The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: _Die Broke_ by Stephen M. Pollan||Date: 12/6/1997 2:08 PM|
|Author: omahafool||Number: 721 of 77095|
TMF Pixy: In one of your replies you wrote:
<Indeed if anything, those analyses indicate a 100% equities position would be better equipped to
last a lifetime while concurrently meeting an inflationary bugaboo than anything else.>
I have just returned bleary eyed from the 23 posts. Am I missing something or isn't your last conclusion that the Brazen1 approach involving bonds and equities and a complex set of equities including REITS which I believe I have not seen on the site as Foolish investments, worked out the "best" if the goal was not to die broke, ie not to run out of money. I will admit that I did scan a lot of the data being mathmatically challenged but I thought I had the conclusions right. After much time on the site with much help from people on the Boards and even TMFSheard and TGardner (the responsiveness of the MF and friends is very encouraging and impressive) I changed my own portfolio (I am retired) from a highly diversified portfolio with bonds, stocks, REITs, etc to a 50/50 portfolio of UV5/6+/Keystone. I say my mantra of "c and t" (compounding and time) assigned to me by Montanafool, but your recent post and the series caused me a slight discomfort (so I increased my mantra repeating time).
Fortunately I have a fixed income in addition to my investments so I am really not in the exact situation as the original question but will need to make significant withdrawals to keep up with inflation so I was concerned by the post and reference to the 23 series. Where does Rayvt series on this board (of regular withdrawals from Dow portfolios) fall into this discussion?
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|