Retirement (Decumulation) Portfolio vs Accumulation Portfolio

[BoomBustInvest]

Just curious as to what changes people have made to their portfolio once in retirement as compared to what was invested in before retirement in the accumulation phase?

The big pension providers (and investment managers) seem to still go for "60% global equities / 40% global bonds" (or whatever variation they currently favour - 70/30 etc) and then switch over to mostly bonds at retirement to reduce risk.

What I'm interested in is what people are actually invested in retirement. I believe many in the UK opt for a home bias UK Equity Income portfolio (maybe combined with bonds to reduce risk). Has anyone here remained in, for example, a standard globally diversified accumulation fund and shunned bonds and HYP stocks/funds? (... And then just sold down accumulation units based on growth in the fund?)

[JohnB]

100% global equity. But retiring early it needs to sustain me for 40 years, so I want good returns and can weather downturns

[Urbandreamer]

I'm intending to retire in the next few months and considering the same issues.

Currently I'm 97% equities, 2% bonds and 1% in a property fund.

I won't be adopting the 60/40 spread, but should consider how volatility will concern me once I have no income other than investment income.
The 45% drop when covid hit was uncomfortable. Sure my portfolio recovered, but it's still volatile, being down almost 35% at one point over the last year.

I created a spreadsheet categorizing each investment as low, medium, adventurous risk, by my judgment.
Possibly having only 22% in the "low" risk group may be too little, as I do. Especially as most of that would not be considered low risks by most.

Still I can't help my nature.

Another difficulty will be reversing the "what to buy" decision into "what to sell". Possibly it will enforce more effort on my part.

[Dod101]

I have been retired for more than 25 years and have always been about 95% in equities, the balance in a few bond funds. I rely on and live off my dividends (I have no pension except the State Pension) I certainly have a home bias but try to buy big international companies and of course some ITs which tend to invest mostly overseas.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

Just curious as to what changes people have made to their portfolio once in retirement as compared to what was invested in before retirement in the accumulation phase?

I thought about all the usual things said about bonds and the risk from equities and decided that I hope to be retired long enough to weather a few stock market storms. Anyhow, I needed some growth in payouts and a fairly high yield on the meagre lump sum I had at the time, so the result was 100% equities with a mixture of mostly high yield and a few growth or low yield funds. It's been successful, so far - which is all that anyone can say. I retired 12 years ago and have only my own investments apart from the State pension.

My HYP portfolio which is now in its 16th year can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=37389

I also have IT investment which I post on the HY shares and strategies board, an example recently here:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=37369

I have a bond fund, the Invesco Perpetual Monthly Income Plus fund. It's not ideal (I'm sure there are funds with lower charges), but I dumped some cash in it that I wasn't sure what to do with as a sort of emergency pot. It's OK, but the payout is more or less fixed - so not a patch on equities.

Arb.

[DrFfybes]

How long are you planning on being retired?

I saved properly for perhaps 20 years, I expect to be retired for longer than that. My aim when working was to grow my wealh by total return, and a lot of people see no reason to change that too much.

However, there is something to be said for living solely on dividends and leaving your investments to 'get on with it', or at least having part of your portfolio skewed more towards income paying. Making the mental switch to selling assets for income is difficult. Some people like to tinker, to rebalance, they enjoy the analysis and spreadhseets involved in tracking yield and performance and managing a portfolio, HYP or otherwise.

Some years TR wins, other times Income wins - there was a poster last year who wondered if VHYL would outperform VEVE in a downturn as it was concentrated in more extablished profitable dividend paying companies - I wish I'd acted on their suggestion sooner.

It also depends upon where your assets are kept - after an inheritance we are about 50% unsheltered. Consequently I have left my sheltered and some unsheltered assets as TR investments, and am taking Divis from the unsheltered ones. I also put some unsheltered into a system like the one Vanguard do where you pick your fund(s) and they autosell a fixed amount each month to generate an income - I look on it as like an annuity but I take the Capital risk, and I run this part down quite heavily taking over the 4% generally considered as a safe withdrawal rate instead of taking income from sheltered assets. Any surplus income goes into cash savings, or "The Mclaren Fund" as I optimistacally call it.

FWIW I just run a "total wealth" calculation every now and then, since 4th Feb last year I'm down 3.5%, but I took 1% as income. Is that good? - well it beats VEVE, but not VHYL

Paul

[DelianLeague]

I have been thinking about this recently as I will have to make a decision soon on how my SIPP will be invested due to imminent retirement.

Its interesting that many people are sticking with almost 100% equities. I was thinking of doing this for better returns and having a cash emergency fund for any barren years, similar to DARKA'S post, where he is using the yield from the previous year to live on (as a buffer).

I might be wrong but if you can do this using drawdown then why de-risk an equity portfolio and suffer low growth. I admit that this probably does work best if you have at least some other investments with income of a small defined Benefit pension.

D.L.

[NearlyThere]

I "retired" (stopped working) two years ago.

A small DB pension covers about a third of our income need. I crystalised half of my SIPP to top up a cash buffer which is about 5 years of non DB income. This is probably too much.

SIPP is all in global index funds, as are our ISA's. I also have unsheltered shares in the company I used to work for. I'm gradually moving these to more index trackers in the ISA's as allowances permit. Total split looks like this:

Global Index trackers 64%
Single company share 20%
Cash 16%

My plan (such as it is) is to run down cash over next couple of years and top it up with another SIPP crystalisation, which hopefully gives another couple of years before I start drawing down from the SIPP. State pensions not due till 2034, but a 4% drawdown from the SIPP should get us there.

I was intending just doing an annual sell of the index fund to support the drawdown, but am now musing if I should shift the SIPP investment to something like VHYL and take the dividend?

Also considering moving some of the cash buffer to an income fund like SMIF or NYCF, but not sure about that.

Neil

[tjh290633]

I retired in 1998 with a company pension, state pension and an annuity from a FSAVC and a company defined contribution pension. I had been saving in a number of funds and a few equities, which became concentrated in PEPS From 1987 onwards. I had it in mind that I might switch into fixed interest after I retired, but there was no advantage compared with higher yield equities. There never has been since that time. Consequently I am 100% in equities, of which about 70% are in a HYP held in an ISA and the remainder in fund ISAs and nominated accounts for my grandchildren, invested in Global ITs.

I was attracted to higher yield equities from the 1970s onwards, principally in commodity and natural resources funds. A small spattering of equities became a PEP as contribution levels allowed.. This was the genesis of my own HYP. My initial objective was to build a stream of dividends to provide income if I decided to leave paid employment. As it happens that was never needed.

In fact, pensions plus some part time employment was more than sufficient to meet normal living expenses, and dividend income was allowed to accumulate and drawn on to fund unusual expenses. Particular wedding anniversaries and birthdays can absorb considerable amounts, as can longer cruises. A decent cash reserve helps.

TJH

[ursaminortaur]

Just curious as to what changes people have made to their portfolio once in retirement as compared to what was invested in before retirement in the accumulation phase?

The big pension providers (and investment managers) seem to still go for "60% global equities / 40% global bonds" (or whatever variation they currently favour - 70/30 etc) and then switch over to mostly bonds at retirement to reduce risk.

What I'm interested in is what people are actually invested in retirement. I believe many in the UK opt for a home bias UK Equity Income portfolio (maybe combined with bonds to reduce risk). Has anyone here remained in, for example, a standard globally diversified accumulation fund and shunned bonds and HYP stocks/funds? (... And then just sold down accumulation units based on growth in the fund?)

The message that lifestyling, ie moving more into bonds as you approach retirement, is no longer a good choice finally seems to be being acknowledged by the financial media.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-11587939/One-million-older-workers-face-new-pensions-misery.html

The retirement plans of up to a million workers lie in tatters as the recent collapse in supposedly safe government bonds battered the value of their pension pots.

Most affected are those who took out workplace pensions in the 1990s and 2000s, or who paid into individual stakeholder plans over the past two decades with household names such as Legal & General, Fidelity Aegon, Aon and Scottish Widows.

Their pension pots are automatically moved to so-called 'lifestyling' funds, typically five years before retirement age.

These funds invest in fixed-income investments – including bonds – and are meant to be less risky than other, more volatile asset classes such as equities.

But the steep rise in interest rates has pushed up the yield on government bonds, known as gilts, causing bond prices to fall sharply.

The sell-off accelerated after ex-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng's disastrous mini-Budget in September until the Bank of England stepped in with a £19billion bailout.
.
.
.
'The irony is that these funds have included bonds because they are traditionally seen as safe assets, but this idea has been confounded over the last 12 months.'

This has led to renewed criticism of lifestyling funds and their default, one-size-fits-all investment approach, which shifts pensions savers out of equities and into bonds as they approach retirement, regardless of individual circumstances.

'Older workers have been let down by the Bank of England and their pensions provider,' said former Pensions Minister Ros Altmann.

'Lifestyling funds are totally unsuitable for many people. They don't fit their lifestyles any more but nobody asks the customer. Chickens are coming home to roost.'


Moving more into bonds to safeguard the value of your pension pot as you approached retirement made some sense when you were going to use that pot to buy an annuity. Most people nowadays though are using drawdown and keeping the pot invested and now with interest rates rising bonds are not the best place to invest.

[1nvest]

For a 30 year SWR measure, historically a stock-heavy portfolio achieved the same, or worse than a less aggressive asset allocation in around 35% of cases. Much of stock-heavy historic 'better' (above-average) is a consequence of relatively infrequent great gains cases, that typically arise out of start dates following deep-downs. Of the two, starting retirement with aggressive (stock-heavy) or conservative, and the latter has the capacity to be rotated into stock-heavy if/when deep-downs have occurred, quite a likely prospect at some time during a 30 year window, in effect has a higher possibility of capturing 'good-value' benefits compared to stock-heavy throughout.

A significant risk for retirement is the early years sequence-of-returns risk. If stocks halve, and then halve again in quick succession (similar to how stocks can double, and double again in quick succession), then along with drawing a income that might draw down the portfolio value to too-deeply-down (critical) levels. In mid/later retirement years shifting into stock-heavy can be fine, especially when the portfolio has already made good progress. If you start with a 4% SWR but after say 10 years the SWR value is just 2% of the ongoing portfolio value, then you can dial up the risk/volatility (higher weighting to stocks).

Higher bond weightings before and in earlier years of retirement is called a bond-tent - that helps reduce early years bad sequence of returns risk, but is also subject to the valuation levels at the time when that transitions back to stock-heavy. Some suggest that staying with conservative until good-value (deep-downs) have occurred is the better choice. A counter against that however is that when stocks are down, the inclination for many can be to sell rather than buy, it takes a certain character to be buying when others are selling. In part automating that, with something like Robert Lichello's AIM method, can help.

Markowitz opted initially for 50/50 stock/bonds, simply on the basis of he thought about how he might feel if stocks dropped a lot and he was stock-heavy, or if stocks gained a lot and he was bond-heavy.

Much of what others have/do is irrelevant, its a matter of personal circumstances and character, that each has to discover for themselves (and is dynamic). For those long into retirement whose portfolios have also grown to be way more-than-enough, supplemented with occupational and state pensions etc. then all-stock is fine. For others on the borderline, then conservative/safer may be deemed better/more-comfortable. Some may even start retirement with way more than enough already, perhaps having been all-stock during their accumulation years, such that carrying on with all-stock is also likely fine.

[naeclue]

I've ended up with a 40/60 split between preference shares and High Yield stocks. I hadn't checked the proportions until now.

I realized that I am not great at stock picking about 15 years ago, and switched to buying and (mostly) forgetting with a High Yield Portfolio. Doing not much has proved to be a big upgrade on my prior attempts at outperforming the market, and I found about 5-7 years ago I was getting a yield that I could pretty much live on. I kept an eye on my spending to figure out what would be needed for a comfortable retirement, and let things run. I'm able to generate about 20% over and above my target, (the years I waited really had a good effect), and I'm two years into retirement. I'm not selling any holdings, it's all dividends.

My hope is that the preference shares (NWBD, BOI, GACA) will be tendered for by the companies involved at a decent premium, and I'll then switch into high yield stocks. I've kept 3 years of income on hand as cash. Special events have occurred through Aviva, BHP and Glaxo, and have swelled the coffers a bit too.

It's slightly nerve racking, but seems to chug along. The BOI/NWBD preference shares paid out through financial crises and covid, which is reassuring.

I can go back to work if necessary, but so far so good.

[Alaric]

I won't be adopting the 60/40 spread, but should consider how volatility will concern me once I have no income other than investment income.
The 45% drop when covid hit was uncomfortable. Sure my portfolio recovered, but it's still volatile, being down almost 35% at one point over the last year..

If you are living off investment income perhaps it's volatility of dividends rather than capital values that should be more concerning. Those too were vulnerable durng the Covid panic. Concentration of dividends with a limited number of Companies can also be a concern.

Fixed Interest has the advantage of being income that's less likely to cancel, but when yields were down in the 1% range, not very valuable either unless you have near infinite wealth.

Various mitigations are to hold some future expenditure in cash, rebuilt from dividends. Also by holding ITs, you get stabilised dividends managed for you, something not available with OEICs and ETFs.

[ursaminortaur]

For a 30 year SWR measure, historically a stock-heavy portfolio achieved the same, or worse than a less aggressive asset allocation in around 35% of cases. Much of stock-heavy historic 'better' (above-average) is a consequence of relatively infrequent great gains cases, that typically arise out of start dates following deep-downs. Of the two, starting retirement with aggressive (stock-heavy) or conservative, and the latter has the capacity to be rotated into stock-heavy if/when deep-downs have occurred, quite a likely prospect at some time during a 30 year window, in effect has a higher possibility of capturing 'good-value' benefits compared to stock-heavy throughout.

A significant risk for retirement is the early years sequence-of-returns risk. If stocks halve, and then halve again in quick succession (similar to how stocks can double, and double again in quick succession), then along with drawing a income that might draw down the portfolio value to too-deeply-down (critical) levels. In mid/later retirement years shifting into stock-heavy can be fine, especially when the portfolio has already made good progress. If you start with a 4% SWR but after say 10 years the SWR value is just 2% of the ongoing portfolio value, then you can dial up the risk/volatility (higher weighting to stocks).

Higher bond weightings before and in earlier years of retirement is called a bond-tent - that helps reduce early years bad sequence of returns risk, but is also subject to the valuation levels at the time when that transitions back to stock-heavy. Some suggest that staying with conservative until good-value (deep-downs) have occurred is the better choice. A counter against that however is that when stocks are down, the inclination for many can be to sell rather than buy, it takes a certain character to be buying when others are selling. In part automating that, with something like Robert Lichello's AIM method, can help.

Markowitz opted initially for 50/50 stock/bonds, simply on the basis of he thought about how he might feel if stocks dropped a lot and he was stock-heavy, or if stocks gained a lot and he was bond-heavy.

Much of what others have/do is irrelevant, its a matter of personal circumstances and character, that each has to discover for themselves (and is dynamic). For those long into retirement whose portfolios have also grown to be way more-than-enough, supplemented with occupational and state pensions etc. then all-stock is fine. For others on the borderline, then conservative/safer may be deemed better/more-comfortable. Some may even start retirement with way more than enough already, perhaps having been all-stock during their accumulation years, such that carrying on with all-stock is also likely fine.

The problem with that is that at the moment ,with interest rates rising after a long period of low interest rates and QE together with high inflation, bonds don't look to be at all safe.

[1nvest]

For a 30 year SWR measure, historically a stock-heavy portfolio achieved the same, or worse than a less aggressive asset allocation in around 35% of cases. Much of stock-heavy historic 'better' (above-average) is a consequence of relatively infrequent great gains cases, that typically arise out of start dates following deep-downs. Of the two, starting retirement with aggressive (stock-heavy) or conservative, and the latter has the capacity to be rotated into stock-heavy if/when deep-downs have occurred, quite a likely prospect at some time during a 30 year window, in effect has a higher possibility of capturing 'good-value' benefits compared to stock-heavy throughout.

A significant risk for retirement is the early years sequence-of-returns risk. If stocks halve, and then halve again in quick succession (similar to how stocks can double, and double again in quick succession), then along with drawing a income that might draw down the portfolio value to too-deeply-down (critical) levels. In mid/later retirement years shifting into stock-heavy can be fine, especially when the portfolio has already made good progress. If you start with a 4% SWR but after say 10 years the SWR value is just 2% of the ongoing portfolio value, then you can dial up the risk/volatility (higher weighting to stocks).

Higher bond weightings before and in earlier years of retirement is called a bond-tent - that helps reduce early years bad sequence of returns risk, but is also subject to the valuation levels at the time when that transitions back to stock-heavy. Some suggest that staying with conservative until good-value (deep-downs) have occurred is the better choice. A counter against that however is that when stocks are down, the inclination for many can be to sell rather than buy, it takes a certain character to be buying when others are selling. In part automating that, with something like Robert Lichello's AIM method, can help.

Markowitz opted initially for 50/50 stock/bonds, simply on the basis of he thought about how he might feel if stocks dropped a lot and he was stock-heavy, or if stocks gained a lot and he was bond-heavy.

Much of what others have/do is irrelevant, its a matter of personal circumstances and character, that each has to discover for themselves (and is dynamic). For those long into retirement whose portfolios have also grown to be way more-than-enough, supplemented with occupational and state pensions etc. then all-stock is fine. For others on the borderline, then conservative/safer may be deemed better/more-comfortable. Some may even start retirement with way more than enough already, perhaps having been all-stock during their accumulation years, such that carrying on with all-stock is also likely fine.

The problem with that is that at the moment ,with interest rates rising after a long period of low interest rates and QE together with high inflation, bonds don't look to be at all safe.

Just as safe as ever. Cyclical. You used to be able to buy say £10,000 of inflation adjusted income in ten years time for less than £10,000 of present day money (positive real yields). Since the financial crisis that's swung the other way around and you have to put down more than £10,000 of present day money to buy £10,000 of inflation adjusted income in ten years time. A factor there however is that whilst it costs more, gains were more/faster, enabling many to conceptually retire earlier than might otherwise have been the case when working to a fixed/general rule such as 25x/4% SWR. Someone working to a 4% SWR, 25 times yearly spending target 'enough to retire', looking for £10K/year to supplement other income (pensions/whatever), £250K objective/target pot, and in a good up run the transition from having £150K to £250K might have taken just a couple/few years due to good stock gains, whereas under other circumstances the additional £100K might have taken many years to add. For the former, a case of "oh, you've arrived a few years earlier than expected - sorry but you'll have to pay (accumulate) more. The same £10K/year income objective will require you to hit a £300K amount" (negative real yields). Whereas in other cases it may be "oh, you're running quite late, don't worry about hitting the £250K figure, £200K will do instead" (positive real yields).

Some/many even might weight bonds in order to liability match their spending. £9K/year state pension, £11K/year occupational pension, £20K/year combined, and if their spending is £30K/year then £10K/year terminal inflation adjusted bonds for 30 years projected timeframe (65 to 95) ... a inflation bond 30 year rung ladder might cost £250K, £300K or £350K (or whatever) depending on real yields at the time. Any additional capital above and beyond that can be invested however they like, is superfluous to requirements/objective (icing on the cake).

[ursaminortaur]

For a 30 year SWR measure, historically a stock-heavy portfolio achieved the same, or worse than a less aggressive asset allocation in around 35% of cases. Much of stock-heavy historic 'better' (above-average) is a consequence of relatively infrequent great gains cases, that typically arise out of start dates following deep-downs. Of the two, starting retirement with aggressive (stock-heavy) or conservative, and the latter has the capacity to be rotated into stock-heavy if/when deep-downs have occurred, quite a likely prospect at some time during a 30 year window, in effect has a higher possibility of capturing 'good-value' benefits compared to stock-heavy throughout.

A significant risk for retirement is the early years sequence-of-returns risk. If stocks halve, and then halve again in quick succession (similar to how stocks can double, and double again in quick succession), then along with drawing a income that might draw down the portfolio value to too-deeply-down (critical) levels. In mid/later retirement years shifting into stock-heavy can be fine, especially when the portfolio has already made good progress. If you start with a 4% SWR but after say 10 years the SWR value is just 2% of the ongoing portfolio value, then you can dial up the risk/volatility (higher weighting to stocks).

Higher bond weightings before and in earlier years of retirement is called a bond-tent - that helps reduce early years bad sequence of returns risk, but is also subject to the valuation levels at the time when that transitions back to stock-heavy. Some suggest that staying with conservative until good-value (deep-downs) have occurred is the better choice. A counter against that however is that when stocks are down, the inclination for many can be to sell rather than buy, it takes a certain character to be buying when others are selling. In part automating that, with something like Robert Lichello's AIM method, can help.

Markowitz opted initially for 50/50 stock/bonds, simply on the basis of he thought about how he might feel if stocks dropped a lot and he was stock-heavy, or if stocks gained a lot and he was bond-heavy.

Much of what others have/do is irrelevant, its a matter of personal circumstances and character, that each has to discover for themselves (and is dynamic). For those long into retirement whose portfolios have also grown to be way more-than-enough, supplemented with occupational and state pensions etc. then all-stock is fine. For others on the borderline, then conservative/safer may be deemed better/more-comfortable. Some may even start retirement with way more than enough already, perhaps having been all-stock during their accumulation years, such that carrying on with all-stock is also likely fine.

The problem with that is that at the moment ,with interest rates rising after a long period of low interest rates and QE together with high inflation, bonds don't look to be at all safe.

Just as safe as ever. Cyclical. You used to be able to buy say £10,000 of inflation adjusted income in ten years time for less than £10,000 of present day money (positive real yields). Since the financial crisis that's swung the other way around and you have to put down more than £10,000 of present day money to buy £10,000 of inflation adjusted income in ten years time.

We are talking here about fixed interest bonds not inflation linked bonds. In a high inflation environment fixed interest bonds lose value in real terms.

[1nvest]

We are talking here about fixed interest bonds not inflation linked bonds. In a high inflation environment fixed interest bonds lose value in real terms.

Oh, lending to someone who cat set the terms, and taxation rate, and interest rate, and even direct inflation (print money), where for more recent years they charged you to hold your money instead of you just leaving it under the mattress

It's interesting (at least to me), that longer term (century+), that much of UK inflation might have been mitigated if you'd equally held three currencies, £ invested in a home/land, hard US$ bills and gold. Reduced broad inflation down to around 0.5% annualised IIRC. Silly though to store US$ bills under the mattress, that's more for headbangers

better instead to perhaps drop those $$$'s into US stocks.

Thirds each land (home), US stock, gold, three currencies, reduced counter-party risk, three assets (land, stocks, commodity). Factor in imputed rent benefit, the rent you'd otherwise have to find/pay to live in a similar size/location home, and there's no need to lend to a sharkster such as Mr Gilts (who can all too easily rig the table odds in their favour).

Simples And as advocated by the Talmud millennia ago (thirds each land, business, in hand reserves).

You can't rebalance a house easily, selling some tiles off the roof, or some of the brickwork ... doesn't tend to work out well. However there's no need to rebalance once initially loaded, just take your SWR from whichever is the most up at the time out of stocks or gold. Over 30 years rebalanced, or not, tends to wash, similar outcomes either way. BRK and MKL (baby BRK) for the US stocks - that pay no dividends, held within ISA, and as your primary home (and imputed rent) are tax exempt, as are Sovereign/Britannia gold coins, it can be cost/tax efficient.

[1nvest]

I have been retired for more than 25 years and have always been about 95% in equities, the balance in a few bond funds. I rely on and live off my dividends (I have no pension except the State Pension) I certainly have a home bias but try to buy big international companies and of course some ITs which tend to invest mostly overseas.

Dod

The two years 1973/1974 saw FT All Share price decline 75% real, real dividends fell 66% in value, inflation was still rising and after a 16% 1974 inflation year, inflation was running at over 24% in 1975. Might have been very troubling for a retired individual living off dividends and heavily into stocks. 1975 did see a massive rebound in share prices, when they rebounded 136%, but even with that the share price was still down by more than half in real terms, and that assumes a stock-heavy retiree continued to persist with stocks after seeing the capital value massively down, along with dividend income.

I know Terry persisted through those years, but he was accumulating, when you're also drawing income for your spending I suspect its a much harder thing to do/live-through. More so when you factor in that whilst some may have done better, others likely did worse than the FT All Share. For accumulators its far easier, as you added new money (savings) into large down runs (great value).

Since the 1980's, following the bad 1970's, stocks (and bonds) have been pretty much a sure thing. But that very high to very low interest rate transition era has come to a end, we're closer to a repeat of the 1970's (bad case) than we are to a repeat of the 1980's (good case).

If you don't mind me asking Dod, what is your plan B, or how well do you think you might cope if we did endure a repeat of 1973/1974 type declines? Had say £500K paying £20K in dividends and a couple of years later had the equivalent of less than £125K paying £6K dividends. The few books I've seen by stock-heavy retirees after such hits seem to more often suggest they capitulated, to save what little remained. As did I believe Grouch Marx after the Wall Street Crash hit.

[Dod101]

Well that would be when my index linked cash savings might have to be called upon, but I reckon I could reduce my spending by about 40/50% if I had to. A lot of it is discretionary at the moment.

Dod

[OhNoNotimAgain]

I just switched from Accumulation class to Income units.