Is the stable value fund in our 401Ks safer than all.the other options?
Like bond funds or just leaving in the S&P fund...etc
Like bond funds or just leaving in the S&P fund...etc
4:05a, 5/19/24
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
8:28a, 5/19/24
In reply to OldArmyCT
So, then the answer to his question is, yes?
OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
So, then the answer to his question is, yes?
8:42a, 5/19/24
I'm 50 so this is something I think about often, and the reality is that anything safe enough not to take a major hit from a big dip is also not going to grow. So I'm in the "don't try to time the market or handcuff yourself, just make sure you have enough to withstand a dip and then ride it back up" club.
9:22a, 5/19/24
It's unwise to keep money in a place like this long term, as long as we are devaluing our currency. If we ever enter a period of deleveraing, which is what would happen following a massively leveraged cycle like we've been through for decades, a place like this is the only place your money will grow. No, the $ amount of it won't grow. But in a deleveraging, the dollar gains value as the value of everything denominated in dollars falls. In this situation, your money invested in equities would be losing value. But money moved to a brokerage money market account would be stable as your purchasing power grows.
In an era where we will have to continually issue more treasuries just to pay the interest on the debt, much less to fund our entitlement programs and military spending, it is more likely that the time is coming that bond buyers will demand higher rates which will boost the dollar, than rates will stay flat or go down. But of course, the FED could attempt QE from a historically weak position. You'll want to move your money market funds back to equities after the crash that follows such a move.
In an era where we will have to continually issue more treasuries just to pay the interest on the debt, much less to fund our entitlement programs and military spending, it is more likely that the time is coming that bond buyers will demand higher rates which will boost the dollar, than rates will stay flat or go down. But of course, the FED could attempt QE from a historically weak position. You'll want to move your money market funds back to equities after the crash that follows such a move.
“Give it hell Heinekandle, I’m enjoying it.”
- Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX
“No secure borders, no alpha military, no energy independence, no leadership and most of all no mean tweets - this is the worst trade I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. ***Put that quote in your quote/signature section HeinendKandle*** LOL!”
- also Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX (obviously in a worse mood)
- Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX
“No secure borders, no alpha military, no energy independence, no leadership and most of all no mean tweets - this is the worst trade I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. ***Put that quote in your quote/signature section HeinendKandle*** LOL!”
- also Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX (obviously in a worse mood)
10:54a, 5/19/24
Do nothing. Keep contributing to 401k. Enjoy your massive gains decades down the line.
12:18p, 5/19/24
In reply to OldArmyCT
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
12:24p, 5/19/24
In reply to jamey
Yes.
jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
Yes.
1:39p, 5/19/24
They already want to raid our 401Ks, for "equity" or some other communist BS.
Outside of cashing it out and buying physical gold or land, I'm not sure if there is anything we could to to protect our retirement savings.
Our govt does not reward or care about people who live responsibly and save. Exhibit A: student loan bailouts.
Outside of cashing it out and buying physical gold or land, I'm not sure if there is anything we could to to protect our retirement savings.
Our govt does not reward or care about people who live responsibly and save. Exhibit A: student loan bailouts.
3:08p, 5/19/24
In reply to jamey
If I knew when the crisis started and when the crisis stopped, I would. But we don't. So reality is 2 scenarios:
1) you get out too early, miss out on gains in the meantime, then you are also too late to get back in for the ride up. Also keep in mind that pretty much everything outside of cash is still going to take a hit
2) you get out too late, take a hit, then again you are too late to get back in for the ride up
jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
If I knew when the crisis started and when the crisis stopped, I would. But we don't. So reality is 2 scenarios:
1) you get out too early, miss out on gains in the meantime, then you are also too late to get back in for the ride up. Also keep in mind that pretty much everything outside of cash is still going to take a hit
2) you get out too late, take a hit, then again you are too late to get back in for the ride up
4:10p, 5/19/24
In reply to jamey
When the market tanks you lose value, not shares. And selling after a fall means you lose shares. Investors rarely get back in until they feel comfortable doing so, which means the market has rallied significantly. 2 scenarios.
1. You have 100 shares at $10@, the market takes it to $8 so you sell it and put money in SVF. It drops to $6, you've had 6 401 contributions all in SVF. Market gets you back to $9 so you buy back in. You have 113 shares at $9, or $1017.
2. Same investment, you don't sell. You put 6 payments and buy as the fund is dropping and coming back up. You now own 116 shares, or $1044.
The only way I'd go into a SVF in my 401-K is if I was certain the market wasn't coming back.
That's a lousy example but it happens.
Stable Value funds don't keep up with inflation so any money left there will be worth less when you want to spend it.jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
When the market tanks you lose value, not shares. And selling after a fall means you lose shares. Investors rarely get back in until they feel comfortable doing so, which means the market has rallied significantly. 2 scenarios.
1. You have 100 shares at $10@, the market takes it to $8 so you sell it and put money in SVF. It drops to $6, you've had 6 401 contributions all in SVF. Market gets you back to $9 so you buy back in. You have 113 shares at $9, or $1017.
2. Same investment, you don't sell. You put 6 payments and buy as the fund is dropping and coming back up. You now own 116 shares, or $1044.
The only way I'd go into a SVF in my 401-K is if I was certain the market wasn't coming back.
That's a lousy example but it happens.
6:59p, 5/19/24
In reply to jamey
You can always hedge and do something like this. Add depends on your personal risk comfort. I'm currently heavy in cash and not reinvesting some of my dividends. But I'm also probably older than you and further along with my financial plan.
jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
You can always hedge and do something like this. Add depends on your personal risk comfort. I'm currently heavy in cash and not reinvesting some of my dividends. But I'm also probably older than you and further along with my financial plan.
7:52p, 5/19/24
In reply to EliteZags
A wise man will read this and say: "ah, I get it, trying to time the market is pointless."
A fool will read this and say: "so how do I do that?"
EliteZags said:
successful market timers would be better off leveraging and shorting the market
A wise man will read this and say: "ah, I get it, trying to time the market is pointless."
A fool will read this and say: "so how do I do that?"
8:01p, 5/19/24
It depends where you are in relation to your retirement goals.
If you have what you need for a comfortable retirement -- including a cushion for the unknown -- then wealth preservation is more important that wealth accumulation. Don't take foolish risks just to follow the crowd or latest hot tip of the day if you don't have enough time to recover from a sharp fall-off.
Likewise, if you still have a long way to reach your investment target, then wealth accumulation -- and a higher percentage allocated to equities -- will probably make more sense. Don't worry about market ups and downs if you've got time to ride them out.
Think about it, make your choice on what works best for you, and then move on with it.
If you have what you need for a comfortable retirement -- including a cushion for the unknown -- then wealth preservation is more important that wealth accumulation. Don't take foolish risks just to follow the crowd or latest hot tip of the day if you don't have enough time to recover from a sharp fall-off.
Likewise, if you still have a long way to reach your investment target, then wealth accumulation -- and a higher percentage allocated to equities -- will probably make more sense. Don't worry about market ups and downs if you've got time to ride them out.
Think about it, make your choice on what works best for you, and then move on with it.
4:15a, 5/20/24
In reply to YouBet
Actually I retired in 2018 and have been 100% in equities since perhaps 1994. But I'm what you might call over-diversified in those equities (about 180 stocks in 1 IRA, 12 ETF's in another IRA, and one more). My IRA's have just about doubled since retiring despite taking RMD's.YouBet said:jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
You can always hedge and do something like this. Add depends on your personal risk comfort. I'm currently heavy in cash and not reinvesting some of my dividends. But I'm also probably older than you and further along with my financial plan.
9:28a, 5/20/24
In reply to OldArmyCT
For being a former financial advisor, you seem pretty immune to the fact that one person's (or generations) situation doesn't speak to the future.
There are many scenarios that would suggest 100% equity isn't a great idea for a person at or near retirement. I have a feeling we'll see that play out in the next few years, but we'll see.
There are many scenarios that would suggest 100% equity isn't a great idea for a person at or near retirement. I have a feeling we'll see that play out in the next few years, but we'll see.
10:21a, 5/20/24
In reply to Old Tom Morris
This fits my investing ability to a T
Old Tom Morris said:jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
If I knew when the crisis started and when the crisis stopped, I would. But we don't. So reality is 2 scenarios:
1) you get out too early, miss out on gains in the meantime, then you are also too late to get back in for the ride up. Also keep in mind that pretty much everything outside of cash is still going to take a hit
2) you get out too late, take a hit, then again you are too late to get back in for the ride up
This fits my investing ability to a T
11:07a, 5/20/24
In reply to Diggity
But that's just me. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just pointing out my approach.
It's definitely not for everyone, but there are a lot of folks out there who do not know bonds go down too. You can get yourself an income producing product when you retire, like an annuity or a bond package, just don't look for a raise, and generally the higher the interest rate the riskier the product. As for your "...many scenarios suggesting 100% equity is a bad idea" all I can say is I've been that way since 1990 and have zero complaints. Everyone wants to find a target date fund, I stayed away from them. For example, TRRCX, a 2030 target date fund from T Rowe Price with 5 stars has a 10 year performance of about 7%, beating its competition. Their total market equity index fund, POMIX, only has 3 stars but averaged 12%. Over 5 years that extra growth makes a 20% downturn less significant, especially since downturns are temporary.Diggity said:
For being a former financial advisor, you seem pretty immune to the fact that one person's (or generations) situation doesn't speak to the future.
There are many scenarios that would suggest 100% equity isn't a great idea for a person at or near retirement. I have a feeling we'll see that play out in the next few years, but we'll see.
But that's just me. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just pointing out my approach.
11:30a, 5/20/24
target date funds are like the Dave Ramsey of investments, helping the poor stay slightly less poor
1:13p, 5/20/24
In reply to EliteZags
Poor people don't invest in target date funds because poor people don't invest in anything. If poor people actually did buy target date funds, they would end up plenty rich. The criticism of TDFs is overwrought.
EliteZags said:
target date funds are like the Dave Ramsey of investments, helping the poor stay slightly less poor
Poor people don't invest in target date funds because poor people don't invest in anything. If poor people actually did buy target date funds, they would end up plenty rich. The criticism of TDFs is overwrought.
2:10p, 5/20/24
In reply to YouBet
I agree.....but if we had a true financial crisis to the point of cratering stocks and 401Ks....would the dollar really hold that much value anyway?YouBet said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
So, then the answer to his question is, yes?
2:16p, 5/20/24
The problem with timing the market is you have to be right twice... when to take the money out and go to cash, and when to buy back in.
I know several people who sold at the first sign of trouble in 2008 and were riding high when the market continued to go down, problem was they never bought back until the market had already recovered.
Assuming you time it perfect and see a 20+% correction, will have the nerve to put it back in or will you tell yourself "I need to keep this in cash in case things get worse?"
I know several people who sold at the first sign of trouble in 2008 and were riding high when the market continued to go down, problem was they never bought back until the market had already recovered.
Assuming you time it perfect and see a 20+% correction, will have the nerve to put it back in or will you tell yourself "I need to keep this in cash in case things get worse?"
2:21p, 5/20/24
We will *never* have another actual bear market or financial crisis like 2008 ever again. Never. We will have short term market corrections, but never any sort of real recession or bear market. Why? Because in 2008 the US government discovered the "neat" idea of QE. That is, the treasury issuing bonds and the fed buying them (printing money). That was experiment number one.
Experiment #2 involved actually printing trillions and mailing it to people (think QE but don't bother trying to hide it). Take a look at the fed balance sheet. The March 2023 blip upward is a "QE spike" we never heard about. That was the fed buying all the crap bonds from SVB and the other failed crap banks.
Federal Reserve Board - Recent balance sheet trends
Again, we will never have another actual recession or "financial crisis" because of the government manipulations. Just a gradual erosion of our wealth and a slow death of the dollar and our buying power.
Experiment #2 involved actually printing trillions and mailing it to people (think QE but don't bother trying to hide it). Take a look at the fed balance sheet. The March 2023 blip upward is a "QE spike" we never heard about. That was the fed buying all the crap bonds from SVB and the other failed crap banks.
Federal Reserve Board - Recent balance sheet trends
Again, we will never have another actual recession or "financial crisis" because of the government manipulations. Just a gradual erosion of our wealth and a slow death of the dollar and our buying power.
6:09p, 5/20/24
If you had followed OldArmy's philosophy to date you would have come out way more ahead than being conservative. I'm in the process of taking over some oversight of my parent's stuff and rolling it into my FA because my mom can no longer see or hear well enough to deal with it. She and my dad are 81 and 80 and have been very aggressive up until right now. It paid off for them by being aggressive. However, we are reallocating them to a more moderate position because preserving principal is now their #1 goal.
Hindsight is 20/20. The obvious risk on staying really aggressive that late into age is that there is nothing that says continuing to do so will result in the same outcome. We don't know what's going to happen so if your personal risk tolerance is not that high then staying 100% in equities would not match your comfort zone. Your personal rate of return might be lower than it could have been but would you sleep better at night knowing you've mitigated risk? If so, diversify a bit more. We've certainly left money on the table in the last few years because we are not 100% in equities. I don't get upset about it because we made a decision to be a little less aggressive a few years ago.
Nothing you can do about it so crying about it is pointless.
Hindsight is 20/20. The obvious risk on staying really aggressive that late into age is that there is nothing that says continuing to do so will result in the same outcome. We don't know what's going to happen so if your personal risk tolerance is not that high then staying 100% in equities would not match your comfort zone. Your personal rate of return might be lower than it could have been but would you sleep better at night knowing you've mitigated risk? If so, diversify a bit more. We've certainly left money on the table in the last few years because we are not 100% in equities. I don't get upset about it because we made a decision to be a little less aggressive a few years ago.
Nothing you can do about it so crying about it is pointless.
6:34p, 5/20/24
In reply to TriAg2010
Agree. If they feel too conservative, one can always just adjust the date. There's no rule that says you have to pick one that aligns with age 65. Pick a later date or spread across multiple.
Also, at someplace like Vanguard, their target date funds are just an auto-balancing mix of the Total Stock Market fund, total int'l stock market fund, total US and int'l bond funds, and some short term inflation protected securities. So a low fee, low maintenance approach to investing in some very sound, wealth generating funds.
TriAg2010 said:EliteZags said:
target date funds are like the Dave Ramsey of investments, helping the poor stay slightly less poor
Poor people don't invest in target date funds because poor people don't invest in anything. If poor people actually did buy target date funds, they would end up plenty rich. The criticism of TDFs is overwrought.
Agree. If they feel too conservative, one can always just adjust the date. There's no rule that says you have to pick one that aligns with age 65. Pick a later date or spread across multiple.
Also, at someplace like Vanguard, their target date funds are just an auto-balancing mix of the Total Stock Market fund, total int'l stock market fund, total US and int'l bond funds, and some short term inflation protected securities. So a low fee, low maintenance approach to investing in some very sound, wealth generating funds.
10:51p, 5/20/24
In reply to jamey
The further it drops, the more you should allocate towards equities. It's probably the opposite of what you think you should do.
jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
The further it drops, the more you should allocate towards equities. It's probably the opposite of what you think you should do.
10:52p, 5/20/24
In reply to DannyDuberstein
except regardless of date they are wayy too heavy in bonds and international for anyone that's trying to build real wealth over time, most just default into it not knowing any better thinking it's the best standard or they can't mentally stomach short term volatility and rob themselves of returns over time
beating the market is not easy, beating target date funds absolutely is
Quote:
Agree. If they feel too conservative, one can always just adjust the date. There's no rule that says you have to pick one that aligns with age 65. Pick a later date or spread across multiple.
except regardless of date they are wayy too heavy in bonds and international for anyone that's trying to build real wealth over time, most just default into it not knowing any better thinking it's the best standard or they can't mentally stomach short term volatility and rob themselves of returns over time
beating the market is not easy, beating target date funds absolutely is
11:03p, 5/20/24
analogize target date funds to making a deal with God/The Devil for assurance that freak accident won't kill/cripple you at young age, but with the cost of that being 30 years of your life, which I get some would take
11:04p, 5/20/24
In reply to YouBet
I can't ever remember seeing a good financial plan that included being heavy in cash and not reinvesting dividends. Unless you're trying to build up a cash reserve so you can afford to be heavier in equities throughout your retirement or if you're currently retired and using those dividends for income.
There's no absence of risk with investing, it's just what risk you're willing to accept. There's probably more risk in your retirement years in being too conservative than there is in holding majority equities. The risk in being too conservative is that cost of living increases slowly erode your purchasing power during your retirement and your 'fixed' income can't keep up. You either run out of money and live on your kids couch, or you just steal from their inheritance because you can't handle temporary declines in your portfolio value.
YouBet said:jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
You can always hedge and do something like this. Add depends on your personal risk comfort. I'm currently heavy in cash and not reinvesting some of my dividends. But I'm also probably older than you and further along with my financial plan.
I can't ever remember seeing a good financial plan that included being heavy in cash and not reinvesting dividends. Unless you're trying to build up a cash reserve so you can afford to be heavier in equities throughout your retirement or if you're currently retired and using those dividends for income.
There's no absence of risk with investing, it's just what risk you're willing to accept. There's probably more risk in your retirement years in being too conservative than there is in holding majority equities. The risk in being too conservative is that cost of living increases slowly erode your purchasing power during your retirement and your 'fixed' income can't keep up. You either run out of money and live on your kids couch, or you just steal from their inheritance because you can't handle temporary declines in your portfolio value.
12:04a, 5/21/24
In reply to Baby Billy
Does that include bond funds, and reinvesting dividends with bonds? Or do you consider bonds, like cash?
Baby Billy said:YouBet said:jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
You can always hedge and do something like this. Add depends on your personal risk comfort. I'm currently heavy in cash and not reinvesting some of my dividends. But I'm also probably older than you and further along with my financial plan.
I can't ever remember seeing a good financial plan that included being heavy in cash and not reinvesting dividends. Unless you're trying to build up a cash reserve so you can afford to be heavier in equities throughout your retirement or if you're currently retired and using those dividends for income.
There's no absence of risk with investing, it's just what risk you're willing to accept. There's probably more risk in your retirement years in being too conservative than there is in holding majority equities. The risk in being too conservative is that cost of living increases slowly erode your purchasing power during your retirement and your 'fixed' income can't keep up. You either run out of money and live on your kids couch, or you just steal from their inheritance because you can't handle temporary declines in your portfolio value.
Does that include bond funds, and reinvesting dividends with bonds? Or do you consider bonds, like cash?
1:08a, 5/21/24
In reply to jamey
I've always told folks to have 2 years of living expenses in cash (money market, CD's, etc) when they retire so they can keep an overwhelmingly majority equity portfolio throughout that retirement. It just makes sense to me.
Fixed income is fixed, and costs are constantly rising. Dividends from the best businesses in America and the world grow at a rate well beyond the average cost of living increase. The downside is that the market is down significantly at the same time you need the money, but that's what the 2 years of living expenses in cash is for.
Fixed income is fixed, and costs are constantly rising. Dividends from the best businesses in America and the world grow at a rate well beyond the average cost of living increase. The downside is that the market is down significantly at the same time you need the money, but that's what the 2 years of living expenses in cash is for.
5:13a, 5/21/24
In reply to jamey
So the title of this thread really should be "Should I time the market?"
jamey said:OldArmyCT said:
The Stable Value fund in your 401-K is the worst possible option unless your goal at retirement is to retire with the same amount of money as you contributed. One of the best things that ever happened to my 401-K was the 2008-09 meltdown, I reallocated and upped my % of contributions, never looking back. It's dang near impossible to time the market but it's fairly easy to take advantage of a falling market.
I'm talking about a financial crisis, to protect capital, not a 10 year investment
You don't even move 10% out or anything, just ride it down and back up?
So the title of this thread really should be "Should I time the market?"