30 percent equity allocation in retirement

[Claudia Whitten]

When factoring in both risk and reward, I'm feeling best about a 30 percent equity allocation (well diversified across all asset classes and markets) in retirement. I've tested higher and lower, and this allocation seems to be my "no nervousness" happy place. Vanguard's own models shows 30 percent equities as providing both a good return and significantly lower volatility than for equity allocations that are higher:

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

But in retirement, I want the smoothest ride possible (=lower volatility), since I no longer have the sweat equity (salary) to recover from stock drawdowns that could end up being protracted (one never knows).

What's your take on this equity allocation? How does it match with your allocation in retirement or your thinking?

[jebmke]

We ran with 40/60 (so, not much different) for the first 10 years. Arguably, we could have easily used a higher equity with no real risk but the behavioral aspects of low volatility were important to us. I retired in December, 2007 so the first couple of years were a bit of a down tick in our assets. Clearly we left money on the table by having a conservative mix but I have no regrets at all.

[Claudia Whitten]

We ran with 40/60 (so, not much different) for the first 10 years. Arguably, we could have easily used a higher equity with no real risk but the behavioral aspects of low volatility were important to us. I retired in December, 2007 so the first couple of years were a bit of a down tick in our assets. Clearly we left money on the table by having a conservative mix but I have no regrets at all.

Yes, but you didn't know you were leaving money on the table at the time. These things are only knowable in hindsight. And it's important to remember what you weren't exposing yourself to and the value of that.

[jebmke]

We ran with 40/60 (so, not much different) for the first 10 years. Arguably, we could have easily used a higher equity with no real risk but the behavioral aspects of low volatility were important to us. I retired in December, 2007 so the first couple of years were a bit of a down tick in our assets. Clearly we left money on the table by having a conservative mix but I have no regrets at all.

Yes, but you didn't know you were leaving money on the table at the time. These things are only knowable in hindsight. And it's important to remember what you weren't exposing yourself to and the value of that.

Actually, I was pretty sure we were (taking the long view). Analytically, there was no real reason to reduce our equity to 40%; something like 60/40 or 70/30 would have been sustainable under very extreme conditions. this was purely a move to address behavioral risk. Obviously one never knows with certainty but that would be true even for a 30/70 holding.

[Claudia Whitten]

We ran with 40/60 (so, not much different) for the first 10 years. Arguably, we could have easily used a higher equity with no real risk but the behavioral aspects of low volatility were important to us. I retired in December, 2007 so the first couple of years were a bit of a down tick in our assets. Clearly we left money on the table by having a conservative mix but I have no regrets at all.

Yes, but you didn't know you were leaving money on the table at the time. These things are only knowable in hindsight. And it's important to remember what you weren't exposing yourself to and the value of that.

Actually, I was pretty sure we were (taking the long view). Analytically, there was no real reason to reduce our equity to 40%; something like 60/40 or 70/30 would have been sustainable under very extreme conditions. this was purely a move to address behavioral risk. Obviously one never knows with certainty but that would be true even for a 30/70 holding.

So one of the best reasons, if not the best reason, to settle on an asset allocation is to remove behavioral risk. As many of us know, humans come with emotions, and emotions are often antithetical to good investment performance and even to one's health.

So if you settled on 40/60 to address behavioral risk, that was indeed a "real reason" to reduce your equity exposure and a very good reason. I think you should consider yourself fortunate to know your true risk tolerance. Most investors, I suspect, do not because they have not been tested. Risk tolerance is not, I would suggest, something that can be known in the abstract, nor is it even something that remains fixed through all life stages and changes.

[randomguy]

We ran with 40/60 (so, not much different) for the first 10 years. Arguably, we could have easily used a higher equity with no real risk but the behavioral aspects of low volatility were important to us. I retired in December, 2007 so the first couple of years were a bit of a down tick in our assets. Clearly we left money on the table by having a conservative mix but I have no regrets at all.

Yes, but you didn't know you were leaving money on the table at the time. These things are only knowable in hindsight. And it's important to remember what you weren't exposing yourself to and the value of that.

Actually, I was pretty sure we were (taking the long view). Analytically, there was no real reason to reduce our equity to 40%; something like 60/40 or 70/30 would have been sustainable under very extreme conditions. this was purely a move to address behavioral risk. Obviously one never knows with certainty but that would be true even for a 30/70 holding.

That is what all the historical data says. But actually doing it is much harder. 30/70 and 70/30 might look the same when looking at end values for the 1966 retiree but when you look at the depths of market crashes, things can look a lot different.

[steve roy]

We’ve been at 30% equities since retiring in ‘17. The game for us is capital preservation and the strategy has worked like a dream.

We don’t move our equity investments around, but have shortened bond durations. No regrets whatsoever.

[Harmanic]

The irony of risk capacity is that the more you can afford to withstand a major stock market decline, the less you need to take that risk. For instance, a retiree who can live comfortably on a pension and SSA can afford to be 100% in stocks, but also does not need the extra potential returns and could just as easily be 100% in cash.

[windaar]

I've always understood that "sweet spot" efficient AAs are between 70/30 and 30/70. Outliers may swear by going to either edge more and that's fine for them. No one can really tell you what is best for you - If you've reached an AA where you say that you are "feeling best," that's super important and that's the best AA for you.

[Back Dr]

Our equity position is 33%. It was 40% until a decision at the 'Fed level' spooked me so our equity % was lowered. I realize the market would eventually adjust to the 'new reality caused by the Fed', but when would that happen. Thus SWAN for us became 33%.

I agree with your logic on this matter

[secondopinion]

The irony of risk capacity is that the more you can afford to withstand a major stock market decline, the less you need to take that risk. For instance, a retiree who can live comfortably on a pension and SSA can afford to be 100% in stocks, but also does not need the extra potential returns and could just as easily be 100% in cash.

This might suggest that taking some negative skew on the risk taken might be helpful. For example, taking some credit risk on bonds, using inflation-protected bonds over nominal bonds, favor lower volatility stocks, etc.

[DoctorE]

We’ve been at 30% equities since retiring in ‘17. The game for us is capital preservation and the strategy has worked like a dream.

We don’t move our equity investments around, but have shortened bond durations. No regrets whatsoever.

30%/70% from 2017 - 2023 June turned $1M into $1.325M nominal but $1.05M real. No withdrawals. Before tax.
With 4% withdrawals (including tax) $1.05M nominal and $830k real.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... symbol4=VT

[WhiteMaxima]

I would say 50/50 is probably the best AA for retiree. Time will tell.

[Outer Marker]

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

The type of Bonds matters nearly as much as the quantity. Total Bond (BND) is a lot more volatile than many people thought. I dumped all of it in Dec. 2020 in favor of Stable Value.

Going forward, if I were retired, I'd feel better at 50/50 AA with fixed income in short term treasuries, than 30/70 with fixed income in BND.

[miket29]

Rick Ferri wrote an article saying 30% stock should be the starting point when considering retiree asset allocation, although he has since posted on the forum that many people should have more in stock..

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/ ... 4feae75dae

[KlangFool]

OP,

If your portfolio is big enough as compared to the retirement expense, it could work. Is it 25X? 30? 33?

KlangFool

[retiredjg]

What's your take on this equity allocation? How does it match with your allocation in retirement or your thinking?

I think 30% is a reasonable number. I use 50% myself.

I think this decision is all about one's comfort level, but I doubt it is a good idea to go much below 25% - 30%.

[chassis]

When factoring in both risk and reward, I'm feeling best about a 30 percent equity allocation (well diversified across all asset classes and markets) in retirement. I've tested higher and lower, and this allocation seems to be my "no nervousness" happy place. Vanguard's own models shows 30 percent equities as providing both a good return and significantly lower volatility than for equity allocations that are higher:

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

But in retirement, I want the smoothest ride possible (=lower volatility), since I no longer have the sweat equity (salary) to recover from stock drawdowns that could end up being protracted (one never knows).

What's your take on this equity allocation? How does it match with your allocation in retirement or your thinking?

Far too conservative for me.

Have you considered annuitizing your portfolio for an even smoother ride?

[Watty]

When looking at asset allocation I like to look at target date funds to see if I am in the same ballpark.

The Vanguard 2020 fund is at 42% stocks.

https://investor.vanguard.com/investmen ... omposition

The stock allocation of their target date funds will gradually be reduced for about seven years until they match the Target Date Retirement income fund which is at 30% stocks and at that point the old dated target date fund will be merged into the target date retirement income fund.

https://investor.vanguard.com/investmen ... omposition

There is nothing magically special about Vanguards chosen asset allocation but you are in the same ballpark and even light in stocks for a younger retiree but not unreasonably so if that is your intention.

[GaryA505]

I've always understood that "sweet spot" efficient AAs are between 70/30 and 30/70. Outliers may swear by going to either edge more and that's fine for them. No one can really tell you what is best for you - If you've reached an AA where you say that you are "feeling best," that's super important and that's the best AA for you.

I would say 50/50 is probably the best AA for retiree. Time will tell.

Sounds like you two should get together for lunch.

[AlohaBill]

30/70 has been good enough for us since 2003. Since retiring in 2016 or 17 (memory failure), we have increased 42/58 due to portfolio growth w/o any monetary additions. I fight the urge to tweak or do anything different such as switching from Vtinx to lifestategy funds.

[WalkingBackToHouston]

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

for retirees drawing down: if you use a bond ladder of actual bonds to cover 5+? years of income instead of a bond fund then the 2022 "bond dip" would have been irrelevant to you. You'd be happily clipping coupons and collecting maturing principle for income unfazed by the news of bond values dropping. Assuming high quality non callable bonds/CDs of course.

[Tycoon]

It's about how much money one has against how much money one needs.

[h82goslw]

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

for retirees drawing down: if you use a bond ladder of actual bonds to cover 5+? years of income instead of a bond fund then the 2022 "bond dip" would have been irrelevant to you. You'd be happily clipping coupons and collecting maturing principle for income unfazed by the news of bond values dropping. Assuming high quality non callable bonds/CDs of course.

Could you expand on this a bit more? My confusion lies on the assumption that BND is made up of the very things you are suggesting OP should buy. Obviously that’s not the case….and there’s lots more in BND that negatively affected price?

[WhiteMaxima]

Paul Merrimann's AA is 50/50.

[WalkingBackToHouston]

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

for retirees drawing down: if you use a bond ladder of actual bonds to cover 5+? years of income instead of a bond fund then the 2022 "bond dip" would have been irrelevant to you. You'd be happily clipping coupons and collecting maturing principle for income unfazed by the news of bond values dropping. Assuming high quality non callable bonds/CDs of course.

Could you expand on this a bit more? My confusion lies on the assumption that BND is made up of the very things you are suggesting OP should buy. Obviously that’s not the case….and there’s lots more in BND that negatively affected price?

the bonds inside BND aren't targeted to mature match any one individuals expenses. Bond funds fluctuate with the market. If you are a retiree and you have an income need when the NAV is down you are forced to take the loss and sell a position. If you own actual bonds you already have it programmed. You collect and consume interest as coupons are paid and you collect and consume principle as they mature. The "value" assigned to the bonds by the market in between are meaningless.
It seems to be controversial, I think maybe because some folks analyze the difference from an accumulating perspective (as opposed to retired and withdrawing) where the difference over the long haul isn't as striking? Or I am just wrong .
just to be clear when I say individual bonds I am referring to a bond ladder with bonds with mature dates that coincide with income needs
thats my take on it anyway. others will almost definitely disagree

[delamer]

A 30% stock allocation is usually reasonable.

But factor in your expected length of retirement.

Someone retiring at 50 probably shouldn’t have the same allocation as someone retiring at 70 (with equivalent life expectancies).

Additionally, someone who will need their portfolio to support 50% of their spending probably should invest differently than someone who only needs it to support 20%.

[pahkcah]

The irony of risk capacity is that the more you can afford to withstand a major stock market decline, the less you need to take that risk. For instance, a retiree who can live comfortably on a pension and SSA can afford to be 100% in stocks, but also does not need the extra potential returns and could just as easily be 100% in cash.

Yup. Wife and I are retired and collecting pensions (with COLAs) and Social Security that more than meet our expenses. We can afford to, and are, invested 100% in stocks (all within broad market index ETFs). We are investing at this point for our children (who will receive our investments via gifts and inheritance) and charities (via QCDs). I will add that we do have an emergency fund invested in high yield savings accounts, but that fund is also for our children's needs.

[L84SUPR]

Six months from retirement both over age 62 with a bond tent. If I count present value of social security as bonds along with home equity then we are at about 30 percent equities. Based on just assets invested we are about 55 percent equities. If I exclude cash equivalents in the social security bridging fund we are about 80 percent equities.

I could say we are 80 percent equities, own our house outright, have 7 years in cash, and SS and a small pension will cover 80 percent of expenses. Or I could say, considering our total net worth including SS, we are 30 percent equities.

[h82goslw]

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

for retirees drawing down: if you use a bond ladder of actual bonds to cover 5+? years of income instead of a bond fund then the 2022 "bond dip" would have been irrelevant to you. You'd be happily clipping coupons and collecting maturing principle for income unfazed by the news of bond values dropping. Assuming high quality non callable bonds/CDs of course.

Could you expand on this a bit more? My confusion lies on the assumption that BND is made up of the very things you are suggesting OP should buy. Obviously that’s not the case….and there’s lots more in BND that negatively affected price?

the bonds inside BND aren't targeted to mature match any one individuals expenses. Bond funds fluctuate with the market. If you are a retiree and you have an income need when the NAV is down you are forced to take the loss and sell a position. If you own actual bonds you already have it programmed. You collect and consume interest as coupons are paid and you collect and consume principle as they mature. The "value" assigned to the bonds by the market in between are meaningless.
It seems to be controversial, I think maybe because some folks analyze the difference from an accumulating perspective (as opposed to retired and withdrawing) where the difference over the long haul isn't as striking? Or I am just wrong .
just to be clear when I say individual bonds I am referring to a bond ladder with bonds with mature dates that coincide with income needs
thats my take on it anyway. others will almost definitely disagree

Thank you for clarifying. Makes sense to me.

[remomnyc]

When I retired, I placed 15 years of expenses in fixed income, reducing as I age since social security will eventually cover my fixed expenses. When I start taking social security, I will probably keep a constant 5 years of expenses in fixed income and leave the rest in equities.

[GaryA505]

When I retired, I placed 15 years of expenses in fixed income, reducing as I age since social security will eventually cover my fixed expenses. When I start taking social security, I will probably keep a constant 5 years of expenses in fixed income and leave the rest in equities.

What kind of fixed income? Cash? Bond fund? Treasuries?

[tennisplyr]

I see nothing wrong with 30%, I"ve been retired for 12 years and have been at ~45% during that time.

[Artsdoctor]

When factoring in both risk and reward, I'm feeling best about a 30 percent equity allocation (well diversified across all asset classes and markets) in retirement. I've tested higher and lower, and this allocation seems to be my "no nervousness" happy place. Vanguard's own models shows 30 percent equities as providing both a good return and significantly lower volatility than for equity allocations that are higher:

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

But in retirement, I want the smoothest ride possible (=lower volatility), since I no longer have the sweat equity (salary) to recover from stock drawdowns that could end up being protracted (one never knows).

What's your take on this equity allocation? How does it match with your allocation in retirement or your thinking?

You will get a variety of opinions regarding the "right" asset allocation, but that's not the question here. One person's "right" asset allocation may not be right for you.

There are plenty of retirees with a 30% equity allocation and if that's what it take for you to feel comfortable and stick with your plan, it's going to right for you. A few thoughts:

1. Risk and return go together so if you want a portfolio with low risk, you should expect your returns to be lower.

2. Don't take your fixed income part of the portfolio and increase its risk. For example, don't load up with fixed income portion with junk bonds. Many bonds will behave somewhat like equities during extreme market volatility so if you want higher yielding bonds, you might consider increasing your equity allocation instead.

3. The safest options for fixed income would be treasuries. Right now, the yield is very attractive for most short-term treasuries although this is temporarily.

4. If you want inflation-protection, consider TIPS in your tax-advantaged accounts.

[miket29]

When I retired, I placed 15 years of expenses in fixed income, reducing as I age since social security will eventually cover my fixed expenses. When I start taking social security, I will probably keep a constant 5 years of expenses in fixed income and leave the rest in equities.

Many people use their fixed income holdings as a buffer, drawing it down when the market declines to avoid having to sell securities. If your fixed expenses are covered by social security but your discretionary expenses come from your portfolio then what you're doing is almost like holding 100% stocks. Sure you can take money out of your fixed income holdings during the year but since you want to hold a constant amount it seems like the only way to replenish is to sell stocks that year regardless of the market level.

[GaryA505]

When I retired, I placed 15 years of expenses in fixed income, reducing as I age since social security will eventually cover my fixed expenses. When I start taking social security, I will probably keep a constant 5 years of expenses in fixed income and leave the rest in equities.

Many people use their fixed income holdings as a buffer, drawing it down when the market declines to avoid having to sell securities. If your fixed expenses are covered by social security but your discretionary expenses come from your portfolio then what you're doing is almost like holding 100% stocks. Sure you can take money out of your fixed income holdings during the year but since you want to hold a constant amount it seems like the only way to replenish is to sell stocks that year regardless of the market level.

An easy way to do this, if you have a 50/50 portfolio, is to simply withdraw from the highest of the two.

[friar1610]

I would say 50/50 is probably the best AA for retiree. Time will tell.

Boy, I sure hope you’re right!

[lws]

We ran with 40/60 (so, not much different) for the first 10 years. Arguably, we could have easily used a higher equity with no real risk but the behavioral aspects of low volatility were important to us. I retired in December, 2007 so the first couple of years were a bit of a down tick in our assets. Clearly we left money on the table by having a conservative mix but I have no regrets at all.

Yes, but you didn't know you were leaving money on the table at the time. These things are only knowable in hindsight. And it's important to remember what you weren't exposing yourself to and the value of that.

Actually, I was pretty sure we were (taking the long view). Analytically, there was no real reason to reduce our equity to 40%; something like 60/40 or 70/30 would have been sustainable under very extreme conditions. this was purely a move to address behavioral risk. Obviously one never knows with certainty but that would be true even for a 30/70 holding.

So one of the best reasons, if not the best reason, to settle on an asset allocation is to remove behavioral risk. As many of us know, humans come with emotions, and emotions are often antithetical to good investment performance and even to one's health.

So if you settled on 40/60 to address behavioral risk, that was indeed a "real reason" to reduce your equity exposure and a very good reason. I think you should consider yourself fortunate to know your true risk tolerance. Most investors, I suspect, do not because they have not been tested. Risk tolerance is not, I would suggest, something that can be known in the abstract, nor is it even something that remains fixed through all life stages and changes.

So very true.
Risk tolerance is a function of time.

[SouthGAJacket]

The irony of risk capacity is that the more you can afford to withstand a major stock market decline, the less you need to take that risk. For instance, a retiree who can live comfortably on a pension and SSA can afford to be 100% in stocks, but also does not need the extra potential returns and could just as easily be 100% in cash.

True, but your heirs would really enjoy the 100% stocks. I look back to my parents - if they could have invested unneeded money in 1990, myself and my siblings would be running completely different calculations today. That’s what I want for my children in 2053 and beyond.

[Artsdoctor]

The OP did not share what her burn rate might be in retirement. If she can easily live on 2.5-3.0%, for example, there's no reason to take significant risk. There is an excellent podcast interview Christine Benz (Morningstar) did last year which might be helpful:

https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/ ... tough-year

There are numerous references as well which the OP will probably find helpful.

[dwickenh]

I have settled on 50/50 since retirement in 2016. Half the time I am thrilled to have 50% in equities....... Sometimes I wish I had less, sometimes more, but 50% seems to split the difference for me.

Dan

[Claudia Whitten]

You will get a variety of opinions regarding the "right" asset allocation, but that's not the question here. One person's "right" asset allocation may not be right for you.

There are plenty of retirees with a 30% equity allocation and if that's what it take for you to feel comfortable and stick with your plan, it's going to right for you. A few thoughts:

1. Risk and return go together so if you want a portfolio with low risk, you should expect your returns to be lower.

2. Don't take your fixed income part of the portfolio and increase its risk. For example, don't load up with fixed income portion with junk bonds. Many bonds will behave somewhat like equities during extreme market volatility so if you want higher yielding bonds, you might consider increasing your equity allocation instead.

3. The safest options for fixed income would be treasuries. Right now, the yield is very attractive for most short-term treasuries although this is temporarily.

4. If you want inflation-protection, consider TIPS in your tax-advantaged accounts.

Thank you. Some responses:

• Agree on the risk and return correlation, although the Vanguard site illustrates that one gives up relatively little return in a 30/70 portfolio vs ones with more equity allocation, and in turn gets much lower volatility. In retirement, I'd rather not face down years of ~25 percent. In return, I can live with average "up" years of 4-8 percent.

• My bond portion is mostly in the government's G fund, which doesn't go down in nominal terms. Whether it loses to inflation is debatable, but the chart says it has beat inflation historically.

[Claudia Whitten]

OP,

If your portfolio is big enough as compared to the retirement expense, it could work. Is it 25X? 30? 33?

KlangFool

>35x of the money I'd need to draw from it.

[Claudia Whitten]

The OP did not share what her burn rate might be in retirement. If she can easily live on 2.5-3.0%, for example, there's no reason to take significant risk. There is an excellent podcast interview Christine Benz (Morningstar) did last year which might be helpful:

https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/ ... tough-year

There are numerous references as well which the OP will probably find helpful.

Indeed. My projection spreadsheet has me living on 2.5%.

[Claudia Whitten]

I have settled on 50/50 since retirement in 2016. Half the time I am thrilled to have 50% in equities....... Sometimes I wish I had less, sometimes more, but 50% seems to split the difference for me.

Dan

I think that's what Jack Bogle said.

[KlangFool]

OP,

If your portfolio is big enough as compared to the retirement expense, it could work. Is it 25X? 30? 33?

KlangFool

>35x of the money I'd need to draw from it.

Then, even an AA of 30/70 will work for you. I will not drop below 30% of stock.

KlangFool

[Artsdoctor]

The OP did not share what her burn rate might be in retirement. If she can easily live on 2.5-3.0%, for example, there's no reason to take significant risk. There is an excellent podcast interview Christine Benz (Morningstar) did last year which might be helpful:

https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/ ... tough-year

There are numerous references as well which the OP will probably find helpful.

Indeed. My projection spreadsheet has me living on 2.5%.

If you're estimating that your burn rate is about 2.5% or so, you should be fine and can move on to other points with your planning. For example, how important are legacy issues? How can you most tax-efficient? Is there a role for Roth conversions?

Good job with understanding your comfort level with investing and successfully planning financially for your retirement. You're in a good space.

[ruralavalon]

When factoring in both risk and reward, I'm feeling best about a 30 percent equity allocation (well diversified across all asset classes and markets) in retirement. I've tested higher and lower, and this allocation seems to be my "no nervousness" happy place. Vanguard's own models shows 30 percent equities as providing both a good return and significantly lower volatility than for equity allocations that are higher:

https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/education/model-portfolio-allocation

Clearly 2022 would be an outlier, when bonds cratered about as much as stocks.

But in retirement, I want the smoothest ride possible (=lower volatility), since I no longer have the sweat equity (salary) to recover from stock drawdowns that could end up being protracted (one never knows).

What's your take on this equity allocation? How does it match with your allocation in retirement or your thinking?

In my opinion an asset allocation of 30/70 is within the range of what is reasonable during retirement. The key is your own personal comfort zone.

What is your portfolio withdrawal rate at that asset allocation? Do you have any children or grandchildren?

There is longevity risk with such a low stock allocation in retirement. Be sure to include that in your assessment of your own individual ability, willingness and need to take risk.

My asset allocation is 60/40 for better protection against inflation, and better legacy for my children and grandchildren.

[Call_Me_Op]

I would say 50/50 is probably the best AA for retiree. Time will tell.

I think that would depend upon the retiree.

[Call_Me_Op]

The OP did not share what her burn rate might be in retirement. If she can easily live on 2.5-3.0%, for example, there's no reason to take significant risk. There is an excellent podcast interview Christine Benz (Morningstar) did last year which might be helpful:

https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/ ... tough-year

There are numerous references as well which the OP will probably find helpful.

Indeed. My projection spreadsheet has me living on 2.5%.

Perfect.