It’s an interesting thought. The growth is so extreme that if the S&P 500 fell 50% today it would reach levels last seen in 2022. Given that the timespan is so short, I’m honestly not sure it would be as bad for 401ks as people expect unless all of your investment was concentrated in the last 4 years.
I suppose it’s worse if your calculation is, “I’ll retire when my 401k hits $X absolute value,” but I think most people just retire at a certain age instead with risk spread across decades.
During the dot-com crisis. Nasdaq fell around 78% from its peak and S&P by around 49% so it isn't unprecedented (ironically has both aspects of being both tech and are within the same time-era)
It created an actual recession albeit thankfully short one for the case of dotcom (sadly not for 2007) and a really recessionary environment which causes unemployment and just straight up fear and panic.
I do understand what you are talking about and overall in long term, perhaps things flatten out but atleast speaking financially so, its better to be on a smooth sailing road rather than insane ups and downs with retirement money if preferable.
> I think most people just retire at a certain age instead with risk spread across decades.
The issue in my opinion is with people near that certain age you mention and who retire in the time during boom just before bust. They would then get the 50% hit on their savings instantly with an recession/inflation/unemployment environment which in my opinion might be genuinely devastating.
(supposing that they had their investments in stocks, I wouldn't consider that any retiree would have all their money in stocks but there have been some other comments which show a sizable amount, @kipchak's comment shows 50% stock for retirement. so a 50% shock on top of that could lead to a wipe out of 25% of your retirement fund which is honestly still pretty crazy.)
This kind of metric is always used to shock and awe in pop media when talking about the GFC, but it's not how actual investment works. In practice most investments are DCAed.
No person puts all of their retirement savings into QQQ or SPY at the peak and sell it off at the trough. Instead folks drip their savings into their weighted portfolio and withdraw money from their weighted portfolio as expenses accrue. Now obviously the GFC was a huge deal, but this sort of facile understanding of stock markets always leads to big misunderstandings. There's a reason Monte Carlo analyses of these events are used to model these scenarios.
(Though I imagine there were many people who tried to re-balance their portfolio into a less equity-heavy model abruptly during the GFC and based on equities performance at the time, it was probably the right move as long as taxes were taken into account.)
> (supposing that they had their investments in stocks, I wouldn't consider that any retiree would have all their money in stocks but there have been some other comments which show a sizable amount, @kipchak's comment shows 50% stock for retirement. so a 50% shock on top of that could lead to a wipe out of 25% of your retirement fund which is honestly still pretty crazy.)
What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will. Going 100% bonds is simply intolerable for the time window for most retirees, but an equity wipeout of this magnitude is equally intolerable.
They are probably not going to be implemented using long put positions, but a product with a similar return profile to what you're looking for is a buffered ETF. Basically, over a defined period, you agree to a maximum possible downside in exchange for a capped upside. They are available in ETF form from a number of providers.
For example, you could have an S&P 500 fund that, over the next year, will have a maximum of 0% capital losses (it can't go down), you will only get the first, say, 5% of gains that the equity index makes. So if stocks go up 20% the next year, your return is capped at 5%, but if they crash 50%, you don't absorb any capital losses. In practice, the return cap is going to be just a bit above the corresponding Treasury bill for the same duration.
These can be constructed in various different ways and institutionally I'm sure there are more bespoke ways that are more efficient from a fees/returns and tax perspective, but one way to do this on your own without going the ETF route is:
- Pick an amount you'd like to invest.
- Buy a Treasury bill for some duration. Treasury bills are discounted at the time of purchase and return the target amount when the bill matures. For instance, if you buy a $100k 1-year Treasury bill, it might cost $96.5k today.
- Now you have $3.5k in your pocket and a guarantee that you'll get $100k in a year when the bill matures. Use that $3.5k now to purchase call options or vertical spreads on the S&P 500 index to capture the upside that you can. Your return is limited by the structure of that options trade and what its maximum payoff is.
If you're willing to accept more than 0% downside, then you can achieve a higher potential upside cap as well.
> What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will. Going 100% bonds is simply intolerable for the time window for most retirees, but an equity wipeout of this magnitude is equally intolerable.
Investment companies have to remain profitable or at-worst neutral as such they would generally charge a decent bit of money for this type of setup. (If they end up having too big of losses then perhaps it could be similar to the the 2007 Banking/Investment companies crisis.)
Generally speaking I am not a financial advisor but you can take a look at international index funds/ETF's in general which have less exposure to AI in general.
and you can follow the age rule created by Mr Bogle where you have (age)% in bonds and (100-age)% in stocks, so at 70 you have 70% bonds, 30% stocks.
So again taking the example of dot com bubble, International Index funds fell from my understanding 30-40% and suppose that you had 30% stocks and 70% bonds.
So that would only have a 30% times 30 % which is 9% which perhaps might be more managable as compared to the previous 25%. There might be some other strategies as well which can help in diversification
The cost of insurance is carry e.g. when you buy an option you are paying for the convexity with time decay. It is quite expensive.
It is worth saying however that part of tail hedging is that the payoff is worth a lot more when everything else has tanked, so e.g. even if you (say) get 10% on your puts when the wider portfolio is still down 40% (made up numbers), you can deploy that capital at probably quite a high expected return.
Even someone close to retirement doesn't need to go 100% bonds. It's not like someone needs all their retirement money on day 1. The part that remains in equities will continue generating dividends that will get reinvested, and recover over time.
100% of anything is a bad idea if you're going to have to draw on them any time soon. Bonds are less volatile than equity, but they're still subject to drops in value.
Sure, but a mistake I often see is people thinking that people's entire retirement savings is needed on the first day of retirement. People can and should still be invested in equities even in retirement, it's just the percentage is less depending on age and burn rate.
It would cost an extreme amount. The only reason to do something like that would be to defer capital gains into retirement while protecting your position.
You can use a collar for this at somewhat reasonable cost. Not sure how rolling that would compare to just using it to defer until you can cheaply sell and buy some fixed income ladder. Probably badly.
Also, there’s no capital gains to defer if you use a retirement account, which will be a better place for fixed income anyway.
> What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will.
I expect that would not be a cost-effective way of attaining the risk profile you'd be looking for.
I expect there won't be a more cost-effective way of managing your portfolio risk than by simply adjusting your split of broadly-diversified equities vs bonds.
My homeowners insurance isn't "cost-effective" either but I still do it. I think the reason that investors don't is because they are greedy or irrational or both.
That was the message that I got from a financial podcast I listened to a couple weeks ago anyway.
I'd content that homeowners' insurance is quite cost-effective, because there isn't a cheaper alternative to hedge your risk.
I'm saying that for the cost of buying puts to hedge against equity downside in a retirement portfolio, for any given level of risk, you'd probably be better off just selling some of the equities and buying bonds instead.
e.g. try and find any equity-focused ETF with downside protection that generally outperforms a bog-standard stock/bond split total-market ETF for whatever measure of volatility/downside protection that you want.
I think the risk for increasing your bond exposure as compensation would be if instead of a low growth/low inflation scenario (Bonds do well) there's a low growth+high inflation scenario (1940s, 1970s, 2022) and the negative correlation between stocks and bonds doesn't hold.
Yeah, but in the abstract that's just saying "if you time the market, you can beat it", and we know that generally, the only way people are able to time the market is with random luck.
And more specifically, it's not low growth/high inflation that kills bond portfolio returns, it's interest rates increasing that devalue bonds, i.e. the transition from low inflation to high inflation. So yeah, you can construct a portfolio that hedges against that... but I'd be surprised if you can do it without decreasing your risk-adjusted expected returns below a plain stock/bond index fund - whatever hedging method you use is either going to increase your interest-rate risk (bonds), or your inflation-rate risk (cash), or is going to limit your upside (buffer etfs), or is just going sap your upfront returns (protective puts).
In that sense, isn't the 60/40 or Boglehead perspective also timing the market, in the sense that you are betting the regime of the past will continue into the near future?
To me the diversification hedge options (say GUNR) seem like they are helping you get closer to regime neutral. Or in other words you are giving up returns to cover more macro scenarios and betting less on what the future looks like.
Take SPY at a strike of $738, per lot of 100 that's $73 800. Take 14 lots, give or take, to make a cool million.
SPY260821P00738000 (OCC symbol: PUT on SPY expiring the 21th of August 2026 at a strike of $738) is $12.20 as I type this, so $1220 per lot. So $16 800 to protect for a month. So $200 K per year.
A solid 20% yearly, unless my math is way off.
Now of course you can buy, instead of a PUT, a PUT debit spread, or you can buy further from the strike, or you can finance or partially finance your PUT or PUT debit spread with a CALL you'd sell (turning it into a covered strangle) etc. That's not the point of this exercise though. And anyway I doubt many retirees have the know-how to do that.
In any case it's well known that the costs to hedge are extremely high.
In 1929 those who had 10% gold for example "only" lost 25% overall: gold has value since thousands of years. My dumb thinking is that if gold has value since thousands of years, there's an extremely high probability that it'll keep value for the few decades I've got left at most.
A more sensible strategy is probably to protect only against large down moves, so get OTM puts, and then longer maturities (like 1/2 year or so), then rotate them every quarter.
ATM options cost approximately 0.4 S sigma T^0.5 (do a Taylor expansion of the "N"s in the Black Scholes formula), so indeed, for current index vols of about 16% we are talking 0.4 * 16% * (1/12)^0.5 = 1.85% for a 1 month option, and 12 of them indeed cost 22% of your portfolio. Not a good idea.
However, if you hold the options only half the way to expiry, you lose only 1/4 of the time value. And if you buy OTM, you have convexity coming your way on the way down.
Lastly, index vols were very low (until yesterday, ha), as so many firms entered the dispersion trade: they wanted to go long dispersion (some firms do well with AI, some lose out), so short correlation, therefore long single stock vol and short index vol. Which means you could buy index vol (ie protection) quite cheap.
One of the big issues with this is sequence of returns risk. If you retire and rely on your portfolio but the market dives for a year or two right after you leave the workforce, your total portfolio value is screwed because you were selling at a low point.
Tangentially: I think a lot of people forget/underestimate the degree to which the industries behind their job are ones that they need to diversify away-from.
In other words, a programmer should invest a bit more away from software than average, a realtor should invest a bit more away from properties than average, a coal-miner should invest a bit more away from energy and mining, etc.
If you have your job, you can weather a stock-downturn, and if investments are solid, you can weather a period of unemployment by liquidating some, but if both hit trouble simultaneously then that's much much worse.
That makes sense, and it probably should be said more. It's probably just because we invest in what we know. If you're a real estate broker, you have an interest in properties, you think about it all the time, so you'll buy your own properties, or invest perhaps in builder stocks. If you're in tech, well, I don't need to say it because that's most of us. If you work in the energy sector, I imagine you know a thing or two about transport and esoterica of speculative miners or drillers, etc.
> It's probably just because we invest in what we know.
I'm mostly thinking of folks that will passively invest in a big broad index fund, and then assume they've reached the end in terms of balancing industry/sector risk.
it's also why you shouldn't hold equity in your own company any longer than necessary (e.g., an apple employee shouldn't tie up the majority of their networth in apple stock).
stock options/rsus are a great example of some sort of cognitive bias (maybe it's the endowment effect?).
give somebody $1000 worth of shares in their company, and a lot of folks will hang on to them. but if you gave them $1000 cash to invest, they almost certainly would not choose to dump all of that money into their own company.
Tax-law also makes is sticky: StockX -> Money -> StockY means a portion of is lost as capital-gains tax on the money step. StockY might be better... but is it something that will perform better-enough to be worth the switching costs? (At this point logarithms and spreadsheets start getting involved.)
In contrast, starting with Money and then choosing between StockX or StockY is an easier choice.
most don't even have 3-5 years "spending money" (whatever that is) in total savings; if you're keeping that in cash you're getting 2-3% annually while the market has doubled.
Last week I was at the bank in my hometown, a small rural community. The teller took a phone call, and I overheard her say "You have $1.53 in your checking account, and $150 in savings".
Presumably this is their total net worth. I think this is way more common than people on this type of forum realize. Most will work until they literally can't anymore, then scrape by on social security until they die. I think it's important to keep that perspective.
Because the average person also makes a litany of poor financial decisions. $100K student loan balances for an state school arts degree, forgoing health insurance but expecting to receive $200K in care for free, or buying that $80K F150 on a 12.5% loan and rolling in negative equity.
The US is second in the world for median equivalised household disposable income, second only to Luxembourg and 10%+ above Norway. For daily median per person income after taxes and transfers, we're only behind Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Qatar, and the UAE. Outside of petrostates, microstates, and Switzerland, no country has richer "average" people.
The US certainly doesn't have the safety net of some of these other states, but these aren't holes you're being thrown into by society: they're pits you've deliberately jumped into in 99% of cases.
Your error here, or the missing piece if we're generous, is what people are spending money on. Health care is astronomically more expensive here. Schooling isn't free after high school. Day care isn't free. Hell, even property taxes are simply 'not a thing' in France or the UK, where the taxes and Council Tax, respectively, are a tiny fraction of what Americans pay in property taxes ---- which, of course, pay for the 'free public schools.'
Now, let's talk about insurance, that's also much higher. In states like California and Florida, home insurance is through the roof, in some states like NJ and NY, car insurance is through the roof. Both going up way above inflation (like the items in my first paragraph).
You might counter with energy costs are much higher in these European countries (and similar ones like Germany, Benelux, etc), and the purchasing power might be higher, but the wages are so so much lower.
That said, this trope of people misspending their money needs to consider this outrageous costs of things that many people around the world never need to think about. The shitty wages in France are overshadowed by so many essentials being available without a high cost or any cost in some cases.
>Your error here, or the missing piece if we're generous, is what people are spending money on. Health care is astronomically more expensive here. Schooling isn't free after high school. Day care isn't free. Hell, even property taxes are simply 'not a thing' in France or the UK, where the taxes and Council Tax, respectively, are a tiny fraction of what Americans pay in property taxes ---- which, of course, pay for the 'free public schools.'
A US worker at the average wage keeps roughly 70 cents of every labor-cost dollar; a worker in Belgium, Germany, France, Austria, or Italy keeps closer to 47 cents, even before you add in the effect of VAT. Nobody in Europe is getting those services you mentioned for "free" - you're just making everyone else pay for them with taxing their labor. You almost connected the dots when it came to property taxes paying for public services, but missed that Europe assesses income taxes.
>Now, let's talk about insurance, that's also much higher. In states like California and Florida, home insurance is through the roof, in some states like NJ and NY, car insurance is through the roof. Both going up way above inflation (like the items in my first paragraph).
This is a bundle of issues. As a quick list, compare the size/value of an average property in California or Florida to a property in Europe, assuming they even own the property (remember, Europe's home ownership rate is lower than Florida's). Same goes for car ownership costs: American cars are larger, more expensive, driven more, and are more exposed to damages from uninsured motorists, because states like NY, NJ, and CA think it's racist to enforce uninsured (or even unlicensed) motorist laws. Just like health insurance, allowing free-riders on insurance systems is financially disastrous.
>You might counter with energy costs are much higher in these European countries (and similar ones like Germany, Benelux, etc), and the purchasing power might be higher, but the wages are so so much lower.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, Europeans can get a number of services paid for by their neighbor, but it doesn't make them "richer" by any reasonable measure. Quantifying standard of living is incredibly difficult, because even as this exchange shows, people will value different things differently. But broadly speaking, my original point still stands: Americans should not be struggling to live in America, absent poor personal decisions, particularly if you're willing to lower the standard of living to that of an average European (a smaller rented property, driving far fewer miles in a compact car, no air conditioning, etc, etc).
>That said, this trope of people misspending their money needs to consider this outrageous costs of things that many people around the world never need to think about. The shitty wages in France are overshadowed by so many essentials being available without a high cost or any cost in some cases.
What outrageous costs are those? Community college remains very affordable, and costs for 2 years at a state school can be managed, especially against the greater lifetime earning potential in America. Healthcare costs OOP is capped at $9,200 on an ACA plan, which can be nearly free for middle to lower income brackets, and that debt itself is basically unenforceable in most cases these days, assuming you truly don't have the assets to pay.
I’m assuming you mean you’re in the top 8 percent of income distribution? Ie about 90,000 euros?
If so, by my rough math, you’re paying about 25% more in taxes than an equivalent American couple based on PPP. That American couple would have about $30K USD/26K Euro more in disposable income, would likely have good quality health insurance paid for by their job, be eligible for $3K to $4K in social security retirement income per month, and be able to individually contribute to tax free retirement accounts, tax free college funds for their children, etc.
That's incredibly misleading. For a high salary, this American couple you mentioned, are probably living in California or New York or New Jersey or another high tax state.
Now redo the math.
I and most people in my peer group pay over 40 percent of income in taxes, and that's NOT including property taxes, which are much, much higher than in Europe. Some much more than that - like triple (city, state and federal).
State taxes were completely ignored from your math.
This message, and the message before it which I am at pains to rebut much of, contains a lot of misleading cherry-picking.
And you compared European universities to a two year county college degree?
Healthcare costs were also greatly glossed over. I'm hoping someone else is triggered but if not I'll be forced to step in and correct this stuff.
An average American makes $60K per person in 40 out of 50 states, so no: they clearly don't have to live in CA/NY/NJ. Furthermore, the German comment is from someone in the top 10% of income, so it gets even better for Americans once you're comparing the upper income brackets.
The US median household pays roughly 10–12% of income in federal taxes. A German median-wage single worker's net rate is somewhere in the high-20s to high-30s percent.
Germany will be 10 to 20% higher in total taxes: income, property, sales/VAT, etc; than an American at a comparable professional income. If you claim to be paying 40, you'd be paying 50%+ in Germany. $10 to 30K a year more gives you a lot of room to save for college, pay for medical expenses, etc: the "safety net" in Europe only helps you if you don't want to work or don't want to earn a significant income.
States feature low or 0 income tax, including desirable places to live like Florida and Texas. Yes, they'll have property taxes or others, but again: personal decisions. If you choose to live in CA, vote for CA policies, then you have to pay for CA's waste.
If you read my comment, you'll see I'm saying you can minimize college expenses by doing 2 years at CC, then transferring, yielding a total college spend of just a few thousand dollars (not the absurd $100K student debt loads people incessantly whine about online). Healthcare costs are simple: if you pay for ACA-aligned insurance, again, your costs are capped: $10K OOP max sucks, but if you made the decision to purchase insurance, you're not paying the $200K medical debt people claim online.
My central claim was and remains: America provides more opportunity to earn money, and people misrepresent the "downside risk" of America's approach to healthcare, college, and income by refusing to acknowledge that the worst outcomes are of people's own making. America gives you far more opportunity to excel, but also doesn't backstop your personal failures with your neighbor's work to the same extent (at the individual level, ignoring govt. bailouts of companies).
I did all that math a while ago when I was offered a well paying job in California .
Bottom line was that stuff is so much cheaper here than over there, that not much would have changed. We’d be able to save up a lot of money if we were willing to live frugally in the US though.
In the end the volatility of the current American political landscape in addition to the hostile immigration laws made it unattractive to move, at least for now.
Victim blaming. It always works, whether on HN or Reddit. And why, pray tell, is the system set up so that all the things you obviously should do are bad decisions?
"The system" isn't setup to make self-destructive, clearly bad decisions. People just choose to make them, and at some point the system can't help them by carrot or stick.
Here's the easiest example: with ACA subsidies the average cost of an ACA plan is $50, with low income people qualifying for plans as low as $10 a month. This will cover basic preventative care like screenings, tests, and vaccines; and importantly caps your OOP maximum, preventing a financial disaster if you have a significant illness.
Despite all that, many people still aren't insured. They aren't insured despite it being massively subsidized for them by taxpayers. They aren't insured despite the government running advertisements throughout open enrollment.
At this point, if you have a complaint about a massive healthcare bill, my very first question is: did you have insurance?
The same ideas apply to college, housing, cars, and health/diet: "the system" gives you a massive range of options, but people consistently choose poorly, shortsightedly, and wastefully. People need to take personal responsibility for their decisions.
If an option then system provides is self-destructive, maybe it should stop providing that option?
Some people don't even have $10 per month spare. Wealth inequality in the USA is extreme. But more importantly: they are busy and stressed. If it's so easy to get health insurance it should either be mandatory and automatic, or it should be a checkbox on your taxes or some other form.
When I paid my student loan it was a matter of just ticking a box on the employment tax declaration that I had a student loan. And then it was automatically taken from my paycheck. It wasn't about the money, but about the ease of use. If I had to send a monthly payment with a paper check I'd surely miss payments.
The phrase "personal responsibility" is a thought-ending cliche used when someone doesn't want to see the big picture. It's like if Microsoft changes Windows 12 to break Valve games and you blame the game because "developer responsibility" or "executable file responsibility" and ignore the bigger picture that Microsoft is trying to drive Valve out of business to move games off Steam and onto the Microsoft Store.
The ACA is about a 10 to 20 minute process, once a year, on a website. The average american of working age, employed, watches 120 minutes of TV a day. If one day they only watch 100 minutes of TV, they could have health insurance. Again, how much more handholding do people need?
For loan payments, somehow generations managed to pay mortgages, property taxes, and more with nothing more than a checkbook they manually balanced and gasp paper, envelopes, and stamps. Again, even if you have to log into a website to manually trigger an ACH, put a recurring calendar event in your phone and include a link. I bet you could get that down to 3 minutes a month, assuming they don't have autowithdraw.
Your Windows/Valve example has Windows taking action to make things harder for people. All the examples you provided are things that are easier now than they ever were in the past.
Even your initial premise that these options are inherently self-destructive is wrong. If you're a trust-fund kid and want to study art history for $100K a year, great! We shouldn't take the option away from everyone just because some people rack up $200K of student debt. We shouldn't further bureaucratize and regulate the healthcare system just because some people are too busy (read: watching TV) or stressed (read: can't follow instructions written at a 4th grade level) to work through a few questions on a website.
When you're headed into retirement, one possibility is to shift to saving more in cash-like options instead of a 401k (or whatever). It's should just be part of your retirement plan to account for possibilities like this.
The tax advantages of being forced to pay ordinary income rates on your distributions as compared to long term capital gains (which are low, capped, can be exercised before a tax hike, and avoided entirely if you just need collateral)?
401k reduces your taxable income when depositing money, this is more tax efficient than paying normal income taxes and then also paying capital gains.
401k lets you rebalance a portfolio with zero tax implications.
The downsides are generally high fees and a 10% penalty for early withdrawal which makes them surprisingly bad for young people. They tend to start in lower tax brackets, have fewer reserves when unemployed, and face fewer risks from an unbalanced portfolio.
Pay down debt then Roth IRA when young 401k after 40 is often better than defaulting to a 401k, but saving anything tends to be more important than such optimizations.
I am alone in my peer group for doing something like this.
Cars, student debt, credit card debt all gone. (And I dread needing a new car). Covered downpayment on my house and cash for a nice shed that matches the house and a fence so my kid can play in the back yard with no issue.
Invested low 5 figures into myself taking a year off and now I am getting serious about the 401k at 41. And I am ok with that.
I never worked at a big tech company and I covered my mom's down payment and appliances and new carpet and part of her move for her to move close to me. Dad died when I was 11 so I am all she has and she was a public school teacher so she's on a small pension.
We all walk a different life and I know people that make my entire life savings in a year but I will eventually grow a retirement to get me through 10-15 years and then it will be what it will be. (Maybe a tank of helium and bag)
Avoiding X% tax on money going in and paying X% tax on money going out aounds balanced. But you avoid the highest marginal tax rate when putting money in and social security alone doesn’t push them into the highest tax bracket.
So most people get taxed at lower marginal rates in retirement when they take money out. Which makes deferring taxes a meaningful advantage. This is especially true if you intend to money to a state with lower tax rates in retirement, but a worse deal if you intend to do the reverse.
Sure, but we're not talking about people who have no savings. FIRE people have huge investment portfolios while being frugal with their spending, and understand the risk of keeping 5-10% of their total net worth in cash equivalents (not dissimilar to having insurance).
Inherited IRA's, if you aren't the spouse, have some pretty strict draw down rules.
As the boomers die off - if they have these accounts - their kids are quickly going to be forced to liquidate them over the course of 10 years. With some of them having to sell a chunk annually.
I suppose it’s worse if your calculation is, “I’ll retire when my 401k hits $X absolute value,” but I think most people just retire at a certain age instead with risk spread across decades.