It’s not just SWAN. Although 100% stocks can give you a theoretically higher return - it is also more volatile. And that volatility isn’t just a “be mentally strong and hold through it” challenge - it actually increases chance of failure (running out of money). For retirement, I believe it would be sensible to take a strategy that has a higher chance of success (defined as not running out of money), even it it means the average long term return is lower you die with less money in the bank (esp. if that return is sufficient to provide for all your needs). In other words, don’t take any risks you don’t need to, esp. when the sure bet is good enough.
1 Like
Yeah. Kids are 5 and 3. If I retire according to plan they will be 9 and 7. Guessing what future costs are for kids is challenging when you haven’t done that before. Funnily enough, my spreadsheet rows are numbered by the age of my youngest child…
1 Like
Since you are planning for a long retirement to minimise the risk you ought to have a high proportion of stocks. The challenge is the early years.
But again with 3% WR you will be fine either way
100%
It’s Jason Zweig’s motto number #1, #2 and #3: don’t take any risk that you don’t need to take.
2 Likes