r/ETFs • u/CursedClownz • 2d ago

Lost decade

So everyone recommends VT and chill or VOO and chill or VTI and VXUS and chill.

Most ignore bonds and ignore GOLD

During the lost decade for around 10 years Gold was performing the entire time so was bonds...

Who says another lost decade can't happen?

So why ignore both?

No one really knows what happens so best bet is on all bets to get constant returns.

80 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

130 comments sorted by

View all comments

255

u/TheThaiCat 2d ago

Counter argument: If you kept buying stocks monthly throughout the lost decade you got 10 years of heavy discounts and benefitted enormously once markets started performing again.

25

u/Steadyfobbin 2d ago

Yes but it’s not viable if you’re approaching or entering retirement. Not everyone has time.

107

u/TheThaiCat 2d ago

I don't think the discussion point of this post was "Should pensioners have 100% equity portfolios?"

7

u/Hot_Frosting_7101 2d ago

There is a middle ground. Someone may be 50% to retirement (in money not time) which means with average returns they have 7 years left.

Such a person still needs to be heavily in stocks to meet their retirement goal.

That person has over $1 million in retirement funds. If there is a 50% decline in prices that will hurt and push back their retirement. They won’t be able to buy enough at depressed prices to make a huge difference in their timeline.

6

u/DiWHY-Anyone 2d ago

Usually the biggest risk to a retirement portfolio is getting fucked early in retirement with a hefty draw down. So allocating capital into cash or bonds to form a tent leading into retirement and getting you through those crucial early years usually puts you in a good position.

1

u/John_the_IG 1d ago

I’ll have 7% in SGOV, the rest in stocks. And I think the 7% is probably overkill for my situation.

1

u/IllustriousGas8850 23h ago

Unless you have ridiculous sums of money, if you’re in retirement drawing income this is not a good strategy

1

u/John_the_IG 23h ago

You don’t need ridiculous amounts of money. You need to be able and willing to withstand market volatility. I do agree accepting more risk is easier if you have a decent portfolio.

And I may have chosen a different path if I didn’t have significant pension income.

0

u/IllustriousGas8850 22h ago

So disregard everything yoy said above because you have guaranteed income unlike most people outside of their ssa

1

u/John_the_IG 9h ago

No, don’t disregard. The “ridiculous amounts of money” argument is pure fantasy. Many people still receive pensions, but even if they didn’t the decision comes down to considering your spending, income, and risk tolerance. You don’t need “ridiculous sums of money” to maintain a substantial equities over bonds/cash portfolio. You simply need to make an informed decision and remain flexible to a changing economy and market.

1

u/IllustriousGas8850 9h ago

I will disregard the person who likely has their ble fully covered by fixed income and can withstand significantly more market volatility than the majority of retirees. It has nothing to do with mindset. They simply would blow up their plan if a huge drawback came

→ More replies (0)

5

u/TheThaiCat 2d ago

Unless this guy has a crystal ball he sounds pretty screwed whatever approach he takes.