>> [@msf] Buffett's [mix] implicitly suggests 2.5 years of "near cash". I'd be inclined to go a bit higher and/or use bonds as a second tier resource between cash and equity investments.
Yeah, this to me is key to withstanding (= usually ignoring) all of these manufactured advice articles:
How many years of safe cashflow are you comfortable with projecting you need, meaning earning very little, and how many years of unlikely-to-dip bondy things after that? Not percentages of your total, only years' worth. 1, 2, 3, 4, what?
I just did major (for me) retirement rebalancing, trying this time to apportion more prudently b/w Roth and taxable, and wound up with 21% bondy-cash. More than 5y, gah.
A year and change is in MINT and non-earning dead cash (BoA savings). Better, 2y or more is in PCI, which can dip, but best of all it matches equity funds over certain stretches. The remainder is in PONAX and FRIFX.
I can live with this, or so I say now, and will move amounts into MINT every few months to keep it at perhaps a year's worth.

“Many asset managers’ websites don’t nudge retirement savers into favoring a Roth 401(k), however. The calculators they offer to compare the advantages of Roth and traditional 401(k)s often make Roths look second-rate.”
Think about it. Why encourage people to pay taxes before investing or do a conversion later in life which may result in their not having as much left over to invest? Your fiduciaries stand to get a higher “cut” from your higher pre-tax balance than after you’ve paid taxes on it. They’re charging their management fees on money which you’ll eventually need to cede back to Uncle Sam. Double-dipping in a sense.
I can’t speak to the wisdom (or lack thereof) of contributing to a Roth in the early years. May or may not make sense. But if you can afford to pay those taxes at some later point and convert, I think it makes a lot of sense - especially if you can do it with some depreciated asset that stands to rebound.
The thing to remember: All the money you earn on that Roth going forward (potentially for many years) is fully tax exempt. The gift that keeps on giving ...

Let's look at how we make use of three years of cash.
I'll go along with @MikeM here. One isn't going to start drawing from cash the instant the stock market drops from a peak. That might be daily noise or the beginning of a bear market, you don't know.
So what's the strategy for starting to draw on cash? Say we start once the market is in correction territory. That's down 10%. So money that we kept in the market instead of cash has dropped 10% from the peak. But the value has likely been flat if we look back a year from the beginning of the correction. That's figuring the market earns about 10% a year. This is especially likely since the market was going up before the correction began (by definition).
For clarity, let's call the time we start drawing cash T1 (market down 10%).
Now the market's 10% down, and we're beginning to draw on cash. Let's say the market drops another 30% from this point. All together, the market drops 10% followed by a 30% drop. So it's worth 90% x 70% = 63% of its peak value. That's a 37% drop, or about what @hank suggested.
We'll call the trough T2.
The average duration of a bear market (peak to trough) is about 22 months. Since we start using our cash reserve (of three years) only after we are already down 10%, we almost surely have at least another year's worth of cash past the trough T2 before we run out.
So let's see where our stock is in another year. So far, it's down 30% - it was flat from a year before the correction until T1 (when we started drawing cash), and the market dropped 30% from there. The average first year recovery after a bear market (T2 - trough) is nearly 50% (same link).
Put these together: 70% x 150% = 105%, i.e. 5% higher than where we started. And before running out of cash.
Of course each recovery is different. But what this shows is that by starting to draw on cash only upon entering correction territory one can expect to have enough cash left to hold on for at least a year, possibly a lot longer, after hitting bottom, to get back to that 10% down level.
Even though we lose a little (10%) value in the stock from the peak, we come out ahead over the longer term (since cash wouldn't have made money before the market peak). So we're usually better off keeping money in stock rather than cash. We just need enough to outlast the worst of the dip. Three years seems fine for that.

@hank

If your equity heavy portfolio falls by 35% during a 3-year bear market while you draw from your cash reserves, do you really want to start selling your equitiy heavy portion as soon as the bear ends?

Yes.

Say your equity portion is still down 20-25% 3 years later after the bear market has “officially” ended. Having to withdraw funds (even though it’s now a bull market ) could still be problematic

could be

I can only answer why I don't use it: I maximize my 401k PRE-tax contributions to the extent allowed by law, rather than opting for the Roth.
Very simply, I am in my peak earning years and my marginal tax rate during this time will likely be much higher than when I retire --- primarily as my income in retirement will be much lower.

”Nothing magical about 3 years, though I think that is about the average recovery time for a bear market.”

I borrowed @MikeM’s remark for illustration here, but my question applies to many others who have discussed their withdrawal plan (as relates to cash) in event of a bear market during the distribution phase of retirement.
If your equity heavy portfolio falls by 35% during a 3-year bear market while you draw from your cash reserves, do you really want to start selling your equitiy heavy portion as soon as the bear ends? Say your equity portion is still down 20-25% 3 years later after the bear market has “officially” ended. Having to withdraw funds (even though it’s now a bull market ) could still be problematic.
Looks like the average duration (from peak - to bottom - and back up to that level again) is about 5 years. Since that’s just an average, some of these periods during which you would have to either (1) sell depreciated equities & funds or (2) rely on your cash reserves might last considerably longer than 5 years.
https://www.dividendgrowthinvestor.com/2008/07/average-durations-of-previous-bear.html

In the Hotchkis & Wiley family of funds Old_Skeet owns HWIAX which is their capital income fund and it too owns most anything that it wants. Within this fund you will find many of the equity holdings that are also found in HWAAX. HWIAX pays a monthly dividend and has a yield of better than 3% while HWAAX pays annually with a yield of less than 1%. HWAAX is listed by M* as a 85+% equity allocation fund while HWIAX is listed as a 50% to 70% equity allocation fund. Years back, I chose HWIAX over HWAAX because of the higher yield and monthly distributions.

Old_Skeet's infrastructure fund is PGUAX. I have owned this fund for better than five years. PGUAX pays a quarterly dividend (and has the higher yield) where CSUAX pays semiannually. Both funds carry four stars from M* with PGUAX having, overall, the better returns.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+we've+learned+about+target-date+funds+10+years+later&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m
Enter News, Quotes, Companies or Videos
Target-date funds have emerged strongly from the damage of 10 years ago, but some advisers say their one-size-fits-all approach to investing isn’t suitable for every investor. Nicolas Ortega
Journal Reports: Funds/ETFs
What We’ve Learned About Target-Date Funds, 10 Years Later
A decade after target-date funds were damaged during the financial crisis, they have re-emerged bigger than ever as retirement investments. But they still have vulnerabilities.
By Jeff Brown
May 5, 2019 10:09 p.m. ET
Back in 2008, many investors looking ahead to retirement in two years had a shock when “target-date funds” designed for them plummeted in value. Many had assumed those funds, targeted to a 2010 retirement, were safe from large moves that late in the game.
Despite the jolt to investor confidence, target-date funds have flourished in the decade since, becoming a staple in workplace retirement plans such as 401(k)s, as a net $532 billion in investor money poured in during that time, according to data from the Investment Company Institute trade group.
Journal Report
Insights from The Experts
Read more at WSJ.com/FundsETFs
More in Investing in Funds & ETFs
Fund Fees Still Vary Too Much
How Much Cash in Retirement?
U.S.-Stock Funds Rose 3.6% in April
529s or Coverdells for College?
ETFs Dial In to 5G
Whether that is a good thing remains a matter of debate. Some financial experts question the value of target-date funds, saying their one-size-fits-all approach to investing isn’t suitable for every investor. Others say the funds can be a good way to save for both retirement and college—as long as investors pay attention to the products’ risk profile, fees and performance, especially as market conditions change.
Of course, the idea behind target-date funds, or TDFs, is to make investing as simple as possible by gradually adjusting to a more conservative investment mix as a target date approaches. As the default option in many workplace retirement plans, TDFs attract investors who don't want to choose and rebalance their own investments and may not be aware that the funds can still own lots of risky stocks close to and even after the target date arrives.
“There is a common misconception among many target-date holders that the portfolio is completely de-risked at retirement, and that simply isn’t true,” says Robert R. Johnson, professor of finance at Creighton University’s Heider College of Business in Omaha, Neb.
A big factor in that growth was Obama-era legislation that encouraged employers to automatically enroll new employees in retirement plans and use target-date funds as the default for those who don’t choose their own investments. Previously, investors who were inattentive—a notorious problem with workplace retirement plans—simply accumulated cash, which doesn’t provide enough growth to build a nest egg that will last for decades.
“It’s certainly a good thing” to use TDFs as the default, says Dennis Shirshikov, financial analyst at FitSmallBusiness.com, an advice service for small-business owners and managers. “This has brought a great deal of consistency to a retirement portfolio, especially since most investors with a 401(k) do not manage their investment actively.”
Another factor in TDF growth, Morningstar says, is the growing popularity of index investing as most TDFs invest in index funds, rather than actively managed funds. In 2017, 95% of new employee contributions to TDFs went to one relying on index funds, according to Morningstar.
Investors can buy target-date funds for their individual retirement accounts and taxable accounts, as well, and most big fund companies offer them. The biggest player is Vanguard Group with about $381 billion in TDF assets in 2017, 34% of the market, Morningstar says. Fidelity Investments had a 20.5% share, and the third-biggest player, T. Rowe Price , TROW 1.89% had a 14.9% share.
The downsides
Retirement experts have mixed views about TDFs’ value in a portfolio. Most say TDFs are better than not investing at all, or putting retirement savings in cash, but the funds can’t take into account each investor’s unique situation. Two investors the same age would get the same fund, even if they have different needs due to dependents, availability of other assets, life expectancy and risk tolerance.
“In an attempt to simplify planning and saving for retirement—certainly a noble endeavor—the entire concept of target-date funds likely is a bridge too far,” Prof. Johnson says. “Individuals are unique, and one parameter, the anticipated retirement date, cannot and should not dictate the appropriate asset-allocation mix and the change in that mix over time.”
Another concern: The automatic investing strategy ignores changing conditions. Patrick R. McDowell, investment analyst at Arbor Wealth Management in Miramar Beach, Fla., says low bond yields in recent years have reduced TDF income after the target date, and increased the risk of losses on bondholdings if rates rise. (Higher rates hurt bond values because investors favor newer bonds that pay more.)
What’s more, he says, stocks and bonds have often moved in tandem in recent years, reducing the benefit from diversification, which assumes one asset goes up when the other falls.
Know your rights
Retirement savers who are automatically put into TDFs have the right to switch to other funds in their retirement plan as they learn more or conditions change, and Mr. McDowell recommends that investors get more involved as retirement nears. He says he often recommends investors nearing retirement leave the target-date fund and buy a mix of stock and stable-value funds—which contain bonds insured against loss and are designed to preserve capital while generating returns similar to a fixed-income investment—to reduce danger from a potential market plunge.
Advisers urge investors to examine the TDF’s ‘glide path’—its investing policy for shifting from stocks to bonds over time. Photo: iStock
“In that strategy, a big drop in equity and fixed-income prices won’t hurt a soon-to-be retiree in the same way it would in a TDF strategy,” he says. “It also helps investors defend against a rising interest-rate scenario” harmful to bonds.
Experts say TDF investors should keep abreast of performance and not just assume they are on track to a comfortable retirement. Morningstar provides data on average performance by target date, as well as details on individual funds.

The link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-weve-learned-about-target-date-funds-10-years-later-11557108540
But it requires subscription, so all I learned is target date funds have vulnerabilities.

In retirement, my plan is a 3 year "withdrawal" bucket which would be mostly MM and CD's and possibly a short term bond fund. Replenish each year if the markets up. Wait to replenish if the market takes a nosedive. Nothing magical about 3 years, though I think that is about the average recovery time for a bear market.

@MFO Members: I have always recommended an emergency funds of six months worth of living expenses.

From the article:
"Most people are familiar with the idea of having an 'emergency fund' during one's working years—a pot of money (typically, equal to three to six months of living expenses) that can help with unexpected bills or, perhaps most important, tide you over if you lose your job."
If a function of emergency cash is to tide you over until you get your next job, how long until your next job in retirement?
Many people seem to conflate two questions: how much cash should I keep for an unexpected emergency, and how much cash should I keep in retirement to protect against sequence of returns risk?.
For example, I was reading an old WSJ column where a couple with adequate pension income asked about putting all their IRA money into an S&P 500 fund. The response was that given the situation, that would not be unreasonable.
The column didn't address what size emergency fund they might also want to keep. ISTM that they would have the same need as working people - a reserve for some unexpected expense that their cash flow (here, pensions) didn't cover.
For people without steady income streams that cover all expenses (i.e. typical retirees), it's a different question as to how much cash to keep. Buffett's 10% short term treasury/90% S&P 500 implicitly suggests 2.5 years of "near cash" (10% @ 4% drawdown/year). I'd be inclined to go a bit higher and/or use bonds as a second tier resource between cash and equity investments.

@hank Hank, your advice is extremely sensible. Sometimes its helpful to remind others about good, solid market strategies that hold up over time.
My issue is related to the last item you just mentioned, RISK TOLERANCE. A lot of investors think they can ride out a bear market (or even just a bad correction). But many of those investors turn out to be wrong. Investing is so emotional for many of us. Its hard to sit by and watch your Account Balance go down the tubes. Its easy to say "oh yeah, I can handle it". Hard to do.
As an official "chicken little", I've (incorrectly) gone to cash more often than I want to admit over the years. Though I am shy of my 50s, I am personally still all about preservation of capital. Combine this president, with his "Tariff policies", alongside a very, very long bull market...... and I am once again a "chicken little". I own some bonds, which also seem inflated but are riding a wave for now, and I will build up my VWINX holding, but I am mostly in CASH.
This time, it looks like I have an awful lot of company. I believe Cash was the best Asset class of 2018. Will it come in 1st again in 2019? Doubtful.
And so we gamble.
P.S. I'll keep at least one of my eyes wide open from now on.

So Hank....just close your eyes and hold on. The market will always be ok long term. Steady as she goes. Tune out the noise. We can't predict the short-term, so why bother.

@JoeD, I wasn’t giving investment advice. Just trying to share a few personal observations and reflections re markets and investor sentiment gleaned over the years - since that’s where @Junkster appeared to want to go with this. (Closing your eyes when moving is probably never a good idea. Might run into an immovable object.)
But here’s my take on risk exposure / market timing:
- Depends on what you’re buying or holding. Treat your equity or high yield stake as one part of a wider investment universe. Don’t overlook investing in a home, maintaining a cash reserve, having a pension or annuity for steady income, investing in your own business or education, etc.
- Depends on your time horizon. For a 25 year-old who won’t need the money for 40 years I think putting 100% in a good global growth fund makes a lot of sense. He / she has time to ride out several market cycles. For a retiree I’d suggest a more conservative approach.
- Depends on your skill set and past experience. Some people have a knack for timing various types of markets. If you’re good at that (only you would know) go for it. However, for most of us, market timing is a somewhat flawed endeavor. The reason may be that markets can remain irrational longer than most of us can remain solvent. Another reason might be that it’s pretty hard to sort out the really pertinent facts from all the noise coming at us from many different directions.
- Depends on your own tolerance for risk. That’s not just your emotional make-up, but also how soon you may need the money and what you intend to do with it. For some of retirement age, an all bonds and cash approach might make sense. It should protect against large or unexpected losses. But it might not protect against rising costs of living or afford the life style one might prefer.

FYI: A decade after target-date funds were damaged during the financial crisis, they have re-emerged bigger than ever as retirement investments. But they still have vulnerabilities.
Regards,
Ted

“Many investors seem braced for turbulence ahead and are in a defensive mode.”
Isn’t that always the case? We as investors tend to focus more on the potential for loss more than on longer term gains. You can go back 5 or 10 years and find people “going to cash”, “harvesting profits” or “adding some dry powder.” - Same old ... Same old ...
“The headline news seems so pessimistic.”
Journalism thrives on the “sensational”. That’s how they attract viewers, readers and clicks on their websites. But it’s not all bear case out there. Maybe we just pay more attention to the bears?
“Inverted yield curve” - Often a precursor of recession. Tends to lead by 6 months to a year. But in an era of “wacko” 2% on 10-year Treasuries, the invert may not be the reliable indicator of the past. Still, ignore it at your own peril.
“crashing oil prices ... “ Perfect example of media over-hype. Oil’s had a great run since it bottomed at $26 three years ago. So a 10% - 20% pullback is normal in any market.
“Chinese tariffs and their negative effects on corporate profits much less what happens if tariffs go in effect on Mexico” A tariff is (plain and simple) a tax - coming out of consumers’ pockets and going into government coffers. And, generally speaking, raising taxes quickly is a good way to tank an economy.
“But stocks remain resilient ...”
The Dow and S&P have gone nowhere in a year. And the NASDAQ is probably lower. But of course there are many winners that bucked the trend.
“junk bonds but 3/4% (0.75%) from all time highs”.
Tight spreads should be a warning that risk appetite is reaching dangerous levels. A better time to buy riskier bonds is when the spread is wider. @Junkster understands this better than I do.
“The later (narrow spreads) especially makes no sense if you believe all the experts who keep predicting the next crisis will come from that segment of the market.” To the contrary ... “reaching for yield“ is sometimes an indication of over-exuberance. Comes with the territory. However, the larger factor here may be the ridiculously low yields on investment grade debt. If you need income, there’s really no place to go but into higher yielding securities.
“rates have moved lower”
True. And 2% for locking-up your money for 10 years makes no sense unless you are factoring in a major economic slowdown and declining value for risk assets.
“the Fed is expected to lower Fed funds in July or September.”
Likely the Fed is reacting to the political arm-twisting. If they lower rates it should goose the economy for a bit longer. But could exacerbate the next downturn when it finally arrives.
“But isn’t that good news already baked into the bond market?”
Yep - The big money (often smart money) is usually a few steps ahead of the rest of us. And the data they have (can afford access to) far exceeds what you and I have at our disposal. Also, while insider trading is illegal, it’s not unheard of.
“I would think knowing how counterintuitive investing/trading can be that new highs may be ahead for the S&P. “
No way to tell. But unless you assume these indexes always reflect rational decision making executed by always rational investors (I don’t think they do) why dwell on where the index will be in six months?
“But this may be all mute with tomorrow’s employment report providing its usual fireworks ....”
You nailed that one. Bloomberg and the others are all over this story.
“... and providing more clarity”.
It’s hard for me to understand how one payroll report provides much clarity on anything. It might. But it might also just reflect the effect of weather on consumer spending in many parts of the country.

John said "health care etf maybe one of the top vehicles going forward 10-20 yrs from today especially in bio-micro-tech fields"
I believe that's been said quite regularly about the healthcare sector for the last 10-20 years if not longer. The sector ebbs and flows pretty much like any other.

FYI: John Neff, the legendary investment manager and a long-time member of the Barron’s Roundtable, died this week at 87. Neff favored deeply unloved stocks with hidden potential. And he bought them by the truckload for the Vanguard Windsor Fund, which he managed for 31 years, through 1995. The fund posted a cumulative total return of 5,546% on his sensible watch, nearly two-and-a-half times the performance of the S&P 500.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/john-neff-51559786060?refsec=income-investing
Philadelphia Inquirer Article:
https://www.inquirer.com/business/john-neff-obituary-vanguard-windsor-funds-university-pennsylvania-endowment-fidelity-20190605.html

FAX has been spinning off ROC for years ... not sure if it's a good ROC or bad ROC, though. And its UNII is barely there, which means there's little cushion if problems occur.

TIBAX is one of Old_Skeet's funds held in the Growth & Income Area of my portfolio inside my global hybrid sleeve. I have owned this fund for better than ten years. The other members of this sleeve are CAIBX and TEQIX.