldn’t agree more!
We do a psych job on ourselves (aided generously by the culture) to convince ourselves to take on debt for this or that “noble purpose”. And always it’s to facilitate buying something we otherwise can’t afford, or refuse to consider less expensive options for.
Debt IS risk, and we’ve all become too comfortable pretending that it isn’t.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Student loan debt (especially of the federal nature) is usually low interest (3-4%), and is able to finance an education that those who take out the debt for would be unable to attain otherwise, and generally increases one’s earning potential in life. About 15,000 of my loans are federal loans, and carry a relatively low interest rate, and I would not mind taking longer to pay them off if necessary, if it meant that I could use my money in other ways, such as investing.
To finance the rest of school, my parents did not want to take out a Federal PLUS Loan for me, even though they generally have lower interest rates than private student loans. Again, PLUS loans are generally low-interest, and regarded as an investment in one’s future — ignoring the fact that it IS debt. I think they can be regarded as “good debt” as well.
My parents co-signed one of my private loans with me, and their credit history luckily gave me a break I needed on the interest rate for some of it. However, they were not able to co-sign on all of my loans, and as a result, I got slammed on the interest rate when I took them out on my own. At the time, I had little to no credit history, and was a huge credit risk to the company (which I understand). On this portion of my debt, the interest rate will be pushed up to the neighborhood of 15% once the federal funds rate is restored to prior levels over the next few years. This clearly is not the “good debt” that student loans are supposed to represent.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I only have two comments in regards to this post.
I am a part time college student majoring in finance with a full time job. Whenever the questions of how risky your asset allocation should be, regardless of what the market has been doing over my several years in college, the answer has always been simple. Take 100 minus your age, the result is the precent that should be in stocks. The rest should be a more guaranteed return (bonds and the like). Simple. I live by this.
Second, yes, the market has dropped. Yes, it is a scary time. But what does Buffet say? Be greedy when others a fearful and fearful when others are greedy. Amen, Buffet. Amen. It is better to get into stocks now then when they increase. The Toyota stocks I purchased back in March are up over 30%, would be more if I had bought sooner, but I was fearful! There will always be risk in stocks. When things are low you have of a way down then when they are high!
August 15th, 2009 at 1:22 am
From what I’ve seen, “good debt” is debt that makes more than it costs - you end out ahead in the long run. A mortgage is good if you make more (in appreciation or rental income) than you pay the bank.
School loans are good debt if the education will increase your ability to pay it back fast.
No debt is good when you have the money to pay it off and don’t. Then there’s bad and less bad…
August 15th, 2009 at 2:15 am
At 50 I have been investing in IRAs since 84, the max limit for all years with exception to a couple years. I have less to show in my account than I invested not even counting divs reinvested. I followed the rules investing in growth mutual funds early with big investment houses. I recently changed to target funds in the past few years. I put this year’s investment in a 7 year cd so as to have something more than what I put in. Yes, I know inflation will whittle away at it but I feel that I gambled and lost with the growth funds. I dca’d with my annual investments too. My spouse’s IRA did slightly better, at 1% return. We are retired and rolled our piddly 401Ks into Energy mutual funds and so far have made back some of the value lost. My 401K was with the state of CO and for the last year I worked I tried to put the max contribution in. They didn’t have a MM option so I lost about 30% of the final year’s investment when I transfered it into an IRA last November. Both my Roth IRA, reg IRA amount to chump change, such a small sum, for the value of it and I will let it grow for the next 20 years. In Hindsight I would have been better off with the compounding of investments by putting the funds into cds at my credit union. Einstien sremarked on the value of compound, shame on me.
August 15th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
One thing I don’t understand about the posts here: why when you talk about diversification you only talk about stocks and bonds. Not only that but when you talk about bonds you really mean bond funds which could be fine but they aren’t at all the same as individual bonds.
For example the author above says “I wanted to invest my entire 401(k) portfolio in long-term treasury bonds, to ensure that the principal amount that I invested into the plan would be safeguarded from the current market turbulence.” But the treasury bonds in 401Ks aren’t usually individual treasury bonds that pay you fixed interest and are guaranteed to return you the money at maturity or I bonds or EE bonds which you can cash at their face value plus interest. Nope, treasuries in 401K are actually treasury bond funds and as such they are subject to market fluctuation. Treasury bonds went up in value a lot during the crisis because of “flight to safety” - all the big investors buying individual treasuries. They have fallen since then. Last March Buffett talked about “bubble” in treasuries. How long do you think everyone would be willing to lend money to the US at these low rates? As soon as the demand for US treasuries drops, the interest rate on treasuries will go up, and the value of treasuries in treasury bond funds will drop as well. Treasuries are a safe investment except for inflation - you can always hold them to maturity. Treasury bond funds don’t come with a maturity date. When you sell them, you sell them at the current market value. Hence the treasury bond fund is not at all safe. The only part of 401K where you are promised to keep your investment is stable value fund - which is a reasonable part of your portfolio especially if you are risk averse.
Cash is a perfectly valid part of a portfolio as well. If you had cash in November of last year and in March of this year then you could use it to buy stocks cheap. At about the same time, many investment grade bonds - corporate and municipals - were selling at large discounts and hence with ridiculously high yields because of the credit crisis, so those with cash in their portfolio could’ve taken advantage and buy bonds - individual if you have enough money, bond funds if you don’t or if it is in 401K. I did a bit of both, by the way, though not as much as I should’ve. Having cash as one of the assets and not just “emergency fund” is a perfectly reasonable choice and provides for flexibility when there are opportunities. Yes, cash loses value in inflation. But how much are we really 100% sure that we’ll get inflation and not deflation?
But, if we are really sure about inflation, than commodities is a reasonable choice as well.
As to bonds, if you talk about bond funds and not individual bonds that you plan to hold to maturity, than bonds can lose value. There is also risk of defaults as with individual corporate and municipal bonds. Last fall corporate and municipal bonds lost value because of the credit crisis and fear of defaults. At the same time government bonds went up in value. Since then government bonds lost a tiny bit of their appeal, but corporate and municipal bonds are considerably up. But if the interest rates start going up, the value of all bonds will drop. This is something everyone who invests in bonds should think about.