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.cliff
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<