What is the percentage of Bonds in your Portfolio?

[LazyNihilist]

What is the percentage of Bonds (plus Fixed Income and equivalent) in your Total Portfolio relative to your age?
If you want to include your spouse/partners in the poll please use the average of your age.

This is a variation on this poll http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=110856.

[zebrafish]

That depends on whether I calculate my mortgage as a negative bond

Too bad we don't have the pizza-eating emoticon here

[LazyNihilist]

That depends on whether I calculate my mortgage as a negative bond

Too bad we don't have the pizza-eating emoticon here

Not sure if you should count mortgage as part of your Portfolio. I would leave it out.

[Clivus1]

I'm 40 with an all stock portfolio. I've never owned a bond. I'm thinking of adding some when the new Vanguard international bond ETF debuts.

Timing the market may be impossible, but 1% yields provide little incentive for me to move into bonds.

[zaboomafoozarg]

Which bound is inclusive, the lower or upper bound?

[ThePrune]

Doubtless we've all read countless opinions on how to adjust our asset allocation as we age. In the spirit of sharing something entirely different on this topic, here is a quote from the Updated and Revised 2013 edition of Prof. Moshe Milevsky's book Are You A Stock or a Bond? (It's a great book):

First of all, the age-old general rule that you should allocate your numerical age value to bonds - or 100 minus your age value to stocks - is somewhat meaningless at best, and wrong at worst. Even if you revise the number from 100 to 110 or 120 it certainly doesn't capture the essence or risk classification of your job. For some occupations and time points in your life the optimal allocation to equities might be greater that 100 minus age, and in other cases it might be lower. Your age value doesn't contain enough information to determine a suitable asset allocation. (page 100)

Prof. Milevsky presents the following numerical example (data taken from the publication Portfolio Choice and Mortality-Contingent Claims: The General HARA Case by Huang Huaxiong and Moshe Milevsky):

Current Annual Income: $100,000 per year
Age: 45
Tenured Professor: 280% equity allocation (leveraged!)
Bankruptcy Lawyer: 170% equity allocation (leveraged!)
Mechanical Engineer: 125% equity allocation (leveraged!)
Investment Banker: 60% equity allocation

Prof. Milevsky practices what he preaches! As a tenured professor of finance at York University (Toronto), he has a 200% equity allocation (i.e. he's leveraged 2 to 1).

All this certainly presents a new way of thinking about pre-retirement asset allcoations, doesn't it!

[Ricola]

Doubtless we've all read countless opinions on how to adjust our asset allocation as we age. In the spirit of sharing something entirely different on this topic, here is a quote from the Updated and Revised 2013 edition of Prof. Moshe Milevsky's book Are You A Stock or a Bond? (It's a great book):

First of all, the age-old general rule that you should allocate your numerical age value to bonds - or 100 minus your age value to stocks - is somewhat meaningless at best, and wrong at worst. Even if you revise the number from 100 to 110 or 120 it certainly doesn't capture the essence or risk classification of your job. For some occupations and time points in your life the optimal allocation to equities might be greater that 100 minus age, and in other cases it might be lower. Your age value doesn't contain enough information to determine a suitable asset allocation. (page 100)

Prof. Milevsky presents the following numerical example (data taken from the publication Portfolio Choice and Mortality-Contingent Claims: The General HARA Case by Huang Huaxiong and Moshe Milevsky):

Current Annual Income: $100,000 per year
Age: 45
Tenured Professor: 280% equity allocation (leveraged!)
Bankruptcy Lawyer: 170% equity allocation (leveraged!)
Mechanical Engineer: 125% equity allocation (leveraged!)
Investment Banker: 60% equity allocation

Prof. Milevsky practices what he preaches! As a tenured professor of finance at York University (Toronto), he has a 200% equity allocation (i.e. he's leveraged 2 to 1).

All this certainly presents a new way of thinking about pre-retirement asset allcoations, doesn't it!

Was he at 200% in 2007?

[TRC]

This poll is confusing. I don't understand the selections. We hold our age in bonds (35%).

[petrico]

This poll is confusing. I don't understand the selections. We hold our age in bonds (35%).

Looks like you'd select the middle option (5th one down).

--Pete

[Kevin M]

I happen to be (age+10)% in fixed income (less than half of that in bond funds). I don't use an age-based rule directly, but prefer the "ability, willingness and need to take risk" framework. My need to take risk dictates a lower allocation to equities than "age in bonds" or anything lower than that. My target allocation to fixed income has not changed in the last five years.

Kevin

[Default User BR]

This poll is confusing. I don't understand the selections. We hold our age in bonds (35%).

That would be (Age + 0)%, which would fall in the range of (Age - 05)% to (Age + 05)%.

I don't hold an aged-based selection, but rather a strategy-based one. While one could express my bond percentage in terms of my age, that isn't how it's defined.


Brian

[nisiprius]

Due to uncertain as to exactly what should count as "bonds," I chose to answer a slightly different question: what is the percentage of low-volatility assets in my portfolio. That is, I lumped nominal bonds, TIPS, series I savings bonds, cash-like accounts, and TIAA Traditional to get my total. Or to put it another way, I used (100% - stocks).

[grabiner]

I am age-34 in bonds (10% at age 44) and will probably move into the top category in this poll next year. (Really, I should already be there, as I have the risk of 100% stock with my overweight in value, small-cap, and emerging markets.)

[Kevin M]

Due to uncertain as to exactly what should count as "bonds," I chose to answer a slightly different question: what is the percentage of low-volatility assets in my portfolio. That is, I lumped nominal bonds, TIPS, series I savings bonds, cash-like accounts, and TIAA Traditional to get my total. Or to put it another way, I used (100% - stocks).

When I responded, "plus Fixed Income and equivalent" was included in the OP, so like you, I included all of my CDs, I Bonds, cash, etc., since my definition of "fixed income" includes all the types of assets you and I have mentioned (hence my note that less than half of my fixed income is in bond funds). Perhaps a more universally agreed upon term (academically) would be "debt obligations" (see this Wiki article).

Kevin

[Index Fan]

Age +5 in bonds due to need/willingness/ability to take risks in early retirement.