Recommend 100% PP portfolio in drawdown [retirement]?

[greenv]

Does everyone on thus forum and Harry Brown recommend a 100% PP in drawdown [retirement]? I have no desire for a VP. Will I have all my eggs in one basket or is the allocation and diversification of the HBPP or PRPFX about as good as you can get with a reasonably low risk?

Would Harry Brown recommend a 100% PP in drawdown[retirement]? Best guess. Thanks for your previous replys and any current ones.

[stone]

Clive, is it any easier to choose a decent financial advisor than to choose an investment strategy on your own? My personal advice would be to hold the PP with the cash portion expanded beyond 25% if you don't fully trust the PP. A basket of what financial advisors were pushing last year wouldn't have beaten the PP would it?

[stone]

Clive, the stock only investment trust Lon:CTY has a greater dividend yield than the LTT yield and has seemingly "safe" stocks (eg National Grid, GSK, Shell etc). Why would it not be sensible for a retiree to have some LTT, some gold, some cash (such as ILSC or the US equivalent if available) and some of such a dividend stock fund (ie have a "dividend" PP)? To my mind the stocks might have the dividends cut but also might have dividend growth as CTY has had for every year for the last 40years.

[TripleB]

Many here appear to have substantial amounts (faith) invested in the PP. I for one don't and would suggest wider diversification. Perhaps risking no more than 5% in any one single asset (so perhaps a PP of 20%) and reducing down any of those that rise to 7.5% weight back down to 5% weight of the whole. That way if any one asset does fail the losses are more tolerable.

Clive,

Do you suggest investing in 20 different "assets" to avoid having more than 5% in any single asset? Can you name 20 different "Assets"? I'd have a hard time coming up with 20 different assets, assuming you are counting stocks as one asset.

Unless you mean one asset could be TSM, another could be SCV, another EM. If so, I dislike that approach because they are all essentially stocks.

[Indices]

What is more diversified than the PP? Like TripleB said, a lot of different "assets" are just variations on stocks or are closely correlated with stock movements.

[stone]

Triple B, I'm not advocating it but I guess you could have a soup with government bonds of various durations from various countries; TIPS from various countries; various types of commodities, various types of REITs, junk bonds, investment grade corporate bonds; stocks from around the world -small cap, large cap etc etc. My guess is that it would end up being more volatile and lower performing than the PP.

[stone]

Clive, in 2008 most of those just fell into line and followed stocks down the toilet didn't they? What mattered then was how much LTT you had (for a US saver) or gold (for a UK saver). What seems crucial to me that no more than half of the portfolio is prone to a  "risk off" crash or  a currency collapse.

[clacy]

Stone,

I don't think Clive is saying that you should invest in artwork and oranges in equal amounts as gold and stocks.  I think what he's saying is that perhaps people should consider diversifying by considering other strategies in addition to the HBPP.  

I happen to agree with Clive and I use a momentum strategy along with the HBPP.  But if I were looking to simplify or was only able to invest using one strategy, it would certainly be the PP.  I think it is as sound as it comes when you factor in performance versus volatility.

[AdamA]

Will I have all my eggs in one basket?

The whole point of the PP is that you do not have all of your eggs in one basket.  The four assets in the HB PP give you plenty of diversity.

I like the HB x 4 a little bit better than using only PRPFX, because you spread out your institutional risk when you do it yourself.  If you use PRPFX, the asset diversity is great, but there is obviously no institutional diversity.

[stone]

Clive "'The End of the World is Nigh' 2008/9 emotions did hit practically everything adversely for a relatively brief period of time"

The only reason those emotions turned out to be unfounded was because of the government bailouts. Can those be relied on next time around? Even with the bailouts, it still paid to be with the PP because the other PP assets allowed stocks to be rebalanced into so as to make the most of the government bailout largess.
Perhaps with the next crash, they will decide that, in the light of history, the 2009 bailout just set the scene for the subsequent much more severe crash and a totally different tack might be taken instead.

[craigr]

Does everyone on thus forum and Harry Brown recommend a 100% PP in drawdown [retirement]? I have no desire for a VP. Will I have all my eggs in one basket or is the allocation and diversification of the HBPP or PRPFX about as good as you can get with a reasonably low risk?

Would Harry Brown recommend a 100% PP in drawdown[retirement]? Best guess. Thanks for your previous replys and any current ones.

I was in early retirement for a while and I use the portfolio for all living expenses (still do). I was sure glad I was in it vs. the standard stock/bond split. I believe it offers much better protection for retirees than other asset allocations I've evaluated.

[frugal]

Does everyone on thus forum and Harry Brown recommend a 100% PP in drawdown [retirement]? I have no desire for a VP. Will I have all my eggs in one basket or is the allocation and diversification of the HBPP or PRPFX about as good as you can get with a reasonably low risk?

Would Harry Brown recommend a 100% PP in drawdown[retirement]? Best guess. Thanks for your previous replys and any current ones.

I was in early retirement for a while and I use the portfolio for all living expenses (still do). I was sure glad I was in it vs. the standard stock/bond split. I believe it offers much better protection for retirees than other asset allocations I've evaluated.

craigr,

can you please share your experience about ER?

Kindest regards.