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?
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.
Why do you consider bonds usury?
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.
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.
Tangentially: I think a lot of people forget to consider the industries supporting their job as a relevant factor when diversifying passive investments.
If you have your job, you can weather a stock-downturn, and if investments are solid, you can weather a period of unemployment, but if both go bad at once it's exponentially worse.
Which is why you keep 3-5 years of spending money in cash (or a bond ladder if you want to be fancy).
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.
Last week I was at the bank in my hometown, a small rural community. The teller took a phone call, and I overheard her say "You have $1.53 in your checking account, and $150 in savings".
Presumably this is their total net worth. I think this is way more common than people on this type of forum realize. Most will work until they literally can't anymore, then scrape by on social security until they die. I think it's important to keep that perspective.
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.
And lose the tax advantages? That's crazy
The comment parent to you said it poorly. The 401k is the container, you don’t move stuff out of it you change the investments inside of it.
The tax advantages of being forced to pay ordinary income rates on your distributions as compared to long term capital gains (which are low, capped, can be exercised before a tax hike, and avoided entirely if you just need collateral)?
401k reduces your taxable income when depositing money, this is more tax efficient than paying normal income taxes and then also paying capital gains.
401k lets you rebalance a portfolio with zero tax implications.
The downsides are generally high fees and a 10% penalty for early withdrawal which makes them surprisingly bad for young people. They tend to start in lower tax brackets, have fewer reserves when unemployed, and face fewer risks from an unbalanced portfolio.
Pay down debt then Roth IRA when young 401k after 40 is often better than defaulting to a 401k, but saving anything tends to be more important than such optimizations.
I am alone in my peer group for doing something like this.
Cars, student debt, credit card debt all gone. (And I dread needing a new car). Covered downpayment on my house and cash for a nice shed that matches the house and a fence so my kid can play in the back yard with no issue.
Invested low 5 figures into myself taking a year off and now I am getting serious about the 401k at 41. And I am ok with that.
I never worked at a big tech company and I covered my mom's down payment and appliances and new carpet and part of her move for her to move close to me. Dad died when I was 11 so I am all she has and she was a public school teacher so she's on a small pension.
We all walk a different life and I know people that make my entire life savings in a year but I will eventually grow a retirement to get me through 10-15 years and then it will be what it will be. (Maybe a tank of helium and bag)
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).
People return with less than 4 years expenses in retirement funds
Surely you need about 20 years?
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.
3 to 5 years of cash or a bond ladder won't help in a 1970s stagflation scenario.
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.)
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.)
> (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.
The cost of insurance is carry e.g. when you buy an option you are paying for the convexity with time decay. It is quite expensive.
It is worth saying however that part of tail hedging is that the payoff is worth a lot more when everything else has tanked, so e.g. even if you (say) get 10% on your puts when the wider portfolio is still down 40% (made up numbers), you can deploy that capital at probably quite a high expected return.
They are probably not going to be implemented using long put positions, but a product with a similar return profile to what you're looking for is a buffered ETF. Basically, over a defined period, you agree to a maximum possible downside in exchange for a capped upside. They are available in ETF form from a number of providers.
For example, you could have an S&P 500 fund that, over the next year, will have a maximum of 0% capital losses (it can't go down), you will only get the first, say, 5% of gains that the equity index makes. So if stocks go up 20% the next year, your return is capped at 5%, but if they crash 50%, you don't absorb any capital losses. In practice, the return cap is going to be just a bit above the corresponding Treasury bill for the same duration.
These can be constructed in various different ways and institutionally I'm sure there are more bespoke ways that are more efficient from a fees/returns and tax perspective, but one way to do this on your own without going the ETF route is:
- Pick an amount you'd like to invest. - Buy a Treasury bill for some duration. Treasury bills are discounted at the time of purchase and return the target amount when the bill matures. For instance, if you buy a $100k 1-year Treasury bill, it might cost $96.5k today. - Now you have $3.5k in your pocket and a guarantee that you'll get $100k in a year when the bill matures. Use that $3.5k now to purchase call options or vertical spreads on the S&P 500 index to capture the upside that you can. Your return is limited by the structure of that options trade and what its maximum payoff is.
If you're willing to accept more than 0% downside, then you can achieve a higher potential upside cap as well.
This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you for taking the time to reply!
It would cost an extreme amount. The only reason to do something like that would be to defer capital gains into retirement while protecting your position.
You can use a collar for this at somewhat reasonable cost. Not sure how rolling that would compare to just using it to defer until you can cheaply sell and buy some fixed income ladder. Probably badly.
Also, there’s no capital gains to defer if you use a retirement account, which will be a better place for fixed income anyway.
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.
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.
Indeed, we have just been through arguably the largest (nominal) drawdown in the history of fixed income.
Sure, but a mistake I often see is people thinking that people's entire retirement savings is needed on the first day of retirement. People can and should still be invested in equities even in retirement, it's just the percentage is less depending on age and burn rate.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but in the abstract that's just saying "if you time the market, you can beat it", and we know that generally, the only way people are able to time the market is with random luck.
And more specifically, it's not low growth/high inflation that kills bond portfolio returns, it's interest rates increasing that devalue bonds, i.e. the transition from low inflation to high inflation. So yeah, you can construct a portfolio that hedges against that... but I'd be surprised if you can do it without decreasing your risk-adjusted expected returns below a plain stock/bond index fund - whatever hedging method you use is either going to increase your interest-rate risk (bonds), or your inflation-rate risk (cash), or is going to limit your upside (buffer etfs), or is just going sap your upfront returns (protective puts).
In that sense, isn't the 60/40 or Boglehead perspective also timing the market, in the sense that you are betting the regime of the past will continue into the near future?
To me the diversification hedge options (say GUNR) seem like they are helping you get closer to regime neutral. Or in other words you are giving up returns to cover more macro scenarios and betting less on what the future looks like.
investors are irrational but actually tend to go the other way - too risk adverse. I'm not sure what a "greedy" investor is, TBH.
> 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.
Investment companies have to remain profitable or at-worst neutral as such they would generally charge a decent bit of money for this type of setup. (If they end up having too big of losses then perhaps it could be similar to the the 2007 Banking/Investment companies crisis.)
Generally speaking I am not a financial advisor but you can take a look at international index funds/ETF's in general which have less exposure to AI in general.
and you can follow the age rule created by Mr Bogle where you have (age)% in bonds and (100-age)% in stocks, so at 70 you have 70% bonds, 30% stocks.
So again taking the example of dot com bubble, International Index funds fell from my understanding 30-40% and suppose that you had 30% stocks and 70% bonds.
So that would only have a 30% times 30 % which is 9% which perhaps might be more managable as compared to the previous 25%. There might be some other strategies as well which can help in diversification
Hope this helps!
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.
A more sensible strategy is probably to protect only against large down moves, so get OTM puts, and then longer maturities (like 1/2 year or so), then rotate them every quarter.
ATM options cost approximately 0.4 S sigma T^0.5 (do a Taylor expansion of the "N"s in the Black Scholes formula), so indeed, for current index vols of about 16% we are talking 0.4 * 16% * (1/12)^0.5 = 1.85% for a 1 month option, and 12 of them indeed cost 22% of your portfolio. Not a good idea.
However, if you hold the options only half the way to expiry, you lose only 1/4 of the time value. And if you buy OTM, you have convexity coming your way on the way down.
Lastly, index vols were very low (until yesterday, ha), as so many firms entered the dispersion trade: they wanted to go long dispersion (some firms do well with AI, some lose out), so short correlation, therefore long single stock vol and short index vol. Which means you could buy index vol (ie protection) quite cheap.
Inherited IRA's, if you aren't the spouse, have some pretty strict draw down rules.
As the boomers die off - if they have these accounts - their kids are quickly going to be forced to liquidate them over the course of 10 years. With some of them having to sell a chunk annually.
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".
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.
Unless they too were somehow tied into Nvidia.
This is what caused the 08' crash. Everything was all tied together so as one massive bank failed it sent a cascading ripple effect through the entire industry which became a sort of black hole that took down many seemingly stable, profitable banks with it.
I can easily see the same happening with AI.
> 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...
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.
For it to be a buying opportunity would require the mega corps to continue growing post bubble pop. This is questionable given how large they already are.
Regarding unprecedented concentration, wasn't the nifty fifty era comparable for the top 10, about 40%?
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"
how are they not “mostly AI”?
"This tree only makes up 0.0001% of the forest. If it is lit on fire, the forest will be fine"
I have this cheap B movie in my head with a primitive people living on an island. They compete in hunting, fishing, building boats, houses, cutting trees, growing crops etc they use sea shells as currency. Someone finds a spot with countless sea shells, 95% of the population spends their days digging up more and more. Almost everyone is insanely rich, everyone except from the dumb people still hunting, fishing, building boats, houses, cutting trees, growing crops etc
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.
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.
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.
But if their debt goes bad, isn’t that debt the very bonds that make up the other part of those asset allocations?
Typical total bond market fund like BND is ~70% in USG -- pretty solid:
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is an overly conservative approach that sacrifices a lot of growth for not much more safety. It also exposes you to inflation risk, which is a significant concern these days.
Most people in actual retirement I know do something like keep ~2 years of cash in short-term treasuries and everything else in equities. That gives you a lot of buffer to time-shift equity drawdown, which is the main risk with equities, while retaining almost all of the benefit of equities. Simple and relatively robust.
i dont think you want to ever be in a position where you arent making money and your net worth could drop 50% in a year. but hey, if you want the risk go for it i guess.
It literally doesn't matter if drops 50% in a year. That is a paper loss and you have years worth of cash you can spend while waiting for it to recover. If you panic-sell at the bottom of that market then that's on you. It isn't necessary in order to pay the bills.
What you propose takes on a huge amount of inflation risk. How are you hedging that risk? A guaranteed yield doesn't mean you aren't getting poorer. Obsessing over one type of risk and ignoring another isn't rational.
Reducing variance of net worth has a very high cost. Over-indexing on that singular property, particularly when most people can afford some variability, is a recipe for relative impoverishment.
> That is a paper loss and you have years worth of cash you can spend while waiting for it to recover.
not if you're 80 dude...
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
All of that is only true if the market is sufficiently diversified and not manipulated for profit extraction.
Right now it's not clear that is true.
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."
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.
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.
Regardless of whether it's a good idea, it absolutely happens and as a result would impact retirees, both in individually managed accounts and target date funds. For example here 70+ are 45% equity.[1] TROW retirement 2020 funds are about 50% stock, for example, and only decrease to a floor of 30%.
https://workplace.vanguard.com/content/dam/inst/iig-transfor... (page 78)
Retirees relying on short term equity returns to cover expenses only have themselves to blame.