Are long-term bonds risky assets?
Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course.  Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy. "In the quoted passage, the bonds are ""risky"" because you CAN lose money. Money markets can be insured by the FDIC, and thus are without risk in many instances.  In general, there are a few categories of risks that affect bonds. These include: The most obvious general risk with long-term bonds versus short-term bonds today is that rates are historically low." AAA bonds are safe, as far as the principal goes. If you buy long term bonds today (at very low rates) and the interest rate goes up to 10% in 5 years, the current value of the bonds will decrease. But if you hold the bonds till maturity, you will almost certainly (barring MBS scenarios) get the expected principal and interest on the bonds. If you decide to sell a long-term bond before it matures, it will probably be worth less than you paid for it if interest rates have risen since you bought it. "In truth there is no such thing as a risk-free asset.  That is why your textbook feels the need to add the qualifier ""for practical purposes,"" meaning that the risk of a money market account is so much lower than virtually any other asset class that it can reasonably be approximated as risk free. The main risk of any bond, short-term or long-term, is that its price may change before the maturity date.  This could happen for one of many reasons, such as interest rate changes, creditworthiness, market risk tolerance, and so on.  Thus you may lose money if you need to redeem your investment ahead of the scheduled maturity." Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons:  return on principal, or return of principal.  The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise.  The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless.  Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds).
"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around ""stocks"" and ""bonds"". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds." "Depends on your definition of ""secure"". The most ""secure"" investment from a preservation of principal point of view is a non-tradable, general obligation government bond. (Like a US or Canadian savings bond.) Why? There is no interest rate risk -- you can't lose money. The downside is that the rate is not so good. If you want returns and a reasonably high level of security, you need a diversified portfolio." Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment.  It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area.  There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash.  If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame.  This is no guarantee of course.  Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further.  While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home.  The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk.  Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate.  When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa).  Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn. "In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as ""duration"" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds." I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases.      Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon.  Source It has been hinted at in some other answers, but I want to say it explicitly: Volatility is not risk. Volatility is how much an investment goes up and down, risk is the chance that you will lose money. For example, stocks have relatively high volatility, but the risk that you will lose money over a 40 year period is virtually zero (in particular if you invest in index funds). Bonds, on the other hand, have basically no volatility (their cash flow is totally predictable if you trust the future of your government), but there is a significant risk that they will perform worse than stocks over a longer period. So, volatility equals risk only if you are day trading. A 401(k) is literally the opposite of that. For further reading: Never confuse risk and volatility Also, investing is not gambling. Gambling is bad because the odds are stacked against you. You need more than average luck to actually win and the longer you play, the more you will lose. Investing means buying productive capital that will produce further value. The odds are in your favor. Even if you do a moderately bad job at investing, the longer you stay, the more you will win. "Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: ""I don't invest in what I do not understand."". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards." 1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as  'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market. "Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender ""such as a broker""  , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk  such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals." I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky. Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary. The Barclay's 20+ Year Treasury Bond inception date was July 21, 2002. You aren't going to find treasury bond information going back to 1900 because Treasury Bills have only been issued since 1929. The U.S. Department of the Treasury will give you data back to 1990. There's a good article in the Globe and Mail which covers why you may want to buy bonds as part of your portfolio. The key is diversification. Historically, stocks have done better than bonds long-term, but when stocks fall, bonds tend to (though do not always) go up. If you are investing for 30 years, the risk of putting money into bonds is that you will not make as much money as if you had put the money into stocks. Historically (in the US or Canada), you'd have seen positive returns, just not as high as investing in the stock market. There are many investment strategies. I live in Canada and personally favour the one described in the Canadian Couch Potato, a passive index investment strategy where I invest my money in Canadian, U.S. and International equity (stock market mutual funds) and also in a Canadian bond fund. There are, of course, plenty of people who will tell you to take a radically different strategy with your investments. "These days almost all risky assets move together, so the most difficult criterion to match from your 4 will be ""not strongly correlated to the U.S. economy.""  However, depending on how you define ""strongly,"" you may want to consider the following: Be careful, you are sort of asking for the impossible here, so these will all be caveat emptor type assets. EDIT: A recent WSJ article talks about what some professional investors are doing to find uncorrelated bets. Alfredo Viegas, an emerging-markets strategist for boutique brokerage Knight Capital Group, is encouraging clients to bet against Israeli bonds. His theory: Investors are so focused on Europe that they are misjudging risks in the Middle East, such as a flare-up in relations between Israel and Iran, or greater conflict in Egypt and Syria. Once they wake up to those risks, Israeli bonds are likely to tumble, Mr. Viegas reasons. In the meantime, the investment isn't likely to be pushed one way or another by the European crisis, he says." "Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios.  While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%.  This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero.   This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the ""offset[ing] losses"" you mention in the OP).  So to say that bonds are ""no longer a good idea"" is certainly not correct.  One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower.  This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though.  Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment:  Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio.  Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any.  Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them.  So there is no free lunch here.  Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain.  The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds." I'm going to diverge from most of the opinions expressed here. It is common for financial advisors to assume that your portfolio should become less risky as you get older.  Explanations for this involve hand-waving and saying that you can afford to lose money when young because you have time to make up for it later.  However, the idea that portfolios should become less risky as you get older is not well-grounded in finance theory.  According to finance theory, regardless of your age and wealth, returns are desirable and risk is undesirable.  Your risk aversion is the only factor that should decide how much risk you put in your portfolio. Do people become more risk averse as they get older?  Sometimes.  Not always.  In fact, there are theoretical reasons why people might want more aggressive portfolios as they age.  For example: As people become wealthier they generally become less risk averse. Young people are not normally very wealthy. When you are young, most of your wealth is tied up in the value of your human capital.  This wealth shifts into your portfolio as you age. Depending on your field, human capital can be extremely risky--much riskier than the market.  Therefore to maintain anything like a constant risk profile over your life, you may want very safe investments when young.  You mention being a hedge fund manager.  If we enter a recession, your human capital will take a huge hit because you will have a hard time raising money or getting/keeping a job.  No one will value your skills and your future career prospects will fall. You will not want the double whammy of large losses in your portfolio. Hedge fund managers are clear examples of people who will want a very safe personal portfolio during their early working years and may be willing to invest very aggressively in their later working and early retirement years. In short, the received wisdom that portfolios should start out risky and get safer as we age is not always, and perhaps not even usually, true.  A better guide to how much risk you should have in your portfolio is how you respond to questions that directly measure your risk aversion.  This questions ask things like how much you would pay to avoid the possibility of a 20% loss in your portfolio with a certain probability.