I may have, er, been wrong about being wrong. I missed the other half when I returned to this thread, and just saw the legacy part.Well, it's not clear that with the "75 year old better half can manage easily" requirement it should be a rolling ladder.Actually, I was wrong about this being a non-rolling ladder. Image may be NSFW.True in this case, but auto-roll was mentioned earlier in the thread. However if it's non-rolling and all the money isn't spent, what will happen to it? Money market? If it's going to end up there anyway then keeping it in a ladder for a few years seems only marginally beneficial.In this particular case—and many cases—it’s a non-rolling ladder and no need to make replacement rings.When we replace for example a 2 or 3-fund portfolio with a ladder of some combination of nominal bonds and TIPS, and then proceed down the slippery slope to make replacing the rungs contingent on analyzing interest rates, we discourage some of the intended audience. And we probably risk introducing errors that would produce worse results than simpler solutions.
Clik here to view.I confused this with another thread.
I’m still not sold on bond funds for someone who specifically doesn’t want them, but I made the wrong argument for the thread.
But not, IMO, the wrong recommendation. For this thread, the goal of (1) capital preservation and (2) not-bond-funds makes a rolling TIPS ladder seem like a decent bet. If real yields go negative again at reinvestment time, a different decision can be made then.
Multi-decade non-rolling ladder now seems like a good plan. As does not responding by phone to long threads that are hard to review on my phone.
Statistics: Posted by BirdFood — Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:47 am — Replies 35 — Views 2880
