RgStudio
Even some of the smartest people can make foolish financial decisions.
I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people." - Sir Isaac Newton
Isaac Newton revolutionized physics but also is famous for losing a fortune in the South Sea Bubble.
Already a wealthy man, Newton was usually a cautious investor. As the year began, much of his money was tucked away in various kinds of government bonds-reliable, uneventful investments that delivered a regular stream of income. He did own shares in a few of the larger companies on the exchange, including South Sea, but he had never been a rapid or eager market trader...
That had changed in the past few months, though, as he bought and sold into the rising market seemingly in the hopes of turning a comfortable fortune into an enormous one. By August, he'd unloaded most of his bonds, converting them and other assets into South Sea shares. Now he contemplated selling the rest of his bonds to buy still more shares...
He did sell nearly all of them. It was a disastrous choice. Within three weeks, the market turned. By Christmas, it had utterly collapsed. Newton's losses reached millions of dollars in 21st-century money." - The Atlantic (emphasis added)
Today I wanted to highlight another brilliant man, who let the fear of missing out, or FOMO, get the better of him, with disastrous financial results.
My uncle is the smarter person I know, as his resume attests to:
But just like Newton, who was blessed with incredible brilliance and generous wealth, such success can breed complacency and very poor risk management.
In the crypto craze the swept the world following the Pandemic, great fortunes were made, with people turning $5,000 into $5 million in just a few months.
My uncle was caught up in this craze like many others, but rather than invest a few thousand he threw $1 million into crypto.
Well as many of you know, Terra USD, the algorithmic stablecoin, blew up in spectacular fashion, rapidly collapsing to zero.
And Celsius, the largest crypto lender in the world, with $20 billion in customer assets at its peak, became the third large crypto company to file for bankruptcy in the last two weeks.
A few weeks ago, when Celsius froze all customer accounts, due to the equivalent of a crypto bank run, and stinging from the Terra collapse that wiped out $70 billion in total wealth in that ecosystem, my uncle came to me and asked me to help him to salvage his still considerable nest egg.
Having learned the hard way, the pitfalls of rampant speculation, he wanted me to guide him in assessing his risk profile and crafting a reasonable and prudent ultra-sleep well at night or SWAN retirement portfolio.
His goals are far more modest now, no longer swinging for the fences and trying to become a billionaire in the most volatile and speculative asset class in history.
So here's how I helped my uncle, who is fortunate to have $20K per month he can put to work via high savings in dollar-cost-averaging, build a $1 million dream retirement portfolio.
We named this his Zen Extraordinary Ultra SWAN Income Growth Portfolio, or ZEUS Income Growth portfolio for short.
Let me show you how we applied the principles of disciplined financial science, specifically safety and quality first, and prudent valuation and sound risk management always, to craft his dream retirement portfolio.
One that is 99.12% likely to help him retire in safety and splendor in the coming decades, no matter what happens with the economy or stock market in the future.
Having tired of hyper volatility after losing $1 million in crypto, my uncle had a few key goals for his ZEUS Income Growth or ZIG portfolio.
To me this sounds like every retiree's dream, and here's how we built such a truly extraordinary bunker SWAN retirement portfolio.
I've linked to articles exploring each of these dividend ETFs/blue chips, including a detailed analysis of their long-term investment thesis, risk profile, growth outlook, valuation, and return potential.
The essence of a ZEUS portfolio is the following ratio of assets:
Why this ratio? Nick Maggiulli, the chief data scientist for Ritholtz Wealth Management, in his new book "Just Keep Buying," shows how, over the long term, a 33% bond allocation is optimal for most blue-chip portfolios that want to maximize volatility-adjusted returns.
This agrees with my own research, testing out dozens of combinations of stocks, bonds, and ETFs, to see what is the long-term recession-optimized blue-chip portfolio ratio.
Why own bonds at all? My uncle is 40-years-old and has a 50-plus year time horizon. Shouldn't he be 100% stocks? Mathematically speaking, if all he wanted to do was maximize his wealth, yes.
But remember that he just suffered a $1 million loss that's emotionally very traumatizing and we're potentially headed for a recessionary bear market in which stocks could fall between 30% to 48%.
What's mathematically optimal always takes a back seat to what's optimal for you personally.
Why choose bonds as his method of hedging the portfolio?
Because according to a study from Duke University long bonds are the best historical hedging option.
Ben Carlson, Fortune
Since WWII, including during the stagfation of the 1970s, 92% of the time stocks fell bonds were stable or went up.
Why go with EDV instead of ZROZ, the longest duration Treasury ETF?
What does this mean? Let me give you an example.
Do you know how many hedge funds are able to go up 38% to 50% in a recessionary bear market? Almost none.
Do you know how many hedge funds charge a 0.06% expense ratio? None.
Do you know what EDV's inflation-adjusted long-term returns are?
How many hedging strategies pay you 0.8% to provide such potent hedging power in even the most extreme market crashes? None.
Why the Nasdaq? It's true that there are lots of wonderful dividend growth ETFs, and SCHD and VIG are excellent alternatives.
But do you know how many were able to deliver:
The QQQs are not perfect, but they deliver unquestionably excellent income and wealth compounding thanks to being dominated by the world's most dominant and cash-rich innovation leaders.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Across every time frame, QQQ's average rolling returns significantly surpass every growth ETF over statistically significant time periods (10+ years).
SCHD offers an unbeatable combination of:
What about ENB, BTI, and MO?
Each of these companies has historically low volatility, offers a very safe yield of over 6%, and analysts expect 13% to 16.5% long-term total returns.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
An Ultra Low-Risk Portfolio
My uncle's No. 1 priority was that the portfolio as a whole absolutely can't ever go to zero. And here's why it can't.
EDV is a risk-free asset long-term backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Does that actually mean risk-free?
The reason that US bonds are "risk-free" assets is simple.
But do you know what else is actually risk-free, using the same definition?
Any blue-chip index fund, including QQQM and SCHD.
The average blue-chip quality company has a BBB+ credit rating, a 5% fundamental risk of going to zero within 30 years according to rating agencies.
QQQ and SCHD own companies with even stronger balance sheets, A-rated companies (just like the dividend aristocrats).
The probability of 100 companies, spread out across almost 10 sectors, all going bankrupt is so close to zero, that the only way it can happen is in the same doomsday scenario in which the US government is wiped out and US bonds default.
Later in this article, I'll literally show you a 1 in 400 economic doomsday scenario and why it's essentially impossible for blue-chip index funds to go to zero.
So in the case of my uncle's ZIG portfolio, two-thirds of it is effectively risk-free assets.
What about the three high-yield, low volatility, recession-resistant Ultra SWAN quality dividend aristocrats, ENB, BTI, and MO (a dividend king)?
They are not risk free:
The weighted risk of these companies going to zero is 2%.
And 66% of the ZIG portfolio can't go to zero, barring the literal apocalypse.
What about the overall portfolio's fundamentals? How do they meet my uncle's requirements? Just take a look.
Metric | 60/40 | ZEUS Income Growth | X Better Than 60/40 |
Yield | 1.7% | 4.3% | 2.53 |
Growth Consensus | 5.1% | 5.8% | 1.14 |
LT Consensus Total Return | 6.8% | 10.1% | 1.49 |
Risk-Adjusted Expected Return | 4.8% | 7.1% | 1.49 |
Safe Withdrawal Rate (Risk And Inflation-Adjusted Expected Returns) | 2.3% | 4.6% | 2.01 |
Time To Double (Years) | 31.4 | 15.7 | 0.50 |
(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)
2.5X the yield of a 60/40, 50% higher consensus annual return potential, 2X the safe consensus withdrawal rate, and half the doubling time of a 60/40 retirement portfolio.
In fact, analysts think this portfolio will potentially match the S&P 500's 10.3% long-term returns. Except that it's not a pure stock portfolio but a 67/33 collection of the world's best blue-chip income-producing assets.
What does that potentially mean for my uncle, who does plan to retire until 70, in 30 years?
Time Frame (Years) | 4.3% CAGR Inflation-Adjusted 60/40 | 7.7% Inflation-Adjusted ZEUS Income Growth Consensus | Difference Between ZEUS Income Growth Consensus and 60/40 |
5 | $1,235,486.18 | $736,702.61 | -$498,783.57 |
10 | $1,526,426.10 | $1,063,548.13 | -$462,877.97 |
15 | $1,885,878.35 | $1,535,401.94 | -$350,476.41 |
20 | $2,329,976.64 | $2,216,598.45 | -$113,378.20 |
25 | $2,878,653.95 | $3,200,014.63 | $321,360.68 |
30 | $3,556,537.17 | $4,619,733.27 | $1,063,196.11 |
(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)
The current FactSet consensus estimates that over 30 years, assuming no additional investments, (just DRIPing dividends) my uncle's ZIG portfolio will grow to $4.6 million, adjusted for inflation, $1.1 more than a 60/40 is likely to deliver.
Time Frame (Years) | Ratio ZEUS Income Growth Consensus Vs 60/40 |
5 | 0.60 |
10 | 0.70 |
15 | 0.81 |
20 | 0.95 |
25 | 1.11 |
30 | 1.30 |
(Source: DK Research Terminal, FactSet)
Potentially resulting in 30% more inflation-adjusted wealth.
OK, so his is all very nice and good, very elegant math, but what evidence is there that this ZIG portfolio can actually deliver long-term returns of close to 10%? And with very low volatility? Especially in bear markets?
The future doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but studies show that blue chips with relatively stable fundamentals over time offer predictable returns based on yield, growth, and valuation mean reversion.
So let's take a look at the historical returns of my uncle's ZIG portfolio to see how it's performed over the last 11 years when 90% of returns were the result of fundamentals, not luck.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Over the last 11 years, this ZIG portfolio delivered 9.4% annual returns with 9.9% average annual volatility and a peak decline of 13.8%.
Had my uncle invested that $1 million into ZIG 11 years ago, rather than lose it all in speculative crypto assets, today it would be worth $2.6 million, $300K more than a 60/40 would have delivered.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Adjusted for inflation, that $1 million would have doubled, $200K more than a 60/40 would have delivered.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
ZIG's average rolling return has slightly outperformed a 60/40 across every time frame of the last 11 years.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
In the Pandemic crash, a 60/40 fell 12%, and ZIG only fell 6%, 69% less than the S&P 500 and half as much as a 60/40.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium) (Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium) (Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium) (Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
In this bear market, the worst bond bear market since 1788, a 60/40 is down 17%, the S&P 20%, and the Nasdaq 29%.
ZIG is down just 14%, despite 50% of its assets being crushed.
What about Income Growth Over Time?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Like most bond funds, EDV has a somewhat variable payout resulting in modest annual dividend fluctuations. But overall, it delivers very steady income growth at a rate far above the rate of inflation.
Portfolio | 2012 Income Per $1 Million Investment | 2022 Income Per $1 Million Investment | Annual Income Growth | Starting Yield | 2022 Yield On Cost |
S&P 500 | $25,088 | $57,296 | 8.61% | 2.5% | 5.7% |
Nasdaq | $14,317 | $36,702 | 9.87% | 1.4% | 3.7% |
ZEUS Income Growth | $49,447 | $113,998 | 8.71% | 4.9% | 11.4% |
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
ZIG managed to keep up with the S&P and Nasdaq in terms of income growth despite being 33% hedged in bonds that never grow their income.
What about future income growth?
Analyst Consensus Income Growth Forecast | Risk-Adjusted Expected Income Growth | Risk And Tax-Adjusted Expected Income Growth | Risk, Inflation, And Tax Adjusted Income Growth Consensus |
9.3% | 6.5% | 5.6% | 3.0% |
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Analysts expect ZIG to keep growing its annual income at 9% over time, which when adjusted for the risk of companies not growing as expected, inflation, and taxes is 3% real expected income growth.
Now compare that to what they expect from the S&P 500.
Time Frame | S&P Inflation-Adjusted Dividend Growth | S&P Inflation-Adjusted Earnings Growth |
1871-2021 | 1.6% | 2.1% |
1945-2021 | 2.4% | 3.5% |
1981-2021 (Modern Falling Rate Era) | 2.8% | 3.8% |
2008-2021 (Modern Low Rate Era) | 3.5% | 6.2% |
FactSet Future Consensus | 2.0% | 5.2% |
(Sources: S&P, FactSet, Multipl.com)
What about a 60/40 retirement portfolio?
In other words, this high-yield blue-chip portfolio offers:
This is the power of combining blue-chip ETFs, bonds, and blue-chip stocks in this bear market.
But wait, it gets better.
SCHD has only been around since November of 2011, but VYM makes for a reasonable proxy.
SCHD and VYM Since November 2011
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
SCHD and VYM have similar volatility profiles, with peak declines and annual volatility that are nearly identical.
If we swap out SCHD for VYM and VEDTX (EDV's institutional older version) then we can get a reasonable approximation of how ZIG would have performed going back to December 2007, right at the start of the Great Recession, the 2nd largest stock market crash in US history.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
ZIG's long-term consensus return forecast is 10.1%. Since 2011 it's delivered 9.4% annual returns and average annual returns of 10.8%.
Over the last 15 years, it likely would have delivered around 10.2% annual returns, just as analysts expect in the future.
Except that since late 2007 it's not just outperformed 60/40 by 3.4% per year, but also the S&P 500 by 1.5% per year.
The secret is in the low volatility.
Now the Sortino ratio (negative volatility-adjusted excess total returns) are not only 62% better than a 60/40 but 80% better than the S&P 500.
Except that thanks to falling 1/3 as much as the Nasdaq, over the last 15 years, ZIG's negative volatility-adjusted returns are 32% better than the Nasdaq.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Over the last 15 years, my uncle's squandered $1 million would have become almost $3 million adjusted for inflation.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
ZIG's average rolling return, for a 67/33 portfolio, has almost matched the S&P 500...for 15 years.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
How many bear markets has the S&P experienced since Dec 2007?
Five. How many has ZIG suffered? ZERO.
It's down less than 14% in this bear market.
But wait, it gets better.
Historical backtesting is great but we need to know what kind of returns and volatility are likely in the future.
In other words, the last 15 years were so extreme, that it creates a good statistical data source for stress testing for the next 75 years.
Here I'm stress testing every ETF with a 10+ year track record.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Even factoring in the highest tax bracket, state taxes, the ACA surcharge, the 50th percentile base case for my uncle's ZIG portfolio is 8.8% returns, or 6.6% after inflation.
What does this mean? That these portfolios offers an 80% statistical probability of:
Now compare it to a 60/40 using historical data going back to 1992.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
A 60/40 offers an 80% statistical probability of:
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
ZIG Vs 60/40: 75-Year Monte Carlo Simulation Summary
Metric | 60/40 | ZEUS Income Growth Portfolio | ZIG Vs 60/40 | Winner 60/40 | Winner ZEUS Income Growth |
Worst-Case Annual Post-Tax Return (Highest Tax Bracket) | 5.79% | 7.56% | 1.77% | 1 | |
Best-Case Annual Post-Tax Return | 7.98% | 10.05% | 2.07% | 1 | |
Base-Case Annual Post Tax Return | 6.90% | 8.79% | 1.89% | 1 | |
Worst-Case Inflation-Adjusted Annual Post-Tax Return (Highest Tax Bracket) | 3.31% | 5.39% | 2.08% | 1 | |
Best-Case Inflation-Adjusted Annual Post-Tax Return (Highest Tax Bracket) | 5.50% | 7.84% | 2.34% | 1 | |
Base-Case Inflation-Adjusted Annual Post-Tax Return (Highest Tax Bracket) | 4.43% | 6.62% | 2.19% | 1 | |
Worst Case Final Portfolio Value (Factoring In Annual Withdrawals) | $1,989,114 | $6,900,908 | $4,911,794 | 1 | |
Best Case Final Portfolio Value (Factoring In Annual Withdrawals) | $9,252,633 | $38,511,933 | $29,259,300 | 1 | |
Base Case Final Portfolio Value (Factoring In Annual Withdrawals) | $4,347,406 | $16,208,333 | $11,860,927 | 1 | |
Worst Case Inflation-Adjusted Final Portfolio Value (Factoring In Annual Withdrawals) | $337,687 | $1,507,786 | $1,170,099 | 1 | |
Best Case Inflation-Adjusted Final Portfolio Value (Factoring In Annual Withdrawals) | $1,628,400 | $8,436,413 | $6,808,013 | 1 | |
Base Case Inflation-Adjusted Final Portfolio Value (Factoring In Annual Withdrawals) | $754,063 | $3,586,239 | $2,832,176 | 1 | |
Maximum Decline- Worst Case | 12.57% | 12.67% | 0.10% | 1 | |
Maximum Decline- Best Case | 21.61% | 21.75% | 0.14% | 1 | |
Maximum Decline- Base Case | 16.16% | 16.17% | 0.01% | 1 | |
Safe Withdrawal Rate - Worst Case | 3.21% | 5.12% | 1.91% | 1 | |
Safe Withdrawal Rate- Best Case | 5.22% | 7.27% | 2.05% | 1 | |
Safe Withdrawal Rate - Base Case | 4.24% | 6.21% | 1.97% | 1 | |
Total | 3 | 15 |
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
The 60/40 is expected to be slightly less volatile over time.
But notice how ZEUS, despite 7% less bond exposure has a very similar peak decline profile of the 60/40, but MUCH higher long-term likely returns.
And remember this is AFTER pulling out 4.6% of the portfolio each year.
What are the probabilities of losses over the next 75 years?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
There's a 0.18% probability that my uncle's ZIG portfolio experiences a 20% bear market in the next 75 years.
And a zero probability of a 27.5+% decline. Even if we get another 50+% market crash.
The probability of losing money over 75 years? Statistically zero.
What about the probability of not achieving sufficient returns to meet my uncle's long-term goals (5% annual returns)?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
The probability of 5+% returns over the next 50 years is 99.88%.
The probability of 7.5% long-term returns over 50 years is 85.6%.
Is this the perfect portfolio? No, but it's close to the perfect portfolio for my uncle's goals, time horizon, and risk profile.
You can optimize a portfolio using statistical data to get an idea of whether or not your asset allocation is reasonable and prudent for your needs.
Consider this optimization:
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Note how the asset allocation is a lot different than what my uncle is actually using.
SCHD instead of VYM ((Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium))
You can optimize for many variables, such as the volatility-adjusted returns or Sharpe ratio.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
But does being perfect matter? Not really.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Notice how the Sortino for my uncle's ZIG portfolio is almost identical to the volatility maximized portfolio and similar to the one with the highest volatility adjusted return.
OK, so now we've seen why my uncle chose these six dividend blue-chip assets to save his retirement.
We've stress tested them against historical returns. But now let's crank up the safety to the max with the ultimate stress test.
This isn't just a stress test, it's a doomsday scenario tester for any portfolio.
This is equivalent to another Great Depression. Why?
Because it's the equivalent of five recessionary bear markets... back to back... all at once.
A 10-year Great Financial Crisis and a worse economy than the Great Depression... the worst economy in US history... by far.
We use the 10th percentile simulation results to define our worst-case Great Depression scenario.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
In the worst-case scenario, of another Great Depression, there is a 10% chance that the S&P 500 falls as much as 81%.
The Nasdaq could crash as much as 97%.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
A 60/40, worst-case, during another Great Depression, has a 10% probability of falling 53%.
How about ZEUS Income Growth?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
What are the probabilities of peak declines in this doomsday scenario?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Including the 4.6% withdrawal rate a virtual certainty of a greater than 40% decline, though 0% probability of losing money over the long term.
What about the probability of earning high enough returns to meet my uncle's needs (5% annual returns)?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
The probability of 5% returns over 50 years (my uncle's time frame including retirement), is 99.38%.
That's why my uncle is sleeping well at night in this bear market. Worried about recession? Do you think it's going to lead to a 10-year bear market? The worst economy in US history? The complete collapse of the stock market and global economy?
If not, then my uncle's ability to retire rich and stay rich in retirement is as close to 100% as is possible in this world.
Stress testing a 75-year period is to simulate the realistic bear markets of the future, and stress test against the worst possible economy possible (without the world ending).
But here's my uncle's actual retirement plan.
What are these six blue-chip dividend assets likely to accomplish for my uncle?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Thanks to heavy DCA my uncle's likely peak declines are likely to be 10% in the typical bear market over the next 30 years.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
The probability of a 20%-plus bear market in the next 30 years? Statistically 0.1%.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
The probability of earning at least 5%-plus returns? 99.12%.
The probability of earning at least 7.5%? 75.16%.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
The probability of earning at least 6.6% annual returns? 90%.
What about income?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
My uncle is 90% likely to end up with a minimum of $18.2 million, adjusted for inflation, by retirement. The base case scenario is $27.1 million with a best case of $41.4 million.
What does that mean in terms of income?
Using the base-case estimate of inflation-adjusted portfolio value after 30 years we can find out.
What happens when my uncle turns 70 and stops adding to his ZIG portfolio and instead starts withdrawing 4.6% per year (0.383% per month)?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
80% probability that, if my uncle does live to 125 (best case scenario) he will die with between $33 million and $149 million, adjusted for inflation.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
After 30 years of retirement (age 100), he's most likely to have $45.2 million with at least $26 million and possibly as much as $78 million, adjusted for inflation.
In fact, here is the probability of future declines for my uncle once he's in retirement.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
Probability of a 20+% bear market? 0.28%.
Probability of a 27.5+% decline? Statistically zero.
Probability of losing all his money? Statistically zero.
And here are the likely returns.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
And here's the probability of achieving his financial goals.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
The probability of success (5% annual returns)?
And what about income?
My uncle doesn't live lavishly but wants to be a philanthropist.
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
In year one of retirement, my uncle is 90% likely to be able to withdraw $1.2 million to $1.3 million, adjusted for inflation.
What about year 30?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
If my uncle lives to 125?
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
What about cumulative retirement income?
Retirement Year | Retirement Income (Inflation and Tax-Adjusted) |
1 | $1,264,062 |
2 | $1,288,978 |
3 | $1,312,481 |
4 | $1,337,037 |
5 | $1,357,238 |
6 | $1,383,027 |
7 | $1,406,465 |
8 | $1,432,004 |
9 | $1,456,388 |
10 | $1,487,804 |
11 | $1,512,943 |
12 | $1,540,958 |
13 | $1,562,794 |
14 | $1,584,981 |
15 | $1,614,395 |
16 | $1,684,885 |
17 | $1,671,276 |
18 | $1,698,694 |
19 | $1,721,605 |
20 | $1,752,974 |
21 | $1,791,525 |
22 | $1,816,838 |
23 | $1,847,354 |
24 | $1,878,018 |
25 | $1,912,936 |
26 | $1,935,381 |
27 | $1,970,601 |
28 | $2,023,476 |
29 | $2,051,143 |
30 | $2,086,898 |
31 | $2,107,681 |
32 | $2,144,921 |
33 | $2,180,244 |
34 | $2,221,056 |
35 | $2,267,311 |
36 | $2,312,915 |
37 | $2,353,371 |
38 | $2,386,589 |
39 | $2,443,203 |
40 | $2,469,562 |
41 | $2,543,801 |
42 | $2,574,770 |
43 | $2,636,807 |
44 | $2,666,591 |
45 | $2,709,258 |
46 | $2,762,591 |
47 | $2,796,258 |
48 | $2,849,957 |
49 | $2,921,394 |
50 | $2,965,402 |
51 | $3,008,745 |
52 | $3,051,721 |
53 | $3,110,782 |
54 | $3,179,232 |
55 | $3,228,947 |
Total | $115,278,268 |
Annualized Income Growth Rate | 1.68% (S&P 500 consensus: 1.7% CAGR) |
(Source: Portfolio Visualizer Premium)
My uncle's retirement plan includes not just recouping his $1 million crypto loss, but living richly, and donating over $100 million to his favorite charity.
This isn't just a good retirement, it's truly retiring in safety and splendor.
And it's 100% possible thanks to a focus on safety and quality first, prudent valuation and sound risk-management always, and these six dividend blue chips.
Even the smartest people can make the dumbest financial mistakes.
Most of us have never lost $1 million, and my goal is to help you practice disciplined financial science so that you never do.
Most of us are also not as lucky as my uncle, to be blessed with a high-paying job at a tech giant that allows us to buy $250,000 per year worth of stocks.
But the principles of saving your retirement from even costly mistakes, so you can rise like a Phoenix from the ashes and retire in safety and splendor apply to almost anyone.
My best friend lost 80% of his 401K to speculative tech... now he's 99% likely to retire thanks to a ZEUS portfolio I helped guide him in designing.
My father invested 65% of his 401K into BABA (vs a 2.5% OR LESS risk cap recommendation) and lost half of his retirement nest egg.
I helped guide him through a disciplined risk management process to craft an Ultra SWAN growth portfolio that is 90% likely to let him retire in comfort in just 10 years (age 70).
My uncle's $1 million loss, half his life savings, in a matter of weeks, is just an extreme example of how terrible risk management and speculative assets, can lead to retirement dream-crushing results.
I personally have lost about $650K due to poor life choices (most of it from my divorce and losing the house), but I've lost money speculating as well. In fact, over my 23 years of investing, I've tried every get-rich-quick scheme you can think of:
And do you know what losing a small fortune taught me? The truth of these words.
In order to win the game, first you must not lose it." - Chuck Noll
There are two times in a man's life when he should not speculate: when he can't afford it and when he can." - Mark Twain
We've all made mistakes we regret. We've all lost money in bad investments. And if you invest long enough you will eventually suffer losses.
That's because the stock market runs on probabilities, not certainties. Many people consider Wall Street a casino. And guess what? They're 100% right.
The stock market isn't a casino rigged against individual investors, it's rigged against short-term speculators.
And it's rigged in favor of the smart long-term investor who focuses on safety and quality first, and prudent valuation, and sound risk management always.
There are just two guarantees in the history of Wall Street.
Blue-chip index funds, whether for the S&P 500, Nasdaq, SCHD, VYM, or dozens of other wonderful choices, are truly "risk-free" assets.
The only way stocks fail to make money over time and beat inflation, is if the world ends, in which case we're too dead to care that we were wrong.
Not even the Great Depression and its 87% market crash, and 20% inflation after WWII were able to stop the market from delivering positive real returns in the worst 20-year period in US market history.
And as I showed in this article, even in a one in 400 worst-case scenario, a 10-year Great Recession, with an economy worse than the Great Depression, the S&P is 90% likely to never fall more than 81%.
And even if we experience such a decade-long cataclysm guess how many ETFs can't support a 4% withdrawal rate?
Today we face a potential mild recession in 2023. Stocks might fall 10% to 35% more, but guess what?
Fortunes are made in bear markets." - Todd Sullivan
This might not feel like it, but it's the best time to be buying world-class dividend paying blue-chips like:
These aren't the perfect dividend blue-chips for everyone, no stock is.
If you personally don't like pipelines or tobacco, you can replace the individual high-yield blue-chips with any number of great Ultra SWANs.
Everyone's investment goals are different, as are our risk profiles and time horizons.
The ideal retirement portfolio for you probably looks different than my uncle's ZIG portfolio.
You might not need to have 33% in cash and bonds.
In that case, feel free to own 100% stocks and ETFs. The key to recovering from costly financial mistakes, and still retiring in safety and splendor is to not lose hope and learn from our mistakes.
That's what Newton did after losing millions in the South Sea Bubble.
That's what my uncle did after his misadventures in crypto.
That's what my best friend did, after nuking his 401K.
That's what my father did, after buying a crazy large and very dangerous position in BABA.
And that's what I've done after losing my own small fortune to speculative mistakes and a very costly divorce.
Life is not about how many times you fall down. It's about how many times you get back up."- Jaime Escalante
Bear markets can be terrifying, especially if you are using the wrong asset mix for your risk profile.
But if you learn from your mistakes, and learn to focus on safety and quality first, and prudent valuation and sound risk management always, you can:
My goal isn't to help you score quick gains. My goal is to help teach you the principles of sound long-term investing, the same ones that have made the best investors in history, billionaires, and legends.
Whether you have $100 to invest, or $100 billion, the time-tested and fact-based approach I teach and live myself (after learning from my own mistakes) is the best chance you have to retire rich, and stay rich in retirement.
No matter what happens with inflation, interest rates, the economy or the stock market in the years or decades to come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dividend Kings helps you determine the best safe dividend stocks to buy via our Automated Investment Decision Tool, Research Terminals, Speciality Watchlists, Company Screener, and Daily Blue-Chip Deal Videos.
Membership also includes
Click here for a two-week free trial so we can help you achieve better long-term total returns and your financial dreams.
This article was written by
Adam Galas is a co-founder of Wide Moat Research ("WMR"), a subscription-based publisher of financial information, serving over 5,000 investors around the world. WMR has a team of experienced multi-disciplined analysts covering all dividend categories, including REITs, MLPs, BDCs, and traditional C-Corps.
The WMR brands include: (1) The Intelligent REIT Investor (newsletter), (2) The Intelligent Dividend Investor (newsletter), (3) iREIT on Alpha (Seeking Alpha), and (4) The Dividend Kings (Seeking Alpha).
I'm a proud Army veteran and have seven years of experience as an analyst/investment writer for Dividend Kings, iREIT, The Intelligent Dividend Investor, The Motley Fool, Simply Safe Dividends, Seeking Alpha, and the Adam Mesh Trading Group. I'm proud to be one of the founders of The Dividend Kings, joining forces with Brad Thomas, Chuck Carnevale, and other leading income writers to offer the best premium service on Seeking Alpha's Market Place.
My goal is to help all people learn how to harness the awesome power of dividend growth investing to achieve their financial dreams and enrich their lives.
With 24 years of investing experience, I've learned what works and more importantly, what doesn't, when it comes to building long-term wealth and safe and dependable income streams in all economic and market conditions.
Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of BTI, ENB, MO, QQQ, SCHD either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: Dividend Kings owns BTI, ENB, MO, and SCHD in our portfolios.