Moody's chief economist:
"Never before has the Fed hiked rates with the junk bond spread wider than 700 basis points, and that’s usually an indication that we’re in the later innings of this game.
Even if we go to the S&P 500, throw out all the energy companies that got hammered in the third quarter, the remaining companies in the S&P 500 showing year-to-year sales growth of less than 1%. I would think that the upside for interest rates going forward is quite limited." (Source: Moody's chief economist, John lonski)
Citi: US faces 65% probability of recession in 2016.
Ps: Your a nice guy and the things u share here is great for starters, just that we may not see eye to eye on the macro outlook. I will let the debate on free markets ideology/ Keynes vs classical school of economic thought to rest since you have no answers to it. But how about these legit claims from professionals and ultra rich. What's your take, shiny things.
For every economist, there's an equal and opposite economist. I think off the top of my head, the MS, Goldman, and Barclays economics desks are staying steady-as-she-goes for 2016; there was a handy dump of 2016 outlook papers somewhere on Twitter recently, I'll see if I can find it.
I'm a little bit torn on my economic view for 2016 honestly. I think there's a pretty decent chance that the US labor market starts to tighten up and we get a round of wage inflation (which means the Fed will end up behind the curve and they'll have to tighten faster), but that's not really the most likely scenario; I think more likely is that the US economy will sidle along with growth in the low 2s and inflation in the mid 1s, and the Fed does exactly what they say they're going to, and they keep slowly hiking over the next couple of years.
Also I think US inflation breakevens are way too cheap. You can, if memory serves, pay 5yr US inflation somewhere in the low 1% range. That's a massive pay.
Either way, it's not really going to change the way I invest.
No, it is because it is NOT conservative enough; 110 errs on the side of caution.
I see. My mistake then. Btw, I think I missed about the reason for 110-age numbers. Why 110 instead of 100?
IronMac - depends, I think you're using different definitions of conservative. A 110% portfolio is going to have more mark-to-market volatility than a 100% portfolio in the short-term, so it's less conservative in that sense; but it delivers higher returns in the long term, so it's more conservative in that sense.
My reason for going 110 instead of 100 is just that I don't think you want to have too much money in bonds with yields where they are.
Yup, that's pretty much what folks out there are suggesting. But I am in the belive that we should increase our savings instead of taking more risk in order to reach our retirement sum target. Just my two cents.
This is also a good idea! People who chase yield or chase high-risk investments are setting themselves up for a fall; saving more money is a safer way to build your retirement pot.
Hi, may I have everybody opinion on my new portfolio:
A35 Bond: 15%
ES3 STI: 60%
VWRD: 20%
VDEM: 5%
Yeah, as people have said, you're doubling up on EM with VDEM, because VWRD already has a decent slug of EM stocks.
I think you could afford to have a lot more money in overseas stocks; I'd be a little less in the STI and a little more in VWRD - but generally you're on the right track. Don't forget to invest methodically and rebalance every year.
Someone must have read this thread when writing this article. 110 - age!
dollarsandsense.sg/how-you-can-create-a-buy-and-forget-investment-portfolio-for-the-long-term
Hey, if it helps spread the word...!
So after a few months i have my basic investment going following Shiny's method ... i'm now looking at insurance. I've gone thru many threads trying to pick stuff out. I'm sure i saw shiny discussing about insurance somewhere ... whats the take on insurance?
Insurance with any sort of investment component - so whole-life, endowment, or ILPs or whatever - is generally a terrible idea. Never buy whole-life. Never buy endowment policies. Never
ever buy ILPs.
If you have dependents (like, parents with no other income or assets, or if you've got a stay-at-home spouse with a kid), then get term life insurance, in an amount equal to 5-10 times your annual income, that lasts until the kid turns 21.
And you've already got a Medishield plan, so that'll cover your "unexpected hospital expenses"; you don't need anything above or beyond that.
That's it. That's all you need.
There are people on these boards pumping thousands of dollars a month into insurance policies because the nice lady at Prudential or Aviva told them a scare story about "what if the worst happens to you, is your family protected?". Don't be that person.
