If I may, allow me to offer a small suggestion to the question about what amount of cash or "non-risked reserves" to hold. I believe a reasonable and conservative approach is to hold 5 years worth of cash or cash equivalents .... This would represent "risk free" money that could be used to avoid having to sell securities during a severe market I used to think this was a reasonable idea. But I've recently read some papers & articles that changed my mind. Don't have a link handy, but the argument goes like this:* You want to have an asset allocation of, say, 10% cash and 90% equities (stocks, bonds, etc.)* You do this because want to avoid having to sell stocks when they are down, so you withdraw from cash instead of selling stocks.But:* What you are doing when you spend the cash is shifting your asset allocation to HIGHER equity allocation levels. Instead of 10/90 it becomes 5/95.* If the bear market lasts longer than your cash cushion, then you are 100% equities. You wanted to have no more than 90% stocks because you wanted to feel safe. But yout strategy caused you to move toward 100% stocks -- the exact opposite of your goal.* AND, when you've used up all of the cash, you now are selling stocks even deeper in the downdraft. Instead of selling some when they were 5% down, you wind up selling when they are 20% down.They convinced me that this "cash bucket" approach is mostly an illusion, and that it completely fails you just when you need it the most -- in a terrible downdraft.You have the comfort of feeling safe, right up until the sawblades hit.** Their conclusion is that it is safest to maintain your chosen asset allocation, even in a down market.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra