No. of Recommendations: 1
Most financial planners recommend retirees hold 40% of their funds in bonds or fixed investments. Is there ever a case for a retirement portfolio to hold little in the way of bonds?

I have seen studies based on the Ibbotson data which "prove" that 40% bonds is not as good as 20% bonds for the long haul. They did a series of scenarios based on ten year holding period, 20 years, and 30 years for every period for which data was available. They ran mixes of S&P 500 and bonds in 5% increments from 0% bonds to 100% bonds. They used a 5% withdrawal rate. The portfolio which was least likely to go broke had very little bonds.

Sadly, I have lost the original article, and I have been unable to re-find it. (Actually, I had several articles, all more or less in agreement.)

Ultimately, the "right" mix depends on the withdrawal rate as much as the mix.

I would appreciate any other opinions (no, not opinions; fact-based research) on the subject.

Intercst's work seems to indicate a 4% withdrawal rate is safe for every period for which he has data with a 40-20% bond mix.

Print the post  


The Retirement Investing Board
This is the board for all discussions related to Investing for and during retirement. To keep the board relevant and Foolish to everyone, please avoid making any posts pertaining to political partisanship. Fool on and Retire on!
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.