I might have missed something here, I always thought 10 years isn't long based on what I understand from the syllabus. Also, I thought a retired person should have a shorter time horizon, shouldn't it?
Until i came across this EOC question.
"A 65 years of age couple in good health is considered substantial."
1. So how old is old? is 10 years considered short or intermediate?
Just one question based on this:
"The family portfolio should have an intermediate to slightly long-term investment horizon. Because their objective of financial security is well provided for in the short term, the couple can afford to focus more on the long-term aspects of that objective."
2. So if someone is 65 years old (i assume the average life expectancy is around 76-79 ??), does it mean that as long as they have their short term financial security well covered, their portfolio could still be looking at a long term basis regardless of their age?
Until i came across this EOC question.
"A 65 years of age couple in good health is considered substantial."
1. So how old is old? is 10 years considered short or intermediate?
Just one question based on this:
"The family portfolio should have an intermediate to slightly long-term investment horizon. Because their objective of financial security is well provided for in the short term, the couple can afford to focus more on the long-term aspects of that objective."
2. So if someone is 65 years old (i assume the average life expectancy is around 76-79 ??), does it mean that as long as they have their short term financial security well covered, their portfolio could still be looking at a long term basis regardless of their age?