Part of the conventional wisdom is if most of the time you have at least one thing you wish you didn't have, or had less of, and vice-versa, comes with the territory of diversification. Looking at individual components, sometimes wishing you had more and other times wishing you had less of a given asset class is said to indicate being close to an allocation suitable for your risk tolerance/temperament.CS wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:46 amThe thing about the PP is that no matter what something will be doing shitty it seems. That is part of its design I think. Over time those red digits faded for me (in the accumulation phase) but perhaps there will always be something that triggers the red/regretful/why-did-I-buy-that-dud feelings.
Dunno if there's a lot of science that backs up either of those.
I'm not an expert on PP, but I'd tend to agree it's not a huge liability relative to other common allocation strategies, and depending on what a person wants out of their portfolio, it probably has advantages. Looking forward I don't know that any portfolio arrangement can sustain systematic withdrawal rates that past performance suggests. With asset prices high and therefore the outlook for future returns muted, it's reasonable to be a little more conservative in approaching WRs (in practice or at least maintaining the flexibility to do so). Taking on more risk (e.g., substantially increasing stock allocation) is another way to try to counter muted expectations, but it could come at a high cost to peace of mind.
FWIW, I'm converging on something in the 50/50-60/40 range (stocks/bonds+MM) and looking to achieve a sub-2% WR. That's arguably overkill, especially compared to what history suggests is sustainable. But I have goals for my portfolio that extend beyond sustaining me (although if need be some of what's earmarked for other uses also serves as extra margin). Without those I might be comfortable with 3% or a little under given a low return outlook in the medium-term. I could have opted to keep my equity exposure up near where I had it during the heart of accumulation (85%-100%) to support a more aggressive WR, but opted instead to combine dialing back lifestyle a little with extending accumulation to keep volatility/risk lower. I can't represent that approach as being superior to any other, it's just what I'm comfortable with. IOW, I outlined my approach for context, not to make an argument against PP, etc.
It's also wise to look away from a portfolio when contemplating apocalyptic/doomsday scenarios. I don't think the infrastructure nor elaborate system of rules and enforcement that allows us to turn an abstract portfolio into food, shelter, and other tangible things is likely to survive such an occurrence.