25 Rules to Grow Rich By #7: Stock Portfolio 5comments
The Simple Dollar is running a series in which we re-evaluate Money Magazine’s “25 Rules To Grow Rich By”. One “rule” will be re-evaluated each weekday until the series concludes; you can keep tabs on the action at the 25 Rules index.
Rule #7: To figure out what percentage of your money should be in stocks, subtract your age from 120.
This is an old, old rule that has been around in some form since my grandpappy was in diapers; back then, you were told to subtract your age from 100.
But let’s think about this for a minute: according to this rule, at age 70, you should have 50% of your investment in stocks? That seems rather risky to me, as you should want a high degree of stability during your twilight years.
On the other hand, why would investors under 30 want to invest their money in low-return things (unless it is for liquidity purposes, of course)? If an individual is looking at the vast majority of their life still ahead of them, why not invest everything in an index fund that will return tremendous amounts in the future?
This rule is a nice little rule for people in middle age, but it doesn’t take into account the oldest or youngest investors who should either be maximizing or minimizing their risk based on what their futures hold. Let’s rewrite this rule so that it encompasses everyone, then:
Rewritten Rule #7: To figure out what percentage of your money should not be in stocks, sutract 30 from your age and then double that number.
You can jump ahead to rule #8 or jump back to rule #6.
Hmm…. this can’t be right… with either of the 2 rules…
I’m currently 19 (yeah, you have teenagers reading a financial blog :S)
Anyway, 120 - 19 = 101
Based on the old rule, I should have 101% of my money should be in stocks… not really possible that, as I only have 100% money
And based on the second rule, 19 - 30 = -11
So -11% of my money should not be in stock, does that mean 111 should be in stock??? Again, not possible
This is weird….
13-30=-17
-17*2 is -34
is my math right?
so this is saying you have to be 31 to not get zero or lower for your percentage. At 31 it’s only 2% anyway this says. Are you saying you should be 30 to start investing at all? Or that you should invest it all before you are 30?
Is my math right?? I think so
I think Trent’s rule is sound. My understanding of it is if you are under 30 then nothing should be not in stocks (aka ALL should be in stocks) or as he recommends in index funds.
I don’t think there is any age when you shouldn’t learn about personal finance. You guys who are reading this at 17 and 19 will be in great financial shape if you learn about finances now.
The math is not meant to be an absolute figure, and yes, if you are under the age of 20, then it’s not going to work cleanly.
The point is that, if you are just entering the work force, and you have a *lot* of time ahead of you to plan for retirement, then being invested 100% in stocks or stock funds would make sense.
However, as you get older and are getting closer to that retirement date, then you need to consider pulling back and exposing a little less of your money to risk and perhaps consider other options. On my end, I am looking at changing alocation from funds and stocks that are mostly growth oriented (i.e. their value is determined by their actual stock price) and moving into more investments that pay dividends as a higher percentage of my holdings as I get older (I’m currently 40).
Leave a reply







Hmm, by this rule, I should have 80% of my money out of stocks at age 70? I think that’s a little conservative. What if you live another 30 years? Not only are you missing out on a lot of gains, but you’ll likely be drawing that nest egg down for awhile.
I’d probably go with a number of 40, so that at 70, you have 40% in stocks. That should be enough to grow on for the next 30 years if you need it.
Maybe I’m optimistic in thinking that people will live long times.
Lazy Man and Money @ 5:59 pm December 15th, 2006 (comment #1)