S&P 500 ETF investing for retirement

[murray t turtle]

%%
EDIT about 30minutes later more or less;
i canceled buy scale in SPYG, today .And bought some better trending ETFs, investments + trades
I also like to do stuff that does better than VOO, SPY, SPYG.
Most likeley sell some more scrap metal this week ; i also bought a beat up b-b Q grill to fix up , about a Starbucks or less cost basis.
IF barchart.com buy 8% of SPY,8% buy on VOO makes no sense;
what about 48% buy on QQQ??.NOt a stock tip, not FDIC or gov insured .

 

[EllisWyatt]

'A' for effort.

 

[murray t turtle]

But the investment plan that's "right" for you is the one you can stick too; if that's too scary, you could DCA in over several years... I agree trying to spread it over decades would be stupid and expensive.

%%
Or just 7 or 8 month s;
amazing thing about markets /8% buy SPY/8%VOO,7% qqq or buy 8% QQQ; could be a real shocker which one does better next 7 week/7 months years/LOL Really ..........................
8% QQQ could be scary drawdowns;
unless you printed some candle chart @ # $30 QQQ, bear back in time 2000-2001-2002
Any USa aircraft carriers start fireing lead + brass @ Israel's enemies , may sell money market + scale in a a bit more??

 

[Michael_]

Well i think he summed it up pretty good in this video:

So that's probably the approach i would be taking. DCA in over 4-5 years.

You could DCA in over a period of 4-5 years. But understand it’s purely psychological. Imagine you bought 100% in stocks back in 1982 and your entire account balance is accumulated profits; would you be going to cash now?

Math and history say invest the entire lump sum at once.

Well i understand that most of the time lump sum will perform better or not much worse than DCA but it's NOT always that way. (Just watch the video)

I get DCA over 4-5 years is also not a 100% safe bet but way safer than putting it in all at once. (Of course most likely at the cost of smaller returns)

The real question isn’t how to game/time the market but rather proper portfolio allocation. Nothing says you have to be 100% in stocks, but the allocation decision should be based on fundamentals and portfolio balance considerations rather than fear of “buying the top”.

At the end of the day you could even DCA in over 20-30 years and right when you retire it could tank and stay there (or at least not make a profit) for 10 years.

That's why i'm not so optimistic anymore about the warren buffett 90/10 or dave ramsey mutual fund only plan for retirement. I think as long as you have buffetts money (so you can survive on the 10% bonds) or if you have other sources of income (real estate, pension etc.) than that's fine. Otherwise i think it's somewhat risky.

I think i will look into dividend stocks/reits/etfs as an alternative next.

I agree trying to spread it over decades would be stupid and expensive.

Thanks.

 

[newwurldmn]

Well i think he summed it up pretty good in this video:

So that's probably the approach i would be taking. DCA in over 4-5 years.





Well i understand that most of the time lump sum will perform better or not much worse than DCA but it's NOT always that way. (Just watch the video)

I get DCA over 4-5 years is also not a 100% safe bet but way safer than putting it in all at once. (Of course most likely at the cost of smaller returns)



At the end of the day you could even DCA in over 20-30 years and right when you retire it could tank and stay there (or at least not make a profit) for 10 years.

That's why i'm not so optimistic anymore about the warren buffett 90/10 or dave ramsey mutual fund only plan for retirement. I think as long as you have buffetts money (so you can survive on the 10% bonds) or if you have other sources of income (real estate, pension etc.) than that's fine. Otherwise i think it's somewhat risky.

I think i will look into dividend stocks/reits/etfs as an alternative next.



Thanks.

Over the long run, missing out on value appreciation does greater wealth destruction than suffering real losses.

 

[Michael_]

Over the long run, missing out on value appreciation does greater wealth destruction than suffering real losses.

Yeah but what if you invest a lump sum in the s&p 500 today and tomorrow it goes down and stays down for 20 years? Very unlikely but not impossible. (Already happened)

Of course (as i said in my last post) that can also happen after you DCA'd in over 20-30 years just when you want to retire.

At the end of the day there is always risk no matter what you do but i feel like DCA over a period of 4-5 years is a good balance between risk and reward.

That is if i was going to invest in an S&P 500 etf. I'm actually not sure if i really want to do that anymore. Maybe dividend investing would be better suited for me. The idea of living of the dividends and not worrying about the stock/fund price going up and down as much sounds better to me. I mean in the long run the price should go up if you pick good stocks/fund but short term (or in case i retired) i don't care if it goes down because i get the dividends. Obviously an S&P 500 etf or dave ramseys mutual fund plan has the potential to grow more over the same period of time but also at a higher risk.

 

[murray t turtle]

Well i think he summed it up pretty good in this video:

So that's probably the approach i would be taking. DCA in over 4-5 yearsAt the end of the day you could even DCA in over 20-30 years and right when you retire it could tank and stay there (or at least not make a profit) for 10 years.

That's why i'm not so optimistic anymore about the warren buffett 90/10 or dave ramsey mutual fund only plan for retirement. I think as long as you have buffetts money. ... or if you have other sources of income (real estate, pension etc.) than that's fine. Otherwise i think it's somewhat risky.

I think i will look into dividend stocks/reits/etfs as an alternative next.
Thanks.

%%
Good ;
but with all due respect we dont have mr Buffets money or exact skill\ as of yesterdays close anyway LOL More risky but occasional FENY trades, not in now + seldom invest in that , too much like a goofy gov bond.
Actually i love Dave ramsey radio + books;
but since small caps ETFs have been my worst investments\trades , no thank on trades on Dave ramsey recommended investments in that.
The risk of me[or edit, most all ] not making money 10 years dca with SPY\QQQ /VOO/SPYG /SPYV is about 0.0000% with me .But I seldom trade or invest in SPYV, too much like bonds % LOL;
Not sure WB or Dave ramsey would like SPYV, especially Dave ramsey/SPYV =too much like bonds % LOL

 

[newwurldmn]

Yeah but what if you invest a lump sum in the s&p 500 today and tomorrow it goes down and stays down for 20 years? Very unlikely but not impossible. (Already happened)

Of course (as i said in my last post) that can also happen after you DCA'd in over 20-30 years just when you want to retire.

At the end of the day there is always risk no matter what you do but i feel like DCA over a period of 4-5 years is a good balance between risk and reward.

That is if i was going to invest in an S&P 500 etf. I'm actually not sure if i really want to do that anymore. Maybe dividend investing would be better suited for me. The idea of living of the dividends and not worrying about the stock/fund price going up and down as much sounds better to me. I mean in the long run the price should go up if you pick good stocks/fund but short term (or in case i retired) i don't care if it goes down because i get the dividends. Obviously an S&P 500 etf or dave ramseys mutual fund plan has the potential to grow more over the same period of time but also at a higher risk.

Dividend paying stocks might be right for you.

Everyone will have a different plan on how to invest your retirement savings. Your time horizon, your financial needs, your asset size, the shape of those assets, and your tax situation will all play a part in the decision.

I recently moved to a state where the dividend tax is 14% and the capital gains is 7%. I have to reconfigure my portfolio accordingly because in 30 years that can be turns of leakage.

 

[Specterx]

I get DCA over 4-5 years is also not a 100% safe bet but way safer than putting it in all at once. (Of course most likely at the cost of smaller returns)

You're missing the point.

You have an investment portfolio, and some idea of how you want it to evolve over the next X years. Right now you have a portfolio allocation of 100% allocated to cash. The appropriate question you should be asking is not "how do I mess around with entry timing to try and minimize the risk of a temporary mark-to-market loss from my entry price". The question you should be asking and studying is, "what is an appropriate portfolio allocation for my goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance?"

The portfolio you want could be 100% in stocks, or 60-40, or a Permanent Portfolio setup, or whatever. Whatever allocation you decide upon, you should immediately buy or sell as necessary to achieve it. Your risk for a given portfolio allocation is exactly the same whether you bought today or ten years ago, and whether the dollars in the account represent accumulated profits or starting equity. If 100% in stocks is too much risk/volatility for you, then the solution is not to "DCA in" but rather to adopt a portfolio stance which has a greater allocation to cash, bills/notes/bonds, rental property, or other assets to dampen the volatility of stocks.

For 99% of people the best idea is to "set it and forget it" rather than trying to time the market or adjust allocations based on fear/greed and bullshit media narratives. Something like a basic 60-40 with the bond allocation adjusting upward with your age - i.e. 30% at age 30, 40% at age 40 etc.

 

[murray t turtle]

Dividend paying stocks might be right for you.

Everyone will have a different plan on how to invest your retirement savings. Your time horizon, your financial needs, your asset size, the shape of those assets, and your tax situation will all play a part in the decision.

I recently moved to a state where the dividend tax is 14% and the capital gains is 7%. I have to reconfigure my portfolio accordingly because in 30 years that can be turns of leakage.

%%
Good ;
my state just strangely cut food tax to 0.0000% LOL. So Load the boat, like trading ships, food from afar.
Sorry i accidently lied today, no wonder i accidently lied/ did not write it on my honey do list.
I meant to cancel my SPYG start position , much of my AuM did better ; end of day kept small start position/ SPYG/ it did much better........................
QQQ is so wild, its more of a trade than investment\ QQQ lost -{-7.4%\ about $29} one week, past 2or 3 years, +not much dividend.
QLD=almost as bad but ,lost-{- 14.7%\ about $12.00 same week,but its priced to trade =$33-70/ 52 weeks trend /peak to valley
So SCHW warning on QLD ''NOT suitable for all investors''= good + funny, priced in $Us D.
So seldom use leverage , but QLD = could be less risk for a trader., not really suitable for long term investment, like SCH warns..........................................
Of course 3 QLD would be worse than one QQQ in that example= ''NOT suitable for most investors'' Funny + true
[edit=60%stock ETFs +40 % money market; would only be suitable for small child or small girl or99 year old boy afraid of risk with no income or social security or pension investments...................]
Or one lady said ''i've been expecting a crash since 2008, that'$ why i'm not in stock marketLOL'' If i did not know the difference in a crash + bear market/ i would NOT ever be in stock /ETF market LOL]