> Someone investing at age 18 might care about the subsequent 50 years.
I get what you are saying, but your math here is a bit off.
50+18 = 68.
People generally can live longer than 68 years old, If we go out on longevity and assume people can live to 100 or 120, then it's more like 100 years.
Your next thought is, but people will retire before/around 68, fair enough, but they stay invested generally the entire rest of their lives.
So if the US dominance ends in the next 100 years, then today's teenagers might need to care about it. People in their 30's or 40's probably don't though.
The next 150 years, you are right todays teenagers might not need to care, unless many/all of our aspirational longer living goals happen.
No, this is poor investment advice. The closer you get to retirement, the more your money should be in extremely short term, non-volatile investments like T-bills. You should not be invested in the stock market, because the risk is too high that you could lose a lot of your savings just before you really need it.
On the first day of a typical someone’s retirement, they should probably be 40-50% invested in equities. An often cited rule of thumb is for your equity exposure in percentage to be 100 minus your age in years; others suggest 110 minus your age.
Directionally right. I saw older family members switch out of stocks at 65, only to discover that their ultra-safe fixed-income investments failed to keep pace with the next 25 years' relentless increases in medical and care expenses. Assuming that you're not facing an immediate health catastrophe, your time horizon at age 65 is still decades, not single-digit years.
Everybody says this, but stocks and bonds go up and down together now. I guess it's less an issue if you're holding bonds to maturity and laddering, but that might just be psychological, not sure.
Not really, they are somewhat correlated, but they are not completely correlated. Duration has a lot to do with it as well. Look up Long Term Treasuries(TLT/EDV are funds that hold these) and compare that to US stocks like VTI.
Bonds are like buying future cash-flow, stocks are about future growth.
i.e. if you buy a bond that's paying you $25k/yr, then you will get that $25k/yr regardless of what happens to the NAV until maturity(and/or bankruptcy obviously).
As long as interest rates keep rising is it a mistake to buy something like TLT? I'm looking into these products and am a bit lost. I am thinking a managed bonds fund is better than an automatic ETF bonds fund in this time. A manager could wait for interest rates to peak, but the ETF just mindlessly keeps buying treasuries. Is that a fair assessment?
Personally, I think it matters a lot on why you are wanting long term treasuries(LTT). There are lots of competing ideas around ownership.
If you just want bonds, then LTT may not be the best move, it just depends. BND would be a better general bond portfolio. i.e. I dunno what I want, I just know I want bonds, then buy something like BND, since it aims to just own all the bonds.
Managed bond funds have more cost than something like TLT or BND, since they are index based. You have to pay someone to actively manage the bond ownership. Is the cost worth it? Only you can make that decision, generally speaking after fees active management doesn't usually earn extra income vs an index. The average return of active management after fees is usually under-performance relative to a benchmark index.
I think it's important to think of bonds by what they return(yearly cash flow), not by the NAV. i.e. if you buy a bond(or fund) yielding 5%/yr with $10k. That's a $500/yr income you just bought yourself. It doesn't really matter what the price of the bond(NAV) does, you will still get your $500/yr (until maturity and/or bankruptcy). Bonds are a cash-flow investment. If you want $500/yr then you buy $10k worth of 5%/yr yielding bonds.
If you want $25k/yr in income and the yield is 4%, then you need about $630k worth of those bonds(or bond fund). Buy the cash-flow not the yield or NAV. On existing bonds, the yield can't change, so the NAV/price does change. On new bonds the yield changes instead.
It's the same difference. Think about you as a person buying bonds. You have 2 choices:
* Old bond paying 5%
* New bond paying 10%
Which would you rather buy? well the new bond of course, so if the person with the old bond wants to sell, what do they have to do to incentivize you to buy it instead? lower the price, so that when you buy it, you are getting around 10%/yr yield to match the new bond yield.
This is how bond markets work, in a few sentences.
Temporary defaults have happened in the history of the US govt, it's not exactly breaking news. Other governments have as well. Long term default is an entirely different matter.
Obviously you default temporarily enough times and people will stop thinking your promise is worth anything. So far that hasn't happened, let's hope it doesn't.
Sure, there are different asset classes that might be OK, but if you look across the landscape, bonds are still quite nice to have.
Bonds are just converting today's money to future cashflow.
TIPS are inflation adjusted bonds, so you can get a real return > 0% with bonds, guaranteed by the US govt. For baseline retirement expenses, it's hard to beat. Right now they are up over 3%/yr real. You can't buy inflation adjusted annuities anymore, basically Social Security is it.
If one has 50X expenses invested, it doesn't really matter what they do, they would be hard pressed to screw it up so badly as to run out.
If one only has 20X yearly expenses invested, they need to be a lot more careful, as they might not make it, especially if they get a bad sequence of returns.
It all depends on your personal financial situation, it's hard to make general rules that can apply to everyone. It's called personal finance for a reason.
Bonds are just a great default tool, but like all tools, they are not perfect.
I get what you are saying, but your math here is a bit off.
50+18 = 68.
People generally can live longer than 68 years old, If we go out on longevity and assume people can live to 100 or 120, then it's more like 100 years.
Your next thought is, but people will retire before/around 68, fair enough, but they stay invested generally the entire rest of their lives.
So if the US dominance ends in the next 100 years, then today's teenagers might need to care about it. People in their 30's or 40's probably don't though.
The next 150 years, you are right todays teenagers might not need to care, unless many/all of our aspirational longer living goals happen.