The lion kingdom's strategy of letting its asset allocation grow stonk heavy isn't the generally accepted path.  The roth IRA grew to manely stonk over the last 24 years.  The other IRAs grew their stonk percentages well above what lions bought.  The 401k is the only account which requires a fixed asset allocation to be manetained.  It automatically sells stonk when the stonks go up.

The conventional fixed asset allocation strategy is going to go away as interest rates stay permanently negative & stonks remane risky to buy all at once.  It isn't compatible with dollar cost averaging to have fixed allocations if they don't all grow at the same rate.  Fixed asset allocation only worked in a past time when fixed income & stonks yielded nearly the same amount.

The 100% stonk portfolio has become the big thing & is eventually going to become the standard, but it's very risky to go in all at once.  The advantage with letting a stonk allocation naturally grow to 100% is less risk.  You're playing with the house's money.

On the other paw, Dave Ramsey's 100% stonk portfolio can't produce income unless some percentage is cash.  You have to draw down when stonks are up & not draw down when stonks are down.  That requires having enough cash to bridge the downturns.

It would be an epic failure if the government still had to cut social security in 2034, if interest rates continued to be negative & the war continued to be against deflation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lions have burned about $216,000 in the last 9 years on the current apartment.  The preceding 14 years burned $250,000 in rent.  Enough equity lost to pay for a large house in a good part of FL.  

 

If it makes lions feel better, interest in 2000 was 8% & didn't budge until 2008.  Houses then were $600,000.  It would have been at least $144,000 in property tax over 24 years, possibly over $300,000 interest for the 1st 8 years.  The same houses are now $2 mil, so inflation won that battle, but a lion would not have been able to recover the equity until selling.  There would have been leaner years until then.  The equity would then have to be recovered all at once, forfeiting a huge state capital gains tax bill.

A $600k house 24 years ago would have burned as much in interest & taxes as rent in the same period. Recovering any of the equity after 24 years would then entail selling it all at once, a huge state capital gains tax bill.

 The loan principal would have been in addition to that.  If the principal went in the stonk market in 2001, it could have matched the home appreciation without taxes but it might have still entailed borrowing.  It wouldn't need to sold all at once to recover any equity. A house would have broken even, at best.

Although houses are the best way to preserve wealth, a lot of the capital is unrecoverable because it's providing more space, more land, more luxury.  Animals burn up part of the house's capital by living in it.  It only retains all its value if it's a rental property & all the luxury it produces turns around & is deployed in collecting rent.

 The luxury in a primary residence doesn't turn into more wealth because it isn't producing anything.  The lost value materializes in 1 form or another.  If all the capital can be devoted to stuff which produces, there's less loss of value.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunset

120V in.  7kV out. Saving for later.