Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TyrconnellFL t1_j25l1oa wrote

There is no ratio. That's the wrong approach. Rather than a ratio, have what you need in savings left in savings and invest the rest.

You need an emergency fund in savings and you need any money you're saving for some next-five-years purpose in savings or similar.

Your investments may change with age as you approach retirement into something with less risk, like bonds/treasuries. In your late twenties I think that's too conservative.

10

random_curiosity_guy OP t1_j25yz12 wrote

Thanks for the advice. Part of my concern/fear is not knowing what I don’t know in terms of things for the next 5-ish years.

But understood it’s not the right mentality to have a set ratio, per se.

My investment strategy is restricted due to my job. We’re prohibited from trading single name securities so ETFs/mutual funds/BDCs are the majority of what we can invest in. But I realize I could be more aggressive with what funds I choose.

1

TyrconnellFL t1_j25zf09 wrote

That’s almost always a better strategy anyway. Picking stocks on average loses to investing in the whole market even for expert, full-time investors.

You don’t need to know everything for the next five years. If you expect to spend money, it makes sense to save it. If you have unexpected emergencies, that’s what an emergency fund is for. If you have an unexpected change in priorities, it’s not the end of the world to cash out investments. That’s the point of them! There’s just more short-term volatility so it might make you loads of money but also might lose money.

5