peperonity Mobile Community
Welcome, guest. You are not logged in.
Log in or join for free!
 
New to peperonity.com?
Your username allows you to login later. Please choose a name with 3-20 alphabetic characters or digits (no special characters). 
Please enter your own and correct e-mail address and be sure to spell it correctly. The e-mail adress will not be shown to any other user. 
This password protects your account. To avoid typos it must be entered twice. Please enter 5-20 alphabetic characters or digits (no special characters). Choose a password that is not easy to guess! Never disclose your password to anyone. 
This password protects your account. To avoid typos it must be entered twice. Please enter 5-20 alphabetic characters or digits (no special characters). Choose a password that is not easy to guess! Never disclose your password to anyone. 
Stay logged in
Enter your username and password to log in. Forgot login details?

Username 
CAUTION: Do not disclose your password to anybody! Only enter it at the official login of peperonity.com. We will never ask for your password in a message! 
Login
Stay logged in

Share photos, videos & audio files
Create your own WAP site for free
Get a blog
Invite your friends and meet people from all over the world
All this from your mobile phone!
For free!
Get started!

You can easily invite all your friends to peperonity.com. When you log in or register with us, you can tell your friends about exciting content on peperonity.com! The messaging costs are on us.
Meet our team member Marzus and learn how to create your own mobile site!

Stock Allocation Rule: 120 Minus Age - money.co



Stock Allocation Rule: 120 Minus Age


More article
http://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/kankar
*._.*._.*._.*._.*._.*._.*._.*._.*
*._.*._.*._.*._.*._.*._.*
chit-chat-live.peperonity.com
*._.*._.*._.*._.*
*._.*._.*
"*._.*"

120 minus your age is how much of your investment portfolio you should have invested in stocks, that’s what the old adage says anyway. So, with the adventof all these target retirement/lifecycle funds, we can now compare how the professionals allocate assets in an easy and transparent way. Since target retirement type funds are still pretty new and everyone is still trying to get their asset mix correct, it’s interesting to see how different brokerages differ in their offerings.
Process: What I’ve done is taken the target retirement and lifecycle funds at Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price and compared them against the “120 minus age” rule to see how they differed. I assume that the year is 2006, assume retirement is at 65, and extrapolate the stock percentage as 120 minus age, which I extrapolate. For example, given Vanguard’s Target Retirement 2040, I’ll assumethat the current age of an investor is 25, for a recommended allocation of 95% (120 – 25) compared toan actual allocation of 87.72%, a deviation of -7.28%.
The numbers will follow but here are some takeaways (Ididn’t do any statistical analysis, this is just me eyeballing numbers and drawing conclusions that are probably not statistically significant):
*. The rule of thumb is certainly good in terms of rules of thumb, I wouldn’t follow it to the ends o f the Earth but it’s definitelybetter than nothing.
*. None of the three seem tofollow the rule with any sort of consistency but they are all in the ballparkof the rule, but not by much.
*. Of the three, Vanguard is the closest to following therule with T. Rowe Price between somewhat more aggressive and Fidelity being somewhat more conservative.
*. What’s interesting is that all three brokerages are more conservative than the rule recommends on the fringes, than they are in the “middle” of your career. Vanguard is more conservative than the rule on the fringes (in retirement, far from retirement) and more aggressive than the rule in the middle (9-15 years away from retirement). Fidelity is just basically more conservative than the rule across the board but even more conservative in the fringes. T. Rowe finds itself more aggressive than the rule across the board but ratchets back that aggressiveness if you’re in or far from retirement.
*. Matt adds this excellent point (from comments below) that I didn’t even consider: “People in their 20s and 30s are generallylaid-back about retirement, and unlikely tobe worried about about a point or two here or thereon their return rate. People in their 60s and upare beyond the point where greater returns willhelp them much. It’s the 40s and 50s folks that are(in many cases, justifiably)panicking about how much they’ve under-saved, and feeling a desperate need for higher returns tohelp their late-coming contributions make up for lost time. A fund targeted at people in this age bracket will sell better if it overinvests in stocks, relative to the conventional wisdom.”
Numbers after the jump.

Rakesh khudia


This page:





Help/FAQ | Terms | Imprint
Home People Pictures Videos Sites Blogs Chat
Top