QUOTE(j.passing.by @ Mar 15 2015, 06:24 PM)
... no need to re-balance when it is 100% in equities.
I think there is too much talk in this thread on 'asset allocation'. Is it asset allocation meaning allocation on various sectors and/or countries, or is it bond/equity ratio?
In the former, there is a school of thoughts that one should let it be ie. no rebalancing since you don't pull money out of a better growth sector to another lesser growth sector.
In the later, yes since you are maintaining the bond/equity ratio which is a conservative/aggressive risk ratio.
And the trimming is from equity to bond/money market funds... and not from equity to equity (and its reason is same as above.)
And when it is a long term investment ... why not 100% in equities? Unless of course you want to trade... putting some into bond/money market for some switching in the next several months.
But if we can forecast that within the next several months or within a year, that there will be a market crash or pullback, why not pull out all and put 100% in bond/money market fund now? Which we don't do, not because a market crash/pullback is not unexpected, but because the investment is a long term investment.
If the long term investment is for retirement, and retirement is 15/20 years away, why the lesser than 100% in equities? Because you don't have complete faith in some of the funds you are holding? But that's the reason why asset allocation among various market sectors... and doing some thinking/analysis/research on what funds to have before purchasing them...
Hi, I am referring to asset allocation in terms of bond/equity ratio. It is tempting to put 100% of our investment in equity funds since in the long run it will provide better returns as compared to bond funds. Yes, we can do that. I think there is too much talk in this thread on 'asset allocation'. Is it asset allocation meaning allocation on various sectors and/or countries, or is it bond/equity ratio?
In the former, there is a school of thoughts that one should let it be ie. no rebalancing since you don't pull money out of a better growth sector to another lesser growth sector.
In the later, yes since you are maintaining the bond/equity ratio which is a conservative/aggressive risk ratio.
And the trimming is from equity to bond/money market funds... and not from equity to equity (and its reason is same as above.)
And when it is a long term investment ... why not 100% in equities? Unless of course you want to trade... putting some into bond/money market for some switching in the next several months.
But if we can forecast that within the next several months or within a year, that there will be a market crash or pullback, why not pull out all and put 100% in bond/money market fund now? Which we don't do, not because a market crash/pullback is not unexpected, but because the investment is a long term investment.
If the long term investment is for retirement, and retirement is 15/20 years away, why the lesser than 100% in equities? Because you don't have complete faith in some of the funds you are holding? But that's the reason why asset allocation among various market sectors... and doing some thinking/analysis/research on what funds to have before purchasing them...
But what happens if there is a market correction or if the market crash? Some of us here were unlucky enough to have gone through the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 and the global economic crisis of 2008. It was no picnic investing during that time.
Imagine if you have invested RM100K in 100% equity funds. In one year or less, you can lose 20K. In the 2nd year, you can lose another RM10K. Do you have the stomach to run the risk for the 3rd year?
Surveys show that investors think they have a greater risks tolerance than they think. But in actual fact, most of us are only conservative or moderate investors. Therefore having bond funds of at least 20% in our portfolio helps to minimise the losses.
Happy Investing everyone.
P/S: If you are only investing a small amount, then by all means please go ahead and invest 100% in equity funds since it may be difficult to do asset allocation and the losses would not be huge.
This post has been edited by Vanguard 2015: Mar 16 2015, 05:58 PM
Mar 16 2015, 05:57 PM

Quote
0.0429sec
1.56
6 queries
GZIP Disabled