I think a 28-year-old should have 100% in stocks for a retirement plan myself. The "100 - age" starts to become good at around age 50 or 60, but before that I think it's way too conservative.One time I derived a "baseline" formula based on trial and error based on what I think is generally appropriate. I used the function 180 - (2 * age), with overriding maximums and minimums of 100% and (about) 30% respectively. Obivously, thayt's just guess work as well, but I think it's a bit more aggressive and reflects my opinion that most people should be fully or nearly fully invested in stocks well into their 40s.I think one's time horizon has more to do with allocations than age. If someone has a definite 20-year time horizon for an investment, it doesn't really matter too much whether they are 20 or 50.While we all have different ideas about good allocation, for 401K investments (usually in various mutual funds) I like a mix of about 50% large caps, 25% small caps and 25% international (give or take about 5% each based on your own tastes).For what it's worth, I'm almost 33, and have 5% in cash, and everything else I'm allowed to control (i.e. other than the company match forced in company stock) in various mutual funds, roughly in the allocation I described above.Fool on, Garth.Tim
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra