William Bernstein

Asset allocation, risk, diversification and rebalancing. Pros/cons of hiring a financial advisor. Seeking advice on your portfolio?
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Bylo Selhi »

BRIAN5000 wrote:Are Bill and maybe Bodie and a few others the only ones who think this way and one of the reasons is because they have nothing to sell?
A few here have been saying much the same over the years. Yes, in part it's because we have nothing to sell, but I think enlightened (and professional) advisors would tell you the same thing. It's worth noting that these negative real returns are essentially the same as a tax on savings. When a government does it in one large fell swoop like the Cypriots, the world wrings its hands in despair. When they do it in small doses over time, few even notice ;)
SoninlawofGus wrote:Obviously, this is a clear prediction, but he's been making this prediction for awhile now
Mean reversion can take decades to happen. Just ask anyone who owned Japanese stocks before the 1989 crash and is still waiting for it to happen there.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: William Bernstein

Post by ghariton »

Bylo Selhi wrote:It's worth noting that these negative real returns are essentially the same as a tax on savings. When a government does it in one large fell swoop like the Cypriots, the world wrings its hands in despair. When they do it in small doses over time, few even notice ;)
I fully agree with all you wrote except for the smiley. The financial illiteracy of our fellows -- in this case money illusion, i.e. complete disregard of the effects of inflation -- is appalling. What's worse, many have tried to educate the masses, but they have all failed.

As to Bernstein's point, it's hard to stick to one's financial plan when returns are low or negative, and not reach for yield. (You come to my rescue about once a year when the urge strikes :wink") That's because most people don't understand financial risk either. (They do understand losses when these happen, but they can't seem to translate these into any useful notion of risk.)

All of which raises thre more general point: If the general public is so incompetent when it comes to finance, where they have real skin in the game, can we expect competence in any other area of their lives?

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Shakespeare »

I still think that the first world will attempt to inflate and devalue its way back to prosperity.

The negative yield on RRBs makes me grind my teeth a bit, though.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
eezee
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2082
Joined: 28 Feb 2005 09:44
Location: BURLINGTON , ON

Re: William Bernstein

Post by eezee »

ghariton wrote:......

All of which raises thre more general point: If the general public is so incompetent when it comes to finance, where they have real skin in the game, can we expect competence in any other area of their lives?

George
Is it really 'the general public' ? , (IF by that you mean individual investors). With all the various FUNDS with their gazillions, I believe we 'the general public' don't stand a chance. We get to ride the waves, but we don't cause the water to move.
I am going to live forever .... so far so good.
FinEcon
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1306
Joined: 03 Aug 2005 13:41

Re: William Bernstein

Post by FinEcon »

ghariton wrote: I fully agree with all you wrote except for the smiley. The financial illiteracy of our fellows -- in this case money illusion, i.e. complete disregard of the effects of inflation -- is appalling. What's worse, many have tried to educate the masses, but they have all failed.
I don't find it so appalling becasue I chalk it up to proximity bias. To many people, quickly eroding real purchasing power is like a Yeti. Some may have heard about one, few have seen one and even fewer still have been attacked by one. IMO, future efforts to warn human beings about hot stoves and other such hazards will have the same results as past efforts to warn had.
ghariton wrote: All of which raises thre more general point: If the general public is so incompetent when it comes to finance, where they have real skin in the game, can we expect competence in any other area of their lives?

George
I think we can, with the caveat that most poeple are quite competent in a few specific areas. Which areas and how to determine the level of said competance? I swear it's almost random but has alot to do with what a person derives true internal satisfaction from doing well at. As for spotting compentce in a person and their area....whew! Easy in some activities (juggling) and more difficult in others (piano tuning). Mauboussin's 'Success' essays (book), if you haven't seen them, may be of interest.
Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome

--Charlie Munger
User avatar
tidal
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3009
Joined: 28 Jul 2006 10:56
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: William Bernstein

Post by tidal »

ghariton wrote:All of which raises the more general point: If the general public is so incompetent when it comes to finance, where they have real skin in the game, can we expect competence in any other area of their lives?
People who are highly skilled in specific areas tend to be better able to calibrate their skill level than those less skilled. They ALSO tend to underestimate their actual skill level. Typically because they are more aware of how much they don't know. Whereas the less skilled you are, the more likely you are to vastly overestimate your abilities.

Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
... for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
The future is bright for jellyfish, caulerpa taxifolia, dinoflagellates and prokaryotes... rust never sleeps... the dude abides... the stupid, it burns. (http://bit.ly/LXZsXd)
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: William Bernstein

Post by ghariton »

FinEcon wrote: Mauboussin's 'Success' essays (book), if you haven't seen them, may be of interest.
Thank you to you and to Tidal for the references. I'll have a look.

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Bylo Selhi »

‘Shallow Risk’ and ‘Deep Risk’ Are No Walk in the Woods
William Bernstein... says risk takes two basic forms—and understanding the difference can help investors figure out what they should be afraid of.

What Mr. Bernstein calls “shallow risk” is a temporary drop in an asset’s market price; decades ago, the great investment analyst Benjamin Graham referred to such an interim decline as “quotational loss.” Shallow risk is as inevitable as weather. You can’t invest in anything other than cash without being hit by sharp falls in price. “Shallow” doesn’t mean that the losses can’t cut deep or last long—only that they aren’t permanent.

“Deep risk,” on the other hand, is an irretrievable real loss of capital, meaning that after inflation you won’t recover for decades—if ever... The four causes... are deadly serious: inflation, deflation, confiscation and devastation. “These forces can make assets lose most of their value and never recover,” he told me this week.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: William Bernstein

Post by ghariton »

Bylo Selhi wrote:‘Shallow Risk’ and ‘Deep Risk’ Are No Walk in the Woods
William Bernstein... says risk takes two basic forms—and understanding the difference can help investors figure out what they should be afraid of.

What Mr. Bernstein calls “shallow risk” is a temporary drop in an asset’s market price; decades ago, the great investment analyst Benjamin Graham referred to such an interim decline as “quotational loss.” Shallow risk is as inevitable as weather. You can’t invest in anything other than cash without being hit by sharp falls in price. “Shallow” doesn’t mean that the losses can’t cut deep or last long—only that they aren’t permanent.

“Deep risk,” on the other hand, is an irretrievable real loss of capital, meaning that after inflation you won’t recover for decades—if ever... The four causes... are deadly serious: inflation, deflation, confiscation and devastation. “These forces can make assets lose most of their value and never recover,” he told me this week.
If I were an investor contemplating buying shares in Nortel in say 1999, would I think that my investment was characterized by shallow risk or deep risk? Well, none of inflation, deflation, confiscation or devastation hit Nortel, so I guess those equities had shallow risk. But they went bust anyways.

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
User avatar
parvus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 10014
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 16:09
Location: Waiting for the real estate meltdown on Rua Açores.

Re: William Bernstein

Post by parvus »

I'd have been guided by mean reversion and the whistler at the graveyard. It if looks too good ...

I remember talking to colleagues who wondered about cashing out. I said yes. No fundamental reason, just gut instinct. Or agoraphobia.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen — a wit
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki Your go-to guide for financial basics
Image
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Bylo Selhi »

ghariton wrote:If I were an investor contemplating buying shares in Nortel in say 1999, would I think that my investment was characterized by shallow risk or deep risk? Well, none of inflation, deflation, confiscation or devastation hit Nortel, so I guess those equities had shallow risk. But they went bust anyways.
1. Touché! I'll ask Dr Bill when I see him this fall.
2. What, you've already given up on Nortel? :shock:
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
User avatar
parvus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 10014
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 16:09
Location: Waiting for the real estate meltdown on Rua Açores.

Re: William Bernstein

Post by parvus »

Which gets us back to longinvest's question: risk versus uncertainty.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen — a wit
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki Your go-to guide for financial basics
Image
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: William Bernstein

Post by ghariton »

parvus wrote:Which gets us back to longinvest's question: risk versus uncertainty.
I've always thought that is a false dichotomy.

I'm a Bayesian philosophically (even if not in everyday life) and so I believe that probabilities are subjective, i.e. they are really degrees of belief that people have about certain outcomes. We all attach a priori probabilities to all events. If we don't know that a certain state of nature is possible, we implicitly assign it a subjective probability of zero.

But once you've assigned probabilities to every state, you have moved from what is called "uncertainty" to what is called "risk", by Frank Knight anyways.

A more useful concept than the distinction between risk and uncertainty is to think about the dispersion of the probability distribution you hold. This fits better with human nature. It also does away with the bright line that risk vs. uncertainty tries to draw. In real life, risk and uncertainty blend into each other, as priors become more diffuse.

The above assumes that probability is a subjective concept, not an objective one. It is not clear to me what objective probability can mean. In any case, it is intuitive to me that humans decide various courses of action according to their perceptions, whatever the objective facts may be.

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
User avatar
parvus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 10014
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 16:09
Location: Waiting for the real estate meltdown on Rua Açores.

Re: William Bernstein

Post by parvus »

Yes, I was reading up on Frank Knight last night.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen — a wit
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki Your go-to guide for financial basics
Image
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: William Bernstein

Post by ghariton »

Time to rebalance:
It takes guts to trim equity exposure when the going is so good, but that’s exactly what investors should be doing now, Bill Bernstein says.

snip

Bernstein: Yes, when the intelligent investor does some trimming back, he usually feels like a dummy for the next year or two. And when he trims back again, he feels like a little bit more of a dummy. And he feels dumb for awhile each time after he does it. But then there comes a point, three to five years hence, when he feels awfully smart.
Me, I`m standing pat.

I know that equities will go down eventually, but I don`t know when, or how far. It is certainly possible for stocks to go up another 20% or 30% from here before the crash comes -- or not.

I find this particularly interesting because I will probably be buying a new car in a year or so, with $30,000 budgeted. The money is currently sitting in VT, and I plan to leave it there until just before I buy. I`m quite willing to absorb the volatility, in return for what I see as a reasonable expected return.

I suspect I`m breaking every rule of sound financial management, but hey!! You guys need a horrible example or two. :wink:

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Bylo Selhi »

ghariton wrote:I suspect I`m breaking every rule of sound financial management
I suspect that the rules depend on circumstances. If you have enough to be comfortable using only DB pension plans or RRBs, etc. then you can afford to be indifferent to the vicissitudes of stock markets. If you're depending on equities to fund your retirement then perhaps not so much.
You guys need a horrible example or two. :wink:
I second that [e[-]]motion.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
BC_Doc
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 50
Joined: 27 Jan 2011 13:32

Re: William Bernstein

Post by BC_Doc »

ghariton wrote:Time to rebalance:
It takes guts to trim equity exposure when the going is so good, but that’s exactly what investors should be doing now, Bill Bernstein says.

snip

Bernstein: Yes, when the intelligent investor does some trimming back, he usually feels like a dummy for the next year or two. And when he trims back again, he feels like a little bit more of a dummy. And he feels dumb for awhile each time after he does it. But then there comes a point, three to five years hence, when he feels awfully smart.
Me, I`m standing pat.

I know that equities will go down eventually, but I don`t know when, or how far. It is certainly possible for stocks to go up another 20% or 30% from here before the crash comes -- or not.

I find this particularly interesting because I will probably be buying a new car in a year or so, with $30,000 budgeted. The money is currently sitting in VT, and I plan to leave it there until just before I buy. I`m quite willing to absorb the volatility, in return for what I see as a reasonable expected return.

I suspect I`m breaking every rule of sound financial management, but hey!! You guys need a horrible example or two. :wink:

George
I've been following this Bernstein thread (re trimming equities exposures) at Bogleheads too. To me, it sounds like market timing. If your AA is 60-40 and stocks go on a tear, rebalancing back to 60-40 is just that-- rebalancing. Deciding that the fundamentals (PE-10, macroeconomics, tea-leaves at the bottom of your cup) don't support current equity prices and that one should now shift AA to 40-60 or some other value to me would be market timing.

Cheers,

BC Doc
User avatar
Dejavu
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: 20 Jan 2008 00:09
Location: Winnipeg

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Dejavu »

BC_Doc wrote:
ghariton wrote:Time to rebalance:
It takes guts to trim equity exposure when the going is so good, but that’s exactly what investors should be doing now, Bill Bernstein says.

snip

Bernstein: Yes, when the intelligent investor does some trimming back, he usually feels like a dummy for the next year or two. And when he trims back again, he feels like a little bit more of a dummy. And he feels dumb for awhile each time after he does it. But then there comes a point, three to five years hence, when he feels awfully smart.
Me, I`m standing pat.

I know that equities will go down eventually, but I don`t know when, or how far. It is certainly possible for stocks to go up another 20% or 30% from here before the crash comes -- or not.

I find this particularly interesting because I will probably be buying a new car in a year or so, with $30,000 budgeted. The money is currently sitting in VT, and I plan to leave it there until just before I buy. I`m quite willing to absorb the volatility, in return for what I see as a reasonable expected return.

I suspect I`m breaking every rule of sound financial management, but hey!! You guys need a horrible example or two. :wink:

George
Deciding that the fundamentals (PE-10, macroeconomics, tea-leaves at the bottom of your cup) don't support current equity prices and that one should now shift AA to 40-60 or some other value to me would be market timing.

Cheers,

BC Doc
I agree.
I was very surprised to read that George was letting GREED takeover his normal very logical self.
Akin, I suspect to a flutter on a lottery ticket.
How does one "absorb the volatillity", do you settle for a used car instead of a new one if it doesnt pan out.
What about all the advice to get out of equities well ahead of needing to cash in, as the last thing you want to do is time the market and expect it to remain at its highest just because thats what you want to do.
Dejavu.
Whatever you can do, or believe you can, begin it, for boldness has genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: William Bernstein

Post by ghariton »

Dejavu wrote:I was very surprised to read that George was letting GREED takeover his normal very logical self.
:D

It's what bylo said. I have a core holding of RRBs and I know that I can cover necessities with that. The rest of my money is "nice-to-have". As a result I am risk-neutral with that money. That means that, basically, I look at expected return and give it priority over risk.
Akin, I suspect to a flutter on a lottery ticket.
No. A lottery ticket has an expected return of close to negative 60%. Common equities have an expected return, over a one year horizon, of plus 5% or so (in my opinion, anyway).
How does one "absorb the volatillity", do you settle for a used car instead of a new one if it doesnt pan out.
Depends on the extent of the loss, if it materializes. For a small loss, I'll cut back on accessories, or perhaps even drop down a notch to a less expensive model. (I find this scenario very unlikely but possible.) If the loss is bigger, say 30% or 40%, I'll consider delaying the purchase for a year or so. If the loss is bigger, say 50% or more, I will be facing bigger problems than financing a car purchase. But my necessities will still be covered.

What about all the advice to get out of equities well ahead of needing to cash in, as the last thing you want to do is time the market and expect it to remain at its highest just because thats what you want to do.
I recognize that my course of action is controversial. That's why I'm posting it -- to get people thinking. I certainly am not recommending this to other people wholesale. I'm just mentioning the possibility.

I should mention that I have already had a similar experience. I generally hold a very small cash buffer -- maybe the current month's expenses. So when my brother-in-law needed an emergency loan in April 2009 to bail out his small business, I sold $30,000 worth of an international equity fund, at a loss of course. Did I like doing that? No. Was it a disaster? No. Would I place myself in that position again? Clearly yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Again, YMMV

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
User avatar
Dejavu
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: 20 Jan 2008 00:09
Location: Winnipeg

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Dejavu »

Akin, I suspect to a flutter on a lottery ticket.
No. A lottery ticket has an expected return of close to negative 60%. Common equities have an expected return, over a one year horizon, of plus 5% or so (in my opinion, anyway).
George[/quote]

Thx. George for your thoughtfull response. I believe I understand your thinking, yet find your conclusion to still cause me
angst.
The "negative 60%" could apply to the market in 2008.
The 5% / annum market return is reasonable over the long term, but by no means certain over the "next year".
Perhaps I lack the "deep pockets" that would make your plan pallatable to me, and I therefore lack the courage of your conviction. Lets review this a year from now. Thanks for sharing. Dejavu.
Whatever you can do, or believe you can, begin it, for boldness has genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe
ockham
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2214
Joined: 04 Apr 2006 21:50
Location: The Prairies

Re: William Bernstein

Post by ockham »

Dejavu wrote:
Akin, I suspect to a flutter on a lottery ticket.
No. A lottery ticket has an expected return of close to negative 60%. Common equities have an expected return, over a one year horizon, of plus 5% or so (in my opinion, anyway).
George
Thx. George for your thoughtfull response. I believe I understand your thinking, yet find your conclusion to still cause me
angst.
The "negative 60%" could apply to the market in 2008.
The 5% / annum market return is reasonable over the long term, but by no means certain over the "next year".
Perhaps I lack the "deep pockets" that would make your plan pallatable to me, and I therefore lack the courage of your conviction. Lets review this a year from now. Thanks for sharing. Dejavu.[/quote]
Like George, I'll be buying a new car in the next year or two (a "nice to have"), max three or four years (by then, a "need to have"). In either case, it's a short to medium term liability. Like George, I too have the courage of my conviction, my conviction however being that I never plan to meet short to medium term liabilities with equity. My money also is set aside, but in short term FI.
Taggart
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 6893
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 07:34

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Taggart »

Bernstein: Retirement Allocations for 3 Age Bands

Author Bill Bernstein on how an investment mix, including the role of foreign equities, may change as investors age and move into retirement.
Flaccidsteele
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4523
Joined: 06 Mar 2014 12:52
Location: Retired Gen Xer somewhere on the planet earth

Re: William Bernstein

Post by Flaccidsteele »

Taggart wrote:Bernstein: Retirement Allocations for 3 Age Bands

Author Bill Bernstein on how an investment mix, including the role of foreign equities, may change as investors age and move into retirement.
Interesting ideas, but I don't think it would work.

Bernstein suggests increasing equity exposure as one ages. Learning to become more risk-tolerant over time.

First, semantics. Bernstein is talking about increasing volatility-tolerance over time. Not risk-tolerance (the term he uses). Volatility is objective and cannot be managed. Risk is subjective and can only be managed by knowledge. Risk-tolerance is managed by increasing one's knowledge in a particular asset or asset class. Anecdotally, after a certain (young) age, most individual's risk-tolerance (i.e. educational level about an asset class or business) is generally the same regardless of age.

Second, investing is as much an emotional endeavour as it is an arithmetical one. I don't think the emotional characteristics necessary to manage volatility can be taught. Even if it can be taught, most parents don't train their children to handle it. It's not even acknowledged by parents, let alone addressed in any systematic manner. An individual who is emotionally impacted by volatility will always be emotionally impacted by volatility. For them, the volatility tail will always wag the investment dog.

Third, even if an individual manages to get past the first two points (i.e., increasing knowledge about an asset and learning how to manage the emotions around experiencing volatility), the biggest boon for an investor is time. Starting early. Bar none. Compounding is vastly different if one recognizes the power of time earlier rather than later. Unfortunately increasing one's equity holdings at 50 years of age, to an allocation of (even) 90%, is the definition of "too little too late". And what 50 year old, who has delayed educating themselves about an asset/class, who has delayed learning how to manage the emotions around volatility, will then ramp their equity exposure to 90%? Right. Nobody.

Fourth, conventional re-balancing will virtually insure that this Black Swan individual (who has managed to address the aforementioned 3 issues) will destroy their returns. As soon as their equity exposure increases, they will take a hammer to smash it down.

Bernstein has a nice idea to try to manage the emotional fear that the vast majority of individual's have with volatility, but he's preaching to virtually nobody. I think he recognizes this, but what else can he really say? He needs to say something.

PS: The inherent lack of instruction around the emotional management of volatility is, by far, the biggest contributor to the wealth gap between the "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots" run in fear of volatility and equate it with risk, reinforcing their scarcity model of money. The "haves" run towards volatility and manage risk with knowledge, reinforcing their abundance model of money. Wealth transfer. Rinse and repeat. My opinion only.
couponstrip
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 552
Joined: 14 Jan 2007 15:20

Re: William Bernstein

Post by couponstrip »

This idea originated from Wade Pfau. He called it a "rising equity glide path" in the distribution years.

It's fascinating work that raises interesting questions about traditional retirement financial advice.
longinvest
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3956
Joined: 10 Sep 2012 17:26
Location: QC

Re: William Bernstein

Post by longinvest »

This whole "sequence of return" problem and associated rising equity glide, in retirement, comes from modeling retirement using a faulty withdrawal method: a constant inflation-adjusted 4% SWR, regardless of market returns. If instead, one used a sensible withdrawal method that adjusted to market returns, like Variable Percentage Withdrawal, there wouldn't be such a need to recommend that a 85-years old have an inappropriate high-volatility portfolio!
Variable Percentage Withdrawal (finiki.org/wiki/VPW) | One-Fund Portfolio (VBAL in all accounts)
Post Reply