Comment by kqr
3 days ago
A few years ago cost structures for managing one's investment portfolios were also significantly higher than today!
There's an even better alternative for someone willing to put in the leg work:
(1) Figure out your investment horizon. For many people, this is way shorter than suggested by generic advice, which makes some diversification beyond "stonks go up" meaningful.
(2) Figure out what costs you'll incur by rebalancing etc.
(3) Write a short script that optimises the amount of activity in portfolio management that improves performance over your investment horizon, given your costs.
Unsurprisingly, the result can vary a lot between people. The result is most likely going to involve a very low level of activity, but the process of finding it out is very informative.
What I've found out (and this is replicated also by more authoritative people like Carver) is that for almost everyone, mixing in some 10--20 % of a safer asset like 10 year bonds and rebalancing yearly outperforms a pure equity portfolio over most realistic investment horizons.
Agree with you 100%, I did the same simulations and found the same result.
I would suggest a step beyond though, because rebalancing your portfolio is fun year 1-5, but not so fun year 5-20: have a look at e.g. Vanguard retirement target funds.
Essentially, it's an ETF with a rebalancing rule included for a specific target date. For instance if you buy the target 2050 (your hypothetical retirement age), the ETF rebalances itself between bonds/monetary fund/stocks until it reaches that date, u til it's pretty much all cash in 2050.
Lowest hassle diversified retirement scheme I found.
Nope not all cash, it goes down to around 50% stocks at the target date (and actually continues to get slightly more conservative after). Just look at the current portfolio of the Vanguard 2025 fund: https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-fun...
You still need to be invested in equities at retirement otherwise inflation just eats away at the value of the cash
That’s why these target funds go down to ~50% stocks [edit: at the target date] not 0.
2 replies →
My target date 2050 funds have performed 50% less than my S&P 500 and like 30/40% less than my total stock market fund.
You mean VFIFX? What a disaster. My retirement plan put me in that until I realized investment advice for young people is a tax on the inexperienced and vulnerable. VFFSX (S&P 500) does 2x better returns every time. I feel guilty saying it on Hacker News. Like pension funds I bet Vanguard is one of these so-called LPs who give money to VCs like Y Combinator to help ivy league kids follow their dreams. Without these heroes I'm not sure there'd be a startup economy. I just don't want to be the one who pays for it. I think the future Wall-E predicted with Buy N' Large is probably closer to the truth.
2 replies →
This is one of those things where again, one will have to weigh the costs of both alternatives. A rebalancing ETF usually has higher costs (management fees, but possibly also internal trading costs that show up as performance beneath benchmark index), but of course, manually rebalancing also has a cost – the cost of one's time and effort!
Vanguard's ETFs are really cheap. The retirement funds in question are like 0.24%, which is in the cheaper range for ETFs
There are scenarios where these target date funds are not good.
Rebalancing into bonds and mmmfs is a form of insurance against catastrophic losses equities. But if you have a sufficiently large account then catastrophic losses that affect your life are extremely rare, if they do occur they will likely affect your bond portfolio as well, and the expected loss vs 100% equities over 15-20 years is significant, something like 10x the value of the insurance you are buying.
If you want insurance for a large account then long-dated put options 20% of the money are much cheaper.
I want to learn more about how to rebalance my portfolio. I started with ETFs and MFs and then bought some good stocks when they were low. But I have never rebalanced it. Would you be able to share some resources about it? Also, if possible, some pointers about your script.
Rebalancing is just selling the high performers and buying the low performers. In his example, you'd keep your "safe asset" allocation at say 15% - if your other stocks did well one year, you'd sell some and buy more "safe assets" so they again constitute 15% of your total value. If stocks tanked, you'd instead sell some "safe assets" and buy more stocks, again until your "safe assets" are back at 15% of total value.
> Rebalancing is just selling the high performers and buying the low performers.
Guaranteeing mediocre performance. Not my cup a tea.
3 replies →
I'd be interested in reading more literature (e.g. from Carver) if you have any links!
I have only read half of Carver's Smart Portfolios yet but I find myself agreeing with much of it. I have started writing up a review of it sometime soon, although I might not publish it for free in a while!