It's a weird thing to ask, I know. But I'm thinking somewhere between a complete apocalypse and right now, lies a period of potentially crazy times where we might want to adjust our tax sheltered (read: not liquid) investments to try to retain value through the chaos. The old 80% securities and 20% bonds -- or whatever it is for one's specific situation -- doesn't seem like a reliably good answer.

Any thoughts? I'm guessing shifting into defense and energy specifically, and out of straight indexed market positions.

Don't have an answer for adjusting your investment profile per se, but wondering if you've read Patriots by James Wesley, Rawles. It tells the story of a post apocalypse after a global economic meltdown.

The question could lead to an overflowing can of worms.

Setting any added chaos aside, one could certainly go a little more defensive into retirement. How much can depend on age, life expectancy, risk tolerance, investment mix and other factors.

Just think back to hurricane Katrina, New Orleans. Not that it was full blown chaos, but a small sample of what could come, many bets are off. That level of surviving a few days to two weeks is more likely, storm, disaster, whatever.

In general the stock market has been in a roll in recent years. I actually logged in to check things a few weeks ago, thinking about going slightly more defensive, but ended up leaving things be. I already have a level of cash equivalents, which is often bypassed with inflation.

An interesting note, gold was up 1.3% or so YTD, the overall market nearly 13% YTD, weeks ago. Just a comment related to the precious metals advertising that’s rather common.

Fortunately I am not retired yet so I do not need to draw from my accounts. I have 90% of my investments in fixed interest or cash and am waiting for the big market crash so I can buy at a discount.

I am far from a financial advisor, but short of selling before values drop (Like right now) or letting it ride until the market recovers, how else can you preserve value? I sold everything that I was profitable on and the few I have left (and the total value) will not bother me if it drops 50-75% from current values.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
The old 80% securities and 20% bonds -- or whatever it is for one's specific situation -- doesn't seem like a reliably good answer.

Bonds are generally terrible for most people under most circumstances given how they are usually owned these days. Only if you buy individual bonds and hold them to maturity is your money safe. Even then you likely lose to inflation. Bond ETFs are going to lose money if interest rates don't fall. While interest rates falling isn't likely, the government could try to force them lower with strong yield curve control, which means hyper inflation. Bond owners lose either way.

Short term bonds near the inflation rate are the least risk, but again only if you keep them to maturity. It was a very different world when 60/40 or whatever ratio was viable.

If we assume inflation will be used to bail out the government's debt, and/or assume that the government will not substantially reduce spending, investing in bonds will be very risky.

(I have several years of expenses in short term government bonds and money market accounts. This is to avoid needing to sell stocks at a loss if the market tanks. Bonds are a valid tool for some uses when owned directly)

Most assume that they will have access to any of their money held somewhere else by someone else in the event of things going Crayzee.