| ▲ | skohan 4 hours ago |
| Couldn't it be a problem given the concentration of the S&P in these companies? At this point these companies make up a huge portion of 401k's for a huge chunk of Americans. How would it affect retirees if they dropped 40-50%, likely taking the market with them? |
|
| ▲ | hualapais 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I suggest looking into “EQL”, or better yet, just replicating its index by taking a position in the 11 XL* sector funds from SPDR, allocating equal weighting to each. One will end up with one’s equities equal weighted by sector and with plenty of large cap exposure, as opposed to the pronounced mid-cap tilt found in whole market equal-weight strategies. Personally, I drop the financial sector entirely (Thomistic prohibitions on usury) which leaves an even 10 funds which is easy to allocate mentally and in practice. For example, assuming a 60/40 allocation where one is holding the lion’s share in equities and the remainder in bonds (I substitute with a combination of gold, crypto, cash, and Swiss Franc here), one would allocate as follows: XLC 6%
XLY 6%
XLP 6%
XLE 6%
XLV 6%
XLI 6%
XLB 6%
XLK 6%
XLU 6%
XLRE 6% (Note that XLF is consciously not taken as a position here, decide if it’s right for you. The Mortgate REITs which would make XLRE problematic are in XLF per the sector selection rules) The remaining 40% is bonded debt if you are fine with usury, or some sort of asset negatively or neutrally correlated to equities. |
|
| ▲ | tyleo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s an interesting thought. The growth is so extreme that if the S&P 500 fell 50% today it would reach levels last seen in 2022. Given that the timespan is so short, I’m honestly not sure it would be as bad for 401ks as people expect unless all of your investment was concentrated in the last 4 years. I suppose it’s worse if your calculation is, “I’ll retire when my 401k hits $X absolute value,” but I think most people just retire at a certain age instead with risk spread across decades. |
| |
| ▲ | MattGrommes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One of the big issues with this is sequence of returns risk. If you retire and rely on your portfolio but the market dives for a year or two right after you leave the workforce, your total portfolio value is screwed because you were selling at a low point. | | |
| ▲ | rwmj an hour ago | parent [-] | | Which is why you keep 3-5 years of spending money in cash (or a bond ladder if you want to be fancy). | | |
| ▲ | duzer65657 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | most don't even have 3-5 years "spending money" (whatever that is) in total savings; if you're keeping that in cash you're getting 2-3% annually while the market has doubled. | | |
| ▲ | MattGrommes 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | When you're headed into retirement, one possibility is to shift to saving more in cash-like options instead of a 401k (or whatever). It's should just be part of your retirement plan to account for possibilities like this. | |
| ▲ | rwmj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure, but we're not talking about people who have no savings. FIRE people have huge investment portfolios while being frugal with their spending, and understand the risk of keeping 5-10% of their total net worth in cash equivalents (not dissimilar to having insurance). | | | |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People return with less than 4 years expenses in retirement funds Surely you need about 20 years? | |
| ▲ | bell-cot 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Look back at the grandparent comment. If someone doesn't have 3-5 years in total savings, then they had better not try to retire. |
| |
| ▲ | staticman2 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 3 to 5 years of cash or a bond ladder won't help in a 1970s stagflation scenario. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | During the dot-com crisis. Nasdaq fell around 78% from its peak and S&P by around 49% so it isn't unprecedented (ironically has both aspects of being both tech and are within the same time-era) It created an actual recession albeit thankfully short one for the case of dotcom (sadly not for 2007) and a really recessionary environment which causes unemployment and just straight up fear and panic. I do understand what you are talking about and overall in long term, perhaps things flatten out but atleast speaking financially so, its better to be on a smooth sailing road rather than insane ups and downs with retirement money if preferable. > I think most people just retire at a certain age instead with risk spread across decades. The issue in my opinion is with people near that certain age you mention and who retire in the time during boom just before bust. They would then get the 50% hit on their savings instantly with an recession/inflation/unemployment environment which in my opinion might be genuinely devastating. (supposing that they had their investments in stocks, I wouldn't consider that any retiree would have all their money in stocks but there have been some other comments which show a sizable amount, @kipchak's comment shows 50% stock for retirement. so a 50% shock on top of that could lead to a wipe out of 25% of your retirement fund which is honestly still pretty crazy.) | | |
| ▲ | Karrot_Kream 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This kind of metric is always used to shock and awe in pop media when talking about the GFC, but it's not how actual investment works. In practice most investments are DCAed. No person puts all of their retirement savings into QQQ or SPY at the peak and sell it off at the trough. Instead folks drip their savings into their weighted portfolio and withdraw money from their weighted portfolio as expenses accrue. Now obviously the GFC was a huge deal, but this sort of facile understanding of stock markets always leads to big misunderstandings. There's a reason Monte Carlo analyses of these events are used to model these scenarios. (Though I imagine there were many people who tried to re-balance their portfolio into a less equity-heavy model abruptly during the GFC and based on equities performance at the time, it was probably the right move as long as taxes were taken into account.) | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > (supposing that they had their investments in stocks, I wouldn't consider that any retiree would have all their money in stocks but there have been some other comments which show a sizable amount, @kipchak's comment shows 50% stock for retirement. so a 50% shock on top of that could lead to a wipe out of 25% of your retirement fund which is honestly still pretty crazy.) What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will. Going 100% bonds is simply intolerable for the time window for most retirees, but an equity wipeout of this magnitude is equally intolerable. | | |
| ▲ | matwood an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Even someone close to retirement doesn't need to go 100% bonds. It's not like someone needs all their retirement money on day 1. The part that remains in equities will continue generating dividends that will get reinvested, and recover over time. | | |
| ▲ | ligne an hour ago | parent [-] | | 100% of anything is a bad idea if you're going to have to draw on them any time soon. Bonds are less volatile than equity, but they're still subject to drops in value. |
| |
| ▲ | Marsymars 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will. I expect that would not be a cost-effective way of attaining the risk profile you'd be looking for. I expect there won't be a more cost-effective way of managing your portfolio risk than by simply adjusting your split of broadly-diversified equities vs bonds. | | |
| ▲ | intrasight 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | My homeowners insurance isn't "cost-effective" either but I still do it. I think the reason that investors don't is because they are greedy or irrational or both. That was the message that I got from a financial podcast I listened to a couple weeks ago anyway. | | |
| ▲ | Marsymars an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd content that homeowners' insurance is quite cost-effective, because there isn't a cheaper alternative to hedge your risk. I'm saying that for the cost of buying puts to hedge against equity downside in a retirement portfolio, for any given level of risk, you'd probably be better off just selling some of the equities and buying bonds instead. e.g. try and find any equity-focused ETF with downside protection that generally outperforms a bog-standard stock/bond split total-market ETF for whatever measure of volatility/downside protection that you want. | | |
| ▲ | kipchak 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think the risk for increasing your bond exposure as compensation would be if instead of a low growth/low inflation scenario (Bonds do well) there's a low growth+high inflation scenario (1940s, 1970s, 2022) and the negative correlation between stocks and bonds doesn't hold. |
| |
| ▲ | duzer65657 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | investors are irrational but actually tend to go the other way - too risk adverse. I'm not sure what a "greedy" investor is, TBH. |
|
| |
| ▲ | TacticalCoder 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Take SPY at a strike of $738, per lot of 100 that's $73 800. Take 14 lots, give or take, to make a cool million. SPY260821P00738000 (OCC symbol: PUT on SPY expiring the 21th of August 2026 at a strike of $738) is $12.20 as I type this, so $1220 per lot. So $16 800 to protect for a month. So $200 K per year. A solid 20% yearly, unless my math is way off. Now of course you can buy, instead of a PUT, a PUT debit spread, or you can buy further from the strike, or you can finance or partially finance your PUT or PUT debit spread with a CALL you'd sell (turning it into a covered strangle) etc. That's not the point of this exercise though. And anyway I doubt many retirees have the know-how to do that. In any case it's well known that the costs to hedge are extremely high. In 1929 those who had 10% gold for example "only" lost 25% overall: gold has value since thousands of years. My dumb thinking is that if gold has value since thousands of years, there's an extremely high probability that it'll keep value for the few decades I've got left at most. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | riffraff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| NVidia makes up 7.5% of the SP500. If it lost 50%, it would be a 3% loss for the index. The concentration is bad, but it would not cause a drop of 50% retirement funds by itself. If you take an all world index, it's even less. Still, if NVidia lost 50% of their market share, we would probably see a big collapse of the stock market. EDIT: to note, the top ten companies in SP500 make up an unprecedented concentration but they're not "mostly AI". |
| |
| ▲ | rockskon 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is unlikely that a 50% drop in NVidia wouldn't be paired with a significant drop in the valuation of every other company heavily invested in AI. | |
| ▲ | hnfong 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > EDIT: to note, the top ten companies in SP500 make up an unprecedented concentration but they're not "mostly AI". They're mostly either AI proper, or hardware manufacturers benefitting from AI boom, or provide cloud services to AI companies... | |
| ▲ | matwood an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | An AI collapse would represent a generational buying opportunity for companies like Meta, Google, and MS. It would be bumpy for a bit while things unwind, but eventually all this FCF they have been dumping into AI would start dropping to the bottom line instead. It's like when Meta stopped dumping money in Reality Labs, but on a much larger scale. | |
| ▲ | kipchak 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Regarding unprecedented concentration, wasn't the nifty fifty era comparable for the top 10, about 40%? | |
| ▲ | conartist6 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Idunno man. Am I the only one that remembers the day the first DeepSeek model came out? It wasn't like, "Nvidia took a hit and everyone else was fine". It was more like, "One or two companies were fine, and ALL others took a hit" | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | how are they not “mostly AI”? | |
| ▲ | krashidov 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "This tree only makes up 0.0001% of the forest. If it is lit on fire, the forest will be fine" |
|
|
| ▲ | MikeNotThePope 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don’t think concentration risk is itself overly concerning. The nature of a market cap weighted index means it will always be heavy on whatever is currently trending. You’ll certainly be hurting if your plan is to retire at the top of the market with just enough, as the inevitable downturn will hammer your portfolio down into not enough. So invest until you have enough to handle volatility or a lost decade with a dip and slow recovery. |
|
| ▲ | minimaltom 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even if theres a massive drawdown it will recover in the medium term (and in the short term is a great buying opportunity). For the people who are close/early to retirement and can't do that, well, they need to manage sequence of returns risk. Edit: I think some ppl might interpret this as me being bullish on the SP500. I'm not, I'm bullish on everything evens out and returns to the mean. |
|
| ▲ | senshan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For those who stick to a meaningful asset allocation (e.g. 60/40, 80/20, etc), this does not pose significant problem -- they would not be buying much stock in the last 3 years. Instead, they would be buying mostly fixed-income. Probably mostly in 401k/IRA accounts. |
| |
| ▲ | mint5 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But if their debt goes bad, isn’t that debt the very bonds that make up the other part of those asset allocations? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | epolanski an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is no data showing that high concentration is bad in an index. No correlation with future returns. On the other hand the world is leveraged to insane levels not seen since world wars or global recessions. At the same time yields are low while inflation is high. There is definitely a high level of risk in the financial markets. A risk nobody, especially politicians, want to look at, because it would unavoidably lead to some major pains, so procrastinating until it's unavoidable seems the way to go. |
|
| ▲ | swarnie 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm not familiar with 401k rules but presumably they get a choice of markets and products? If one is over concentrated its easily avoided. |
| |
| ▲ | skohan 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem some have pointed out is that these companies are such a huge portion of the market right now. The sound advice for the past decades has been, just invest in a low-cost ETF tracking the S&P instead of picking stocks to minimize risk and invest in the market broadly. So a huge number of people have done that, believing they're diversified, while tech makes up 40% of the index. Yes you could sell your S&P and find things to invest in least likely to be impacted by a potential bubble, but your average 9-5'er with automated contributions to their 401k is probably not sophisticated enough to do that. And that's assuming only these companies would be affected if there was a massive draw-down in tech/AI related stocks. We haven't really seen a situation like this before, so it's not easy to predict what effects there might be in the broader economy. | | |
| ▲ | anthonypasq 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | no one that needs to rely on their investments for their actual retirement still has them in equities. theres a reason target date funds automatically adjust asset allocation as it nears its target date. you should be in majority bonds and cds well before your actual retirement date. | |
| ▲ | wonnage an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s probably not even a good idea to try and defend against the bubble by switching up your stock allocation. After all the whole reason passive investing works is that active investment rarely beats the market and if you’ve just been in SPY the whole time it’s unlike you have any edge to gain by switching to an active strategy every time fear creeps up |
| |
| ▲ | loudmax 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The employer selects a financial company to manage the 401k. When you switch jobs, you can roll the 401k from the previous employer into the new one, or into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Usually the financial services company will offer several options: more aggressive/high risk, or less aggressive/lower risk. Most people will just go with whatever is the default option. So much of the American S&P 500 is dominated by handful of companies that the risk is not that easy to avoid. If or when the AI bubble pops, it's going to take down a lot of the economy with it. You can direct your retirement savings into the lowest yield/lowest risk assets offered by the firm, but you'll forego whatever growth happens in the mean time. Will the bubble pop next week? Next month? Next year? Who knows. Timing the market is incredibly difficult. There's a famous quote, attributed (perhaps apocryphally) to John Maynard Keynes: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." | | |
| ▲ | TitaRusell 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The whole idea of a pension fund is that you don't need to time the system it is the system. Like my country pension scheme. It went through ups and downs for a hundred years but has always come on top. All you need is a long horizon and a trillion dollars and you basically can't lose. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | anthonypasq 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| retirees arent suppose to have their active retirement funds in stocks dude. Any financial advisor with a brain would not make such a ridiculous asset allocation error. |
| |
|
| ▲ | noelsusman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Retirees relying on short term equity returns to cover expenses only have themselves to blame. |