The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Strategy comparison S&P500 vs. IUL||Date: 4/2/2013 2:32 PM|
|Author: Rayvt||Number: 71667 of 74759|
PS. as a point of reference, how much in non-risked reserves would you advise a person keep when going naked in the securities?
I'm not the best person to ask this question of, since I don't really invest that way. I don't have a dog in that fight, so I wouldn't "advise" a person anything. My biggest advice would be to maintain an adequate level of liquidity. That's probably around $25K-$50K for most people.
But the phrase "going naked in the securities" troubles me. Going naked means something quite different than going long, but the implication here is that they are equivalent. They are not.
This has the smell of a semi-hidden agenda, that the speaker is trying to smuggle in the assertion that being long is an exaggerated risk. This is something I would more expect of a sales person (quelle surprise!) than a dispassionate seeker of knowledge.
That said ....
Risk is there, regardless of people's desire to be risk-free. At the "non-risked reserves" area there is interest rate risk, inflation risk, buying-power risk, etc. See, for example, "Cyprus, bank depositors of". Ask *them* about their non-risked reserves.
Anyway, the standard accepted ratio is 60% equities and 40% fixed-income. Right now, people who are 60/40 are going to be very sorry in the future when that 40 gets crushed down to 10. IHMO.
As for me personally, I struggle mightily to keep my fixed-income allocation up as high as 10%. I'd be happier at 5%, but that's just me -- most people feel that 10% is nuch too low. OTOH, most people couldn't walk into their boss's office at 58 and ask to be laid off.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|