jadd806,jadd806 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:18 pmNo, I think you can figure that out for yourself.KlangFool wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:12 pmjadd806,jadd806 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:03 pmOkay, there were a few periods where bonds outperformed stocks. Those are what those of us who understand statistics refer to as outliers.KlangFool wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:26 pmjadd806,
<<I probably end up with less money in the end compared to 100% equities. >>
Or not. There were times when bond return higher than stock.
Please note that the real world does not have to meet expectation.
As per the example again, for 100/0, with a 50% drop, you need to double to recover. It may take a very long time. Meanwhile, for 70/30, it is only a 35% drop. It can recover faster.
You can choose to cherry-pick things such as "double to recover" and totally ignore the fact that the 100% equities portfolio likely had a higher peak value before a crash. Oh boy, your 70/30 portfolio returns to its (lower) peak value 6 months faster and then gets left in the dust during the next bull market. Again, bonds are for liability matching. If you're actively withdrawing, within a decade or two from withdrawing, or you have "enough," fine have some bonds. If you can't stomach market volatility, fine have some bonds. I have no use for them.
We can argue until we're blue in the face, and you can continue replying in circles with platitudes so you can have the last word like you love to do on this forum. Or we can just let the next 2-4 decades of my accumulation play out and see what happens. I know which horse I'm betting on.
Okay. You believe that 100/0 expected return is better than 70/30. So, could you please tell us what are their expected returns? 100/0 versus 70/30?
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... ns?lang=en