RetireJapan

I hear what you're saying. However I am thinking of simplifying my portfolio with VT, VPLS and BNDX ETFs (these will be in the taxable part of my portfolio). If I go with that, Japanese bonds of which a good chunk is JGB do constitute a substantial percentage of the index so unless I want to 'time the market' by underweighting JGBs, and perhaps incurring higher expense ratios by not being able to utilize a world except USA bond ETF, it stands to reason that JGBs will be in there according to their market weighting.

Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund ETF
Fund Allocation (as of October 31, 2023)
---
Japan 13.5%
France 12.4
Germany 11.3
Italy 7.6
United Kingdom 6.8
Canada 6.6
Spain 5.6
Supranational 4.3
Australia 3.5
United States 3.1
South Korea 3.0
Netherlands 2.8
Belgium 2.2
Switzerland 1.7
Austria 1.4
Sweden 1.3
China 1.2
Indonesia 1.1
Other 10.6
---

ChapInTokyo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 1:23 am

TokyoWart wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:03 pm These "low risk" portfolio recommendations are generated mainly to address volatility rather than the risk of permanent loss and the glaring weakness in that allocation is that it is overly concentrated in Japan for its fixed income proportion and would provide almost no inflation protection while also not offering much upside potential. It is also very dependent on how the yen performs as it has only around 20% of assets in non-Japanese assets. I would go back and see what the highest risk setting gives as its model portfolio. Keep in mind that the studies on stable withdrawal rates (SWR) for retirement portfolios found the highest SWR were for portfolios with a 50-60% equity allocation which was constant throughout the 30 year periods studied. Neither the original Bengen study nor the Trinity study decreased the equity allocation over time.

Good point about the huge weighting in Japanese fixed income providing almost no inflation protection while also not offering much upside potential. I followed your advice and got the Robo Advisor to give me the highest risk setting portfolio but it didn't really change all that much.

Stocks Index funds:
1. Japan (One DC Domestic Stocks Index Fund): 16.8% ---> 20.1%
2. Developed Markets (eMAXIS Slim Developed Markets Stocks Index): 14.9% --->17.5%
3. Emerging Markets (eMAXIS Slim Emerging Markets stocks Index): 2.7% ---> 3.4%

Bond funds:
4. Japan (MUFJ Domestic Bonds Index Fund - DC Pension type): 58% ----> 51.6%
5. Developed Markets (eMAXIS Slim Developed Markets Bonds Index): 2.6% --->2%
6. Emerging Markets (iFree Emerging Markets Index): 1%--->1%

REIT funds:
7. Japan (DC Nissay J-REIT Index Fund A): 2.7% --->2.8%
8. World ex-Japan (Mitsui Sumitomo DC Foreign REIT Index Fund): 1.3%--->1.6%

I guess it's algorithm can only allow so much variance in the portfolio because of my shortish time horizon (I'm going to start drawing my pension in a couple of years time

I think I'll take Ben's advice and look at this ideco as simply one bucket into which I'll put something which has more upside potential (but with mitigated risk) like the eMAXIS Slim 8 asset equally weighted fund. I know everyone here hates it for its huge skew to EM and REITS as well as Japanese assets, but as a contrarian play in a tax free account, I am guessing it might perform somewhat better than the RoboAdvisor-suggested allocations while keeping portfolio volatility lower than an All Country one fund portfolio. Is this stupid?

I tested the above 'aggresive' Robo Advisor generated portfolio (for someone in their 60s) into the portfolio analyzer at https://myindex.jp. Backtesting on the data from the past 30 years, the portfolio returned an average of 4.9% per year, with a standard deviation of 7.3%, and a sharpe ratio of 0.67. Based on the data from the past 10 years, the return per year was 5.9%, the standard deviation 6.6%, and the sharpe ratio 0.89. Based on the data from just the past 5 years, the average return was 6.6% per year, the standard deviation 7.0%, and the sharpe ratio 0.94.

Compared to the Saison Global Balance Fund (in Japan Post Bank's iDeCo fund selection) which has a 10 year performance of 7.94% per year, with a standard deviation of 9.88% and sharpe ratio of 0.81, and a 5 year performance of 11.15% with a standard deviation of 9.64 and a sharpe ratio of 1.16, the portfolio suggested by Monex Robo Advisor is a lower risk and lower return option which has a higher weighting for Japanese stocks and bonds, to reduce exchange rate risk.

Considering I'd need to cash out of iDeCo in the few years leading up to when I reach 75 years old (in a little over 10 years from now), it seems I need to decide to shoot for a lower risk with lower expected return or a higher expected return but with higher risk.

The interesting thing that the myindex.jp analysis showed me was that a gold fund might actually be an interesting thing to put in an iDeCo account, seeing as the downside of gold is comparable to that of the portfolio suggested by RoboAdvisor, but a higher upside, plus I assume a good expectation of inflation protection. Any thoughts?

I have some BNDX and not happy about the JGBs in there but it’s small enough in the bigger scheme of my portfolio that I overlook it.

I also looked at myindex.jp and yes believe the data presented suggests one ought to have some gold. I think the top portfolios there (from my perspective) had like 20% in gold, or was it even more… anyway, I am trying to increase my gold through the GLDM ETF which is apparently better suited for buy-and-hold types, which is my plan for my gold.

I also buy gold (and platinum) via Japanese futures from time to time, but it’s a more maintenance that way.

GLDM with an expense ratio of 0.1% seems ideal for having in my NISA Growth quota as inflation protection.

ChapInTokyo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:15 pm

beanhead wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:15 pm As others have said, in a tax-advantaged account you should invest in products that will grow.
This involves taking some risk.
If you are 58 or 60 or something then I understand your reluctance.
If not, I recommend you keep reading about long-term investing (Boglehead method/ low-cost mutual funds) and start investing in equity funds.

Investing in equities obviously involves some risk. So too does choosing only overly conservative products (cash, bonds etc), as these may not keep up with inflation in the future. You should also consider this possibility.

Next year, I'll start drawing my pension, so I do need to reduce volatility of the portfolio as a whole. But according to Morningstar's Christine Benz, a balanced portfolio of 40:60 or 50:50 or 60:40 stocks and bonds are shown to support the highest safe withdrawal rate, so I'll definitely keep a bunch of low cost equity in there.

Why Retirees Need a Balanced Portfolio
Higher Yields Point Toward Value of Balance
And indeed, when we look at our own research, which takes a forward-looking view of what would be safe withdrawal amounts, we come to a similar conclusion. So, over those very short time horizons, so for older retirees, for example, we can see that actually, based on our research, based on our Monte Carlo simulations, they’re actually better off with more-conservative-tilted portfolios, so portfolios that have as little as 30% or even 20% in equities. Whereas people who are retiring with more typical time horizons, so people retiring with 25- or 30-year time horizons, are better off with portfolios that are balanced in nature. The 60/40, the 50/50, even the 40/60 portfolio tends to support the highest safe withdrawal amount. And the reason is that even though the expected return on stocks is much better, and that cuts across stocks of all types, what we see is that the variability of bond returns is much more predictable, much more reliable, and that’s what we’re seeing in the right-hand column here, where we’re looking at the expected standard deviation of returns for each of these asset classes.

The idea of a 'bucket approach' in the same article also seems quite sensible, since it is basically similar to what happens when you rebalance, but looks at it more from the standpoint of which 'bucket' to withdraw funds from, rather than trying to maintain a balanced portfolio per se:

Why Retirees Need a Balanced Portfolio
The right retirement asset allocation can help enlarge your lifetime withdrawals.
So, in a simple Bucket setup, we’re setting aside one or two years’ worth of portfolio withdrawals in cash investments. We’re not taking any risks with this portion of the portfolio. We are subject to inflation risk, but we’re not overallocating to it. So, we’re just holding a couple of years’ worth of portfolio withdrawals. And then, with the rest of the portfolio, we’re just stepping out a little bit on the risk spectrum. So, with Bucket 2, we have a high-quality fixed-income portfolio mainly, and I would stairstep that portion of the portfolio from very conservative, high-quality short-term bond funds to holdings that are a little bit more aggressive. So, there I would consider holding intermediate-term bonds, a component of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities. But the idea here, the core idea here is that with Bucket 1, your cash bucket, and Bucket 2, which is your high-quality fixed-income piece, you could have Armageddon with the stock market. You could have very terrible performance with your stock portfolio, and you would still have that 10-year runway of fairly safe returning assets that you could spend through if you needed to.
https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/ ... -portfolio

Well, lots to think about!

After much thought, I decided to ditch the RoboAdvisor suggested allocation and go with a simple 50:50 allocation of eMaxis Slim All Country + Tawara's No-Load currency hedged developed market bond fund.

Thanks everyone for your advice!