IRA investing-stocks or bonds?
Joseph S Fischer MD
For my IRA i am concerned about the % stock or bonds in my portfolio.
What do you think? Thank you.
--
Joseph S Fischer MD
p010...@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
IFC, Ltd.
Dr. Fischer,
When investing, the rule of thumb is to invest your age in bonds
and the rest in growth securities. In other words if you are 45,
45% of your investment would be in bonds or safe investments.
But, and this is important, it is a rule of thumb. If you are really
a novice look to someone who has been successful in the market with
their portfolio, taking into account their investment style and
responsibilities. It doesn’t have to be a professional broker, but
it should be someone you trust.
If you have any further questions you can contact me via the newsgroup,
e-mail, or phone (216) 831-0220.
--
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Moffie Ph.D.
President
Internet Financial Consultants, Ltd.
Joseph Norton
Ultimaately, it is a function of your capacity to absorb a short-term
loss of capital that is a key determinant; this is faulty, though,
because Bond prices go down as well (although they do provide
income). Also, stock funds come in all degrees of volatility as well.
One conservative formula is:
Bonds: Your age as a percentage (60 years of age, 60% in bonds)
Stocks: The remainder
Many feel that this is too conservative, and weight more toward
stocks. My tendency would be to say that you should decrease
volatility as you get closer to retirment, and one way is through
moving to bonds. Another way is to move away from Highly Aggressive
Stock Funds into less aggressive income-producing funds.
I hope this helps.
Joe Norton
Reynolds Russell
The only advantage of bonds to the long term investor is their higher
current income. Since this is not at issue in an IRA account, I would
invest 100% of my IRA assets in blue chip common stocks.
On Sep 19, 1996 12:21:54 in article <IRA investing-stocks or bonds?>,
'p010...@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Joseph S Fischer MD)' wrote:
>
>For my IRA i am concerned about the % stock or bonds in my portfolio.
>What do you think? Thank you.
>
>--
>
>Joseph S Fischer MD
>p010...@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
>
Reynolds Russell, Registered Investment Advisor
Editor
Graham and Doddsville Revisited
(http://web.idirect.com/~telcomm)
"There are no sure and easy paths to riches -- in Wall Street or anywhere
else." (Benjamin Graham)
HW Skip Weldon.
>>For my IRA i am concerned about the % stock or bonds in my portfolio.
>>What do you think? Thank you.
>>
Do your bond-buying now.
It's a good time to be locking in rates.
<grin>
--
-H.W. "Skip" Weldon
Columbia SC USA
Paul Maffia
Joe_N...@msn.com (Joseph Norton) writes:
>One conservative formula is:
Like any rule of thumb, these are only good as indicators that should
trigger a more detailed look, rather than to be followed blindly.
You feel a person should decrease the volatility of their portfolio as
they close in on retirement. But in reality, there is absolutely nothing
to back up that statement as a rule to be applied across the entire
universe of people nearing retirement.
For example, to take an extreme one to illustrate the point, if one were
worth, like Bill Gates, $15 billion dollars, why should they worry at all
about the volatility of their portfolio? Even if they lost 95% of their
net worth, they would still have enough to live over any rational time
period far more comfortable than 99.999999% of the population.
If one has a defined benefit retirement plan, alone or with SS, that
provides enough for them to maintain their accustomed life style with no
need to dip into other assets on a regular basis, why should they have, at
70 years old for example, 70% of their investments in bonds.
In other words, it is totally silly to think in these terms. What should
be done is to take a more comprehensive approach and look at one's total
circumstances, needs, goals and objectives and invest one's assets
accordingly.
--
Paul M.